Via TDK, more attitude management for unsuspecting students:
Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, has hired six students whose jobs as “dialogue facilitators” will involve intervening in conversations among students in dining halls and common rooms to encourage discussion of such social justice issues as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, ability and social class.
Apparently it’s inconceivable that any right-thinking young person could tire of discussing “social justice” – a term that, as so often, remains oddly undefined yet drips with tendentious implications.
“If there’s a teachable moment, we’ll take it,” said assistant dean of student affairs Arig Girgrah, who runs the program. “A lot of community building happens around food and dining.” She gave the example of a conversation about a gay character on television as a good example of such a moment. “It is all about creating opportunities to dialogue and reflect on issues of social identity,” Ms. Girgrah said. “This is not about preaching. It’s not about advice giving. It’s about hearing where students are at.”
Oh sweet lord. Hand me the explosives.
Like dons, who serve as student authorities in residence, the six facilitators will receive full room and board and a stipend for the full-year commitment, and will receive regular training.
But of course. Correcting political waywardness is the work of heroes, after all.
“We are trained to interrupt behaviour in a non-blameful and non-judgmental manner, so it’s not like we’re pulling someone aside and reprimanding them about their behaviour. It is honestly trying to get to the root of what they’re trying to say – seeing if that can be said in a different manner.”
On what basis do these “dialogue facilitators” presume they have any business policing the private discussions of others, even during lunch breaks, and steering students towards politically modish terminology and opinions? And however coy the language, that is what’s being attempted. Just pause to consider the monumental arrogance and vanity at work. Bask in its glow. Will it, I wonder, occur to such people that their own behaviour and assumptions are intrusive and condescending? Will they dare to be surprised if their presumption meets with emphatic resistance and, one hopes, an occasional fit of violence?
Update: Temerity Revisited.
Nobody expects the diversity police!
If the little gremlin in the photo “intervened” in my lunch conversation he’d get a plate in his face.
Faced with such presumption, it would, I think, be quite difficult to resist the urge to do violence. Yet if I were to punch one of these little shitstains senseless and then set fire to his twitching body as a warning to others, *I’d* be the one viewed as the villain of the piece. There’s no justice, I tell you, “social” or otherwise.
“It is just one of many recent efforts to promote diversity – such as gender-neutral washrooms, prayer space, and halal and kosher food service… The editorial board of the student newspaper, the Queen’s Journal, acknowledged the good intentions of this latest effort, but was skeptical of a program that “seems to be an inadequate, lack lustre attempt to deal with social inequalities.””
It ever ends, does it? Social perfection is always just out of reach.
“They believe in everyone’s entitlements, which are never met quite sufficiently and need to be extended endlessly. For them, the perfect society will result in perfect people.”
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon1119td.html
“It’s unlikely six facilitators in a crowd of thousands will have much impact on fostering dialogue in residences,” they write, adding that the facilitators could face “hostility” from students who feel they have been “cornered” or had their privacy violated.”
What’s the PC way of saying “get the fuck out of my face”?
“It ever ends, does it? Social perfection is always just out of reach.”
It’s the promise that never quite delivers but usually costs something. Just another imposition here, another intrusion there, and paradise will surely be ours. This time.
And those who favour such things often call themselves “liberal,” oblivious to the irony.
I can’t help speculating about the people who developed, and are implementing, this “initiative”. I wonder how they would have reacted, when they were undergraduates, if their universities and colleges had announced a scheme like the one under discussion.
Am I alone in thinking that they would have seen it as an attempt by the unfeeling authorities to force them to conform? Doubtless they would have insisted in the importance of inter-generational conflict. It is the function of the young to challenge the status quo, face down the orthodoxy etc etc.
Presumably, now, the young need have no such concerns, since their elders have pretty much got everything sussed. All the young need to do is to take care not to rock the boat.
This is pure speculation, mind. Perhaps I’ve got them all wrong. But somehow, I don’t think so…
“This is not about preaching. It’s not about advice giving. It’s about hearing where students are at.”
“It’s not trying to stifle something. It’s trying to foster something.”
“it’s not like we’re pulling someone aside and reprimanding them about their behaviour.”
“They’re not disciplinarians. They’re called facilitators for a reason.”
And there’s nothing suspicious about all this pre-emptive denial?
“And there’s nothing suspicious about all this pre-emptive denial?”
