Yale University is embarrassed by the man for whom it is named. Boston 1775 says:
The Hartford Courant has reported that Yale University will remove a portrait of early benefactor Elihu Yale (1649-1721) from a meeting room because it “shows the wealthy merchant being waited on by a black man with a silver collar around his neck—an unmistakable symbol of bondage.” The college will hang another of its many portraits of Mr. Yale instead. (It seems there isn’t a big market for them outside New Haven.)
The University of Illinois, which was founded after Emancipation, is no less embarrassed by its symbol, and will retire Chief Illiniwek after the last home game on the men's basketball schedule. As commentator Andy Martin said in October, 2006:
Chief Illiniwek—a student who entertains at football games and dances an Indian dance at half time--and who once embodied the University of Illinois as the emblem on almost every document and artifact—is being phased out in deference to the ultimate God of our era: political correctness.
The College of William & Mary, has a controversy over another symbol, a brass cross that has been present in the Wren Chapel there since 1940. To make the chapel less unappealing to non-Christians, the cross is now available by request, rather than being removed by request. Blandness absolves us from the sin of displaying differences.
Multiculturalism, the notion that all cultures are equally valuable and must be preserved, has been turned into a new form of segregation. We must hide from ourselves any evidence of our differences, while claiming to celebrate them. And above all, we must not offend. By sanitizing symbols, the multiculturalists fight against the very diversity they claim to seek.
In a 1994 article for the Chronicles of Higher Education, Nell Irvin Painter, dealing with what she saw as a double standard for black versus white anti-Semitism, wrote:
I'm not advocating hate-speech codes or calling for protests. I am suggesting that various kinds of insult be taken with the same gravity. It is time that we reaffirmed the values of fellowship and decency by admitting that intolerance -- whether anti-Semitism, racism, or homophobia -- intimidates and injures others. Better to reach out to one another and acknowledge that any hateful invective hurts its intended targets -- and should be subject to quick condemnation. It's time to bury accusations of political correctness.
Yet political correctness is exactly what she advocated. And the "hateful invective" that she at that time decried has now been redefined to include anything another group (or even someone who purports to speak for that group) doesn't like. Raise the spectre of offense, and there is no need to assault to gate; its owners will tear it down and ask forgivness. Nothing is now acceptable but the bland, especially in our symbols.
The world is diverse enough. Mankind is bent on diversity, in dividing into groups and allowing each group to distinguish itself. It is innately human to pursue such distinction, and to be alternately repelled by and fascinated with our differences. Furthermore, the repulsion and fascination are inextricably linked; to suppress one is to quell the other.
The Elis are hiding the offending portrait, the better to pretend that it doesn't describe their origins; the Illini will stand ready for battle with no ancient guide to lead them; and those wishing to pray at William & Mary will have to file some paperwork.
It's a small price to pay for bland.
(Cross-posted at Socrates' Academy, my arrogantly pretentious personal blog)
Actually, I wonder if this "blandness" is more related to some less-than-admirable parts of our history. For example, black people were enslaved and often treated horribly for years. Native Americans were driven off their land (e.g., Trail of Tears), and many of them died. It reminds me somewhat of Germany's ban on swastikas, even though that symbol is certainly a part of Germany's history.
However, at William and Mary, events surrounding sexual deviancy and sex toys are enshrined as a part of academic freedom. The only thing too profane for this vulgar society that must be censored with all available force is a symbol of Christian religion...
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
While I definitely appreciate the work you've put into this issue, I don't see it the same way. I am glad the Yale is taking down the painting, and glad the Chief is now gone. I am not sure what to make of the cross issue, but it is quite a stretch to say the symbols of Christianity are being censored with "all available force". Seems to me Christianity has never been more popular.
There are some things we need to let go. Things from our history that should make us ashamed. There is nothing wrong with trying to get past these things. To move on. It doesn't mean the world is coming to an end, or the bland patrol is taking over. It just means we live in a society that values diversity over archaic ideas of race relations, which are usually anglo-centric. Personally, I think America is a pretty awesome country because of our diversity, not in spite of it. Otherwise we'd all be listening to Perry Como instead of Young Jeezy.
And I would definitely not love that.
I am not un-glad about the Yale painting coming down. There is a balance of two principles at work -- historical accuracy and, for lack of a better word, sensitivity. In some setting, the two principles might need to be balanced, but this particular one probably isn't it.
The Chief was doomed the minute the issue was framed as racism, rather than asking what was the proper way to honor the Illiniwek. Now, they will not be honored at all. I hope the self-righteous busybodies are happy, but I suspect they willl always want more.
I don't see the relevance of the level of force by which the symbols are censored, nor of the effect on Christianity's popularity. The problem, as I see it, is the futile attempt to legislate sameness. It won't work, and is contraposed to the claimed desire for diversity anyway.
