- This topic has 45 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 4 months ago by
NotCranky.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 29, 2015 at 11:12 AM #791643November 29, 2015 at 11:17 AM #791644
Balboa
ParticipantI think if we’re going to keep naming public resources after Great Men/Women/Families, we’re gonna need bigger, more comprehensive and more ambivalent historical plaques. And then the people who oppose re-namings because “it’s hiiiiistorrrrrryyyy” can be more than 5 percent correct.
If private institutions want to gamble on using someone’s current “good name” for their buildings, etc., that’s their business, but I think it’s kind of dumb and mostly motivated by money at this point, the new namings anyway.
Naming something after someone, especially someone who occupied positions of great power, is an unequivocal statement about their value/s that may not stand the test of time.
November 29, 2015 at 11:20 AM #791645FlyerInHi
GuestGood point OC. But the goal of elite institutions is to make the world a better place. Yes we want to provide the smartest, in terms or grades and IQ, a way to reach the top. But smart is not everything.
Elite schools accept the children of foreign leaders alumni and influential people because we want to spread our American values around the world.
The smartest doctor may not have the empathy and inclination to have the greatest impact on world health. The smartest architect may not design the most beautiful buildings or develop new building techniques to provide shelter for the homeless…. and so on.
November 29, 2015 at 4:52 PM #791647ocrenter
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Good point OC. But the goal of elite institutions is to make the world a better place. Yes we want to provide the smartest, in terms or grades and IQ, a way to reach the top. But smart is not everything.
Elite schools accept the children of foreign leaders alumni and influential people because we want to spread our American values around the world.
The smartest doctor may not have the empathy and inclination to have the greatest impact on world health. The smartest architect may not design the most beautiful buildings or develop new building techniques to provide shelter for the homeless…. and so on.[/quote]
Agree, this is not about getting the smartest kids into the most elite schools. This is simply about getting the right kids into the right environment. And for the underrepresented minorities, it is about increasing their chances of success by making sure they remain competitive in the most competitive fields in the school that fits them the best.
Personal experience, me and my best friend in high school were both hard working average guys with strong leanings toward STEM subjects. We both got decent grades but very average SAT scores. We were both from disadvantaged financial background. I got rejected from my UC of my choice, ended up squeezing in as a winter admit after an appeal. He got a full ride to an elite private school. I continued on with a STEM related job, he ended up with a liberal arts degree and became a teacher/minister. I’m of course Asian and him Hispanic. I’m not putting value judgements on my career vs his, but merely to say via a bump up to an elite caliber school, I firmly believe he was pigeonholed into a liberal arts degree, which statistically simply provides less opportunities. How many other stories like this are out there? That’s all.
November 30, 2015 at 12:52 PM #791667bobby
Participant[quote=ocrenter]Would say this is definitely true. In fact, the mismatch effect is far deeper than the way the article explains it. Reason is not only is there intentional mismatch of black and Hispanic students, there is intentional mismatch of Asian students due to the Ivy League’s racially motivated quota system.
We all know based on elite UC % of Asian population that if the racial quota of the Ivy League is done away with, instead of the 15% bar for Asian students, the Ivys will likely see at least a 20% bump in its Asian population. This intentional mismatch means these students are pushed down to the next tier, making that lower elite school more competitive, yet making it that much harder for the black and Hispanic student to survive.
Let’s say John is an Ivy caliber Asian student and Joe is a Cal State caliber Hispanic. Under the current system of racial preference, both John and Joe will end up in the same UC school. Not only was Joe already ill equipped to handle UC level competition, but now he has to compete with Ivy level classmates too. I saw this first hand 20 years ago, and it has only gotten worse.[/quote]
I saw this when I myself was at UC. the solution was Joe goes into liberal arts and John into STEM fields. Both get to graduate from prestigious UC schools
then the next step is people complain about lack of diversity in Silicon Valley, tech fields, medicine, etc.
November 30, 2015 at 2:39 PM #791674GuestIt’s a stretch to assume that liberals arts graduates at the top schools would have pursued STEM degrees in lower tier schools.
November 30, 2015 at 3:22 PM #791676Participantmany lib arts majors are outright brilliant. However, easier to get a pass in lib art than in engineering or physics class.
November 30, 2015 at 6:17 PM #791677XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
A prestigious school of public policy named after an awoved racist is just bad policy and bad reputation.