Methinks their subtext is showing.
You all know it’s all about the whiteness!
Horace
“I can’t help speculating about the people who developed, and are implementing, this “initiative”.”
“Ms. Girgrah said this status will give the facilitators “a little bit of credibility and perhaps some respect.””
Clue. 🙂
“It’s trying to foster something.”
Yes, compliance.
But I wonder what happens if the target doesn’t comply and has opinions of their own. Perhaps opinions regarding the “facilitators” and their extraordinary arrogance. Will the target’s behaviour still be “interrupted” in a “non-blameful and non-judgmental manner”? Or will passive-aggressive condescension become a little less passive?
“these little shitstains”
You’re showing these liberal fascists more respect than they deserve.
Don’t make him angry. He’s totally badass. 😀
“Idle hands are the devil’s playground”
Some students will deliberately set out to attract the facilitators, in order to toy with them. The facilitators will believe that this behavior demonstrates the potential for committing a hate crime, and the pranksters will be suspended to protect the safety of the student body.
Clazy,
Like so many of such measures it does have a whiff of self-fulfilling prophesy. First, impose on people in a way that’s patronising and offensive, then wait for them to react with hostility before claiming that the induced hostility is a sign of some moral shortcoming and a validation of the original intrusion.
Anna,
“He’s totally badass. :D”
Well, it rather illustrates the problem.
I’ve been trying to see this is a gentle positive light. As an attempt to nurture intellectual discourse and development. But when I read:
“It’s not like we roam around the halls looking for people having conversations. If somebody is yelling something across the dining hall that’s a racial slur, yes, we will intervene in that situation.”
I’m unable to see it as anything other than official policing of debate. Pure and simple.
Anyhow, I’m pretty certain that, now that Mr Hayward’s picture has been published, students will know to shun him. Never mind Mr Hayward. Coventry’s very nice this time of year, I’m told.
Horace,
When people use terms like “dialogue facilitators” and “social justice” – especially in the context above – I see no reason to assume their motives are benign. I tend to view the wilful lack of clarity as a sign of dishonesty or unbecoming intent.
David
Yes, indeed. But what fascinates and bewilders is the seeming lack of self-knowledge among these people. That is, assuming that they’re not consciously intent upon being oppressors. Apart from anything else, the message being sent to students on this campus is that the authorities do not consider them capable of constructive and worthwhile disourse without intervention and guidance from the authorities. If that is true, then why did they agree to take them on as students? It used to be thought that the ideal student was someone capable of inventive and imaginative thought. Whatever happened to the notion that education was a “drawing out” of an individual?
There was a time when the Left concerned itself with the rights of individuals, freedom of conscience and the right to dissent. There’s a whole lot of hypocrisy going on here. These “educators” seem to have little faith in the young people they’re being paid to educate, which suggests to me that they’re in the wrong line of business.
“But what fascinates and bewilders is the seeming lack of self-knowledge among these people.”
Maybe that’s what they’re keen to share – a lack of self-knowledge. Or a lack of mental autonomy, at least.
“a lack of self-knowledge”
Or maybe they have plenty of self-knowledge, and they’re in touch with their Inner Maoist.
“Daniel Hayward, a 46-year-old Master’s of Divinity student, applied to be a facilitator believing the role would offer him an opportunity to connect with many different students.”
Hmmm. And I felt like a loser for finishing graduate school at 26. At Queen’s, no less.
The greatest irony is that this suppression of free expression is cropping up first on University campuses.
For all the screeching and gnashing of teeth that the “Patriot Act” received here in the states, I have not heard of one incident of government cronies commandeering private conversations for the any purpose.
One other point. Where are the students’ parents in all this? At the very least, what caring parent would want his/her child daily bullied and intimidated into an “acceptable” mindset. Nice “education” er…”RE-Education” — this makes Marine Corp bootcamp tactics look loose and tolerant.
This seems relevant:
https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2008/02/what-to-think-n.html
What noble intentions, shielding these children from harmful thoughts that might challenge, confront or confuse their minds raised in the purity of ideological education. Of course, these most well-meant efforts only lead to the complete collapse of the un-hardened minds once they encounter real argumentative adversity. It truly is a shame to see the product of such protected practices shattered at the mere mention of confrontation.
All kidding aside, what kind of sick bastard tries to deprive a young individual from learning how to deal with challenging thoughts and arguments? Why do liberals continue to produce the most useless, wimpy and scared creatures that are nothing but easy targets for the real predators?
I’m not generally in favour of assault, but I do hope we see a few bloody noses and black eyes – sorry, eyes of colour – resulting from this.
Yuu know, if this works in the universities, maybe the new administration might want to try something similar in public transportation. They could hire a bunch of sensitive types to ride the metro in Washington and “intervene” in the discussions that the riders are having, to try to get them to talk more about race and power and authority and privilege, while going to/from work each day.
Doean’t that sound like a great way to build community? Especiallly since som many more people are going to be riding public transport instead of driving their polluting cars.
It’s amusing the way they say they will be ‘non-judgmental’. Does this mean they will be just as likely to intervene if someone is saying ‘Bush is a war criminal’ as they are if someone is saying ‘Islam is not a peaceful religion’? I doubt it.
“Daniel Hayward, a 46-year-old Master’s of Divinity student, applied to be a facilitator believing the role would offer him free accomodation, food and an income while at the same time an opportunity to get off with younger female students.”
Facilitators? Political narks. Political commissars, making sure that all thoughts are pure.
“It’s amusing the way they say they will be ‘non-judgmental'”
Whenever someone says they are “non-judgemental”, you know that they are, in fact, as judgemental as hell about things they don’t emphatically agree with. The people who claim most to be ‘tolerant’ are the fascists who’d ruin you for not shedding a tear during Obama’s acceptance speech.
Trapping people while they are trying to eat is a nice touch.
Just let me eat my waffle!
This seems vaguely on topic
http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doc_id=296
… an interview with Tom Wolfe discussing his new book and American academia. Here he discusses the Summer controversy:
“”Iannone: Yes. You think he could have resisted? He should have stood up more forcefully?
Wolfe: No question about it. They weren’t attacking him on intellectual grounds but on religious grounds. They were treating him as a heretic, a transgressor. They were assaulting his character. We learned how to deal with that one in our sophomore year at St. Christopher’s. If someone impugns your character, you can’t waste time trying to defend it. You’ll just end up sitting there wringing your hands and bleating something lame like, “I am, too,a good person.”
Iannone: So you should do what instead?
Wolfe: Attack the attacker. Attack his—in this case, their—character. All he had to say was, “I cannot…believe…what I am now witnessing…members of the Harvard faculty taking a grossly anti-intellectual stance, violating their implicit vow to cherish the free exchange of ideas, going mad because a hypothesis that has been openly discussed for almost half a century offends some ideological passion of the moment, acting like the most benighted of Puritans from three centuries ago ransacking all that is decent and rational in search of witches, causing this great university to become the laughingstock of the academic world here and abroad, sacrificing your very integrity in the name of some smelly little orthodoxy, as Orwell called beliefs like the ones you profess. I’m more than disappointed in you. I’m ashamed of you. Is that really how you see your mission here? If so, you should resign…now!…forthwith!…and take to the streets under your own names, not Harvard’s, and forbear being so small-minded and egotistical as to try to drag Harvard down to your level. Ladies, gentlemen…kindly do not display your ignorance…on these hallowed premises…while holding aloft the flags, the standards, of this university. Be honest with yourselves, even if you can’t be honest with Harvard. Look…think…and see…what you have become.” That would have taken care of the whole thing.””
“They weren’t attacking him on intellectual grounds but on religious grounds. They were treating him as a heretic, a transgressor.”
Maybe the preposterous nature of the exercise becomes clearer if we swap the “social justice” blather for something else:
“Excuse me; I just heard you talking about waffles. They’re very good, aren’t they? Let me tell you how waffles relate to God’s plan for you…” [ sits down, uninvited ] “Have you felt God’s love? Would you like to…?”
I think it captures the dynamic.
TDK,
Actually, I think the Lawrence Summers incident is pretty indicative of what’s taking place. The attack on him was irrational and dishonest and stank of passive-aggressive thuggery. Those who were shrieking loudest, including Maureen Stanton, claimed to be aghast and “deeply offended” yet offered little by way of credible rebuttal. The crux of the “outrage” was an appeal to injured feelings – a pattern that was mirrored in the subsequent discussion here. Summers was raising questions that simply must not be aired, and for which he must be punished. As indeed he was:
https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2007/09/diversity.html
Conversely, “social justice issues” must occupy all possible space at all possible times, including private conversations over lunch. The idea, it seems, is not to encourage “debate” in any meaningful sense of the word, but to predefine the terms on which discussion is *allowed* to take place and the language that may be used. Which isn’t the same thing at all.