[/quote]An even more egregious example: What should England do about things named for Winston Churchill? Without Churchill, most of England would currently be speaking German. (Ok, you can debate that, but his contribution to keeping morale in England up during WWII is not really debatable)
But Churchill, like many of English politicians of the early years of the 20th century was extraordinarily racist. His attitudes towards the “natives” in India and to Mahatma Gandi are shocking.
And what about Thomas Jefferson who kept slaves? (And fathered children with Sally Hemings) Oh, and let’s not forget George Washington who also owned slaves!
The history of racism and man’s inhumanity to his fellow man is long and extensive. If we rename everything named after anyone who at some time held a view we don’t agree with today, we’re gonna need a lot of names.
November 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM #791678scaredyclassic
Participant[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=FlyerInHi]
A prestigious school of public policy named after an awoved racist is just bad policy and bad reputation.
[/quote]An even more egregious example: What should England do about things named for Winston Churchill? Without Churchill, most of England would currently be speaking German. (Ok, you can debate that, but his contribution to keeping morale in England up during WWII is not really debatable)
But Churchill, like many of English politicians of the early years of the 20th century was extraordinarily racist. His attitudes towards the “natives” in India and to Mahatma Gandi are shocking.
And what about Thomas Jefferson who kept slaves? (And fathered children with Sally Hemings) Oh, and let’s not forget George Washington who also owned slaves!
The history of racism and man’s inhumanity to his fellow man is long and extensive. If we rename everything named after anyone who at some time held a view we don’t agree with today, we’re gonna need a lot of names.[/quote]
I was reading about students trying to ditch Jefferson legacy. Apparently scholars agree that even for his time he was a Really hard core douchebag racist type slave owner.
It’s all such a waste of time for actual students.
November 30, 2015 at 6:36 PM #791679Participant[quote=bobby]many lib arts majors are outright brilliant. However, easier to get a pass in lib art than in engineering or physics class.[/quote]
Agree!
November 30, 2015 at 7:11 PM #791680ParticipantSome of my kids engineering test questions,seem like they would be difficult to begin to formulate a response.
November 30, 2015 at 9:20 PM #791684paramount
ParticipantAnd while were at it, let’s stop race based discrimination in govt employee hiring.
November 30, 2015 at 10:18 PM #791685Guest[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=FlyerInHi]
A prestigious school of public policy named after an awoved racist is just bad policy and bad reputation.
[/quote]An even more egregious example: What should England do about things named for Winston Churchill? Without Churchill, most of England would currently be speaking German. (Ok, you can debate that, but his contribution to keeping morale in England up during WWII is not really debatable)
But Churchill, like many of English politicians of the early years of the 20th century was extraordinarily racist. His attitudes towards the “natives” in India and to Mahatma Gandi are shocking.
And what about Thomas Jefferson who kept slaves? (And fathered children with Sally Hemings) Oh, and let’s not forget George Washington who also owned slaves!
The history of racism and man’s inhumanity to his fellow man is long and extensive. If we rename everything named after anyone who at some time held a view we don’t agree with today, we’re gonna need a lot of names.[/quote]
It’s not “if we remove one, we’ll end up removing all of them” as may be argued.
The comparison to Churchill is not appropriate. People in India or Zimbabwe don’t have to honor him.
Churchill was a sexist pig, so if British women want to campaign to remove his name, all the more power to them.
Racism in America is a different story. We fought a war and the superior side won. We should not tolerate any kind of racial vestige of the South. We should thoroughly de-confederatize our culture.
Woodrow Wilson was a US President so we can honor him in some way… maybe a post office. But the Princeton school of public policy is not appropriate considering Wilson’s own public policy. That just stinks.
Professor James W. Loewen explains very well when naming is appropriate. Washington is OK, because the gist of his life’s work was the founding of the USA. His slave ownership is only part of his legacy. We all know a great deal about Washington so we can put his slave ownership into context.
But we shouldn’t name things for people whom our citizens know nothing about other than the fact we honor them because they must have been great men/women, when the reality of their lives is not worth honoring, like Jefferson Davis.
I don’t see anything wrong with renaming a few things once on a while as we evolve.
December 1, 2015 at 6:10 AM #791688ParticipantFor over substance.
Get that douchebag Jefferson off my nickels!!!
December 1, 2015 at 6:13 AM #791689ParticipantThere’s lots more bad details about tommie. But the truth is all nations and human institutions are built on enormous lies.
Not sure how,raising consciousness on past wrongs has any future utility.
The only reasonable goal remaining now I think could be slave reparations. Pretty sure that won’t happen.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.