HatlessHessian: “All kidding aside, what kind of sick bastard tries to deprive a young individual from learning how to deal with challenging thoughts and arguments?”
The kind of sick bastard who doesn’t want to have to deal with any conflicting viewpoints from this young indivisual in the future…
“The idea, it seems, is not to encourage “debate” in any meaningful sense of the word, but to predefine the terms on which discussion is *allowed* to take place”
Exactly.
Gaffee,
Well, if someone can dictate the framing and language of a debate before it even begins, they’ve a better chance of winning and getting their own way. They can then reject as inadmissible any evidence or argument that can be construed as offensive, however dubiously. This is essentially what Maureen Stanton and her fellow harpies did, with shameful success.
It’s the passive-aggressive approach and very much in fashion.
“It’s the passive-aggressive approach and very much in fashion.”
And also now known as “help”, or at least the only kind that counts.
“A sampling of some behaviour that could warrant attention from university-appointed student facilitators, tasked with policing students’ offensive language at Queen’s:
If a student uses the phrase “That’s so gay” in conversation.
If a student calls someone or something “retarded.”
If a student writes a homophobic, racist or other derogatory remark in a public space, such as on a residence poster or classmate’s door.
If a student avoids a classmate’s birthday party for faith-based reasons.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081119.wlanguage19/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20081119.wlanguage19
Anyone want to bet that list is going to get a lot longer?
Anna,
“Anyone want to bet the list is going to get a lot longer?”
Of course it will, as all such lists do, at least until they’re challenged publicly. The exercise must be validated by finding, or inventing, new verbal injustice to correct. As I noted in previous posts, the list of things covered by campus speech codes is bizarre and hilarious – or it would be hilarious, if it weren’t being done for real. And note how the list conflates genuinely malicious acts – scrawling racist graffiti on a student’s door – with things that are trivial – for instance, referring to a naff film as being “a bit gay”.
For reasons stated earlier, I very much doubt these measures are about civility or “fostering debate” or “engaging issues spontaneously”. (People do lie about their motives, after all; some more than others.) It’s much more likely to be about the exercise of power and the propagation of a neurotic worldview. Specifically, a neurotic worldview that’s difficult to support in a free exchange of ideas. Hence the efforts to dictate what kind of discussion – and thinking – is permissible.
It’s much more likely to be about the exercise of power and the propagation of a neurotic worldview. Specifically, a neurotic worldview that’s difficult to support in a free exchange of ideas. Hence the efforts to dictate what kind of discussion – and thinking – is permissible.
Of course: Free thought is what such people hate – along with life.
“It’s…permissable”, of course.
Anna
The list you discovered raises an interesting point. Let’s take “That’s so gay” as an example of unacceptable discourse.
Now, what happens if the person uttering that phrase is gay? He might be homophobic, but he might also be employing irony as part of his dicourse. Egually, he might be adopting the expression, so often used to belittle and demean him, in order to undermine its power, and so empower himself.
This might make things rather difficult for the “facilitators”. It would help them in their task if they had a better idea of the social background of the people they were policing.
Perhaps the students could all attach some easily recognisable badge to their clothing so that misunderstandings would be less likely to arise.
Horace,
“Perhaps the students could all attach some easily recognisable badge to their clothing so that misunderstandings would be less likely to arise.”
I’m thinking the whole pink triangle / yellow star arrangement would be useful here, so as to denote those who are entitled to non-literal use of the term “gay”. Of course for this to work we’ll need detailed files on each student’s sexual interests, linguistic habits and propensity for irony. But don’t worry, we’ve soon have a team working on that too.
My nephew is a sweet natured and witty 12 year old. My sister waited until he was about 10 to have the talk with him about the fact that I am a big old homo.
I had two or three short conversations with him about the topic – he was curious about certain things and I did my best to answer his questions and he seemed fine with it – until a few days later when we were watching something on TV which prompted him to say something like “That’s REALLY gay”. (I can’t remember exactly what it was, but I have to say that I thought it was REALLY gay myself.)
The realisation of what he had said stopped him in his tracks and the good natured banter we had been engaged in was replaced by a sense of profound embarrassment and awkwardness on his part.
I tried to assure him that he had caused me no offence, but he took some convincing, having had it drilled into him during 5 or 6 years of lefty indoctrination – sorry public education – that anybody who is not straight has a personality so fragile that they might collapse into some kind oppression induced coma should the word gay be connected with anything non-positive.
Presumably this is what the “attitude managers” are after. Not to tackle real prejudice and the people who might actually do me harm because of my sexuality because lets face it, they are a rapidly diminishing species and the ones who are left are very scary and would not even be amenable to the processes being described in this post, but to make themselves feel better by going after soft targets who are in fact no real threat at all.
How committed to their ideals they must be to make decent kids feel like social outcasts (exactly the effect I thought they were trying to mitigate) whilst completely avoiding the danger of standing up to actual hatred.
“Presumably this is what the ‘attitude managers’ are after. Not to tackle real prejudice and the people who might actually do me harm… but to make themselves feel better by going after soft targets who are in fact no real threat at all.”
Well, I think one really has to consider the possible motives involved. What would the job – as outlined by the dean of student affairs – actually entail? What are the psychological dynamics and rewards of doing such things? What kind of personality would be drawn to that kind of “work”? And how well does that sit with the claims of benign intent?
And bearing the above in mind, what are we to make of the dean’s assertion that, “If people are having a conversation… and they’re doing it loud enough for a third person to hear it… it’s not private”? Is anyone feeling remotely reassured?
As you say, it’s the comical notion of fighting oppression in – wait for it – university dining rooms. Gasp. As we all know, they’re infamous hotbeds of seething hate crime. If these “dialogue facilitators” were to venture where real ugly intent is most densely concentrated – say, the nearest council sink estate, preferably after dark – then I might say good luck to them. Though frankly, I don’t fancy their chances. But pretending to fight the power in one of the most safely PC environments it’s possible to imagine is just masturbatory pantomime and beneath contempt.
The back-pedalling begins:
“Talia Radcliffe, president of the Alma Mater Society students union, said she feels the program has been “mischaracterized.” “(The program) has no coercive measures, no punitive aspects whatsoever,” she said. “(It’s) kind of like a platform from which to jump, rather than a wrist-slapping for bad language.”
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2008/11/20/queens-diversity-program-mischaracterized-administration/
“There were reports that Queen’s University in Ontario had recruited students to eavesdrop on conversations, and were instructed to interrupt when they heard words deemed to be offensive, such as homophobic terms or those that denigrate women. But Radcliffe said the Intergroup Dialogue Program merely invites students to take part in forums and workshops. “I don’t think facilitators are interrupting conversations,” she said. “That’s been misconstrued.”
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081119/queens_facilitators_081119/20081119?hub=TopStories
“The back-pedalling begins.”
No surprise there, given the unfavourable coverage. But if the project *has* been “mischaracterised” and “misconstrued,” then the dean of student affairs and at least one of the “dialogue facilitators” tasked to “intervene” have also “misconstrued” what it is they’re planning to do. Thus, the claim that students will merely be “invited to take part in workshops” doesn’t exactly convince. And how will these “dialogue facilitators” justify their role without resorting to eavesdropping and intrusion? Won’t there be an incentive to impose and provoke and thereby “reveal” a problem that needs to be “corrected”? Didn’t the dean of student affairs in charge of the project say: “If people are having a conversation… and they’re doing it loud enough for a third person to hear it… it’s not private”?
Likewise, the claim that the programme has “no coercive measures, no punitive aspects whatsoever” is dubious. It seems to me that attempts to embarrass and sermonise, however softly spoken, are pretty presumptuous, coercive and irritating. The alleged lack of official sanction, if true, is immaterial. They, not the students, have overstepped the line of propriety. Again, on what basis do the proponents of this programme feel they have any right to interrupt a private, if passionate, exchange on a contentious subject and, uninvited, prescribe the way it “should” take place? That is, after all, what the “facilitators” themselves appear to think will be happening: “Seeing if [what was said] can be said in a different manner.” Presumably, the university has procedures in place to deal with overtly malicious acts – scrawling racist graffiti on a student’s door, say – so on what moral grounds are these additional efforts justified? Isn’t it a frivolous, self-indulgent use of resources?