Diversity is overrated. It is a by-product of our intentional decision to be free individuals. That freedom, and not the diversity, is what generates our strength. It is freedom that allows prosperity; diversity is at best unrelated to it. It is freedom which motivates the soldier to defend his country; diversity is at best not a factor in that, either. Perhaps you can teach me how diversity gives strength.
On the other hand, the attempt to remove diversity is an attack on freedom, but not all attacks on freedom target diversity. Diversity is an indicator, not a cause.
The anti-diversity arguments I've seen all start with the idea that we already have equality, or that the only inequalities are created by the verbally pointing out of these inequalities. This is not a rational argument. It is the equicalent of "Doctors should not make diagnoses as that will increase illness!" In a way, with hypochondriacs in our society, it has some measure of truth, but that measure of truth is eclipsed by the dire consequences of pleading ignorance as bliss.
In a society where prejudice, segregation and law enforced inequality still exists (you are all smart enough to come up with non-smart-ass examples of all of these), to acknowledge these when evaluating merit is utterly vital.
Sure, there are simpletons who are "pro-diversity" who take that to mean "find some random black people to balance our representation". But the only way social discussion of these issues is productive is when we don't just pick on the weakest opposing argument.
The stronger argument is that lack of representation must be due to SOME factor of some kind and therefore we should research and address that(those) factors:
1. Biological difference (Not a fan of this one)
2. Cultural difference (Certainly a factor, but often leads to dangerous stereotyping and evaluation errors--e.g. assuming that a candidate is more science/math oriented and weaker in language sklls because they are of Asian descent.)
3. Inequities in opportunity
4. Inequities in recruitment
5. Lack of appreciate of the utility of varied perspectives.
Except for the first one, all of these are society factors that lead to a failure to achieve merit-based equal opportunity.
The need to compensate for those factors in order to have the best problem solving and productive society should be evident.
You might be the smartest person here, but if we have an inner-city school issue problem to solve, you may or may not possess that expertise. If the problem is military strategy based, a group including the president of the united states and me is probably not sufficient.
This need is most obvious at educational institutions--some of the best resources to learn from are one's peers. The more variety of perspectives and diversity of ideas present, the more learning occurs.
I just finished teacher interviewing for a program that sends prospective teachers to Japan. The biggest problem was not lack of ability, it was the lack of multiple perspectives that would likely doom a candidate from succeeding if they were placed in a tiny rural town where they would have to change their entire way of living.
This is not a race-exclusive issue nor a one-way street. Certainly my students would benefit should a few of your kids enroll at our school. I'm not meaning to generalize, perhaps they would have identical perspectives to most of my students. But I doubt it. I think the differences in experiences of their lives would probably be great and they would have a great deal to teach each other.
That's the benefit of diversity. And hey, if we didn't have diverse experiences between us, we wouldn't have anything to teach each other either.
The problem, as I see it, is the futile attempt to legislate sameness.
I just don't see this as happening. I actually think you have a bit more work to do if you want to prove this is happening. I see whatever legislation or choices that are being made as being an attempt to change some historic mistakes. The Yale painting is hardly an attempt to legislate sameness, and the Chief was honoring a small band of indians who no longer exist. Why not let the Chief go, and focus your energies on helping the Native Americans who are still living with the consequences of our country's attempted destruction of their culture? Wouldn't that make our country a tangibly better place to live? I think it would.
If you want to talk about the sameness in America why not look at the corporate consolidation of markets? Look at what is happening to campustown, and to east Urbana. We'll all be getting our burritos, 2 x 4s. and t-shirts from the same place and company soon enough. In my opinion this kind of unbridled capitalism is a much bigger threat to our uniqueness than the retirement of the Chief, or the removing of a painting.
Perhaps you can teach me how diversity gives strength.
Can you imagine this country without the immigrants? Without the African-Americans? Without the Native American heritage you cherish? I am sure you can see the strength this gives us.
My opinion? The best thing we could do now that the Chief is a goner is to try to go back and really honor the Native Americans who lived here before we came.
Great topic, btw. :)
There is nothing wrong with the individual instances I cited, or at least, each case is harder to argue against by itself. It is mostly in the pattern that I see the looming danger.
Corporate consolidation is not a worry for me at all. I don't even like antitrust laws, in this day and age, since A) companies that don't serve their customers get competition and B) companies that do serve their customers don't need competition. The foregoing applies equally to Wal-Mart and Heal Consulting (the world's least monopolistic business :-).
Immigrants, African and otherwise, and natives do not by themselves give strength, but only when they are free to be different. Enforced sameness is the enemy, not because diversity per se gives strength, but because both diverse culture and strength are a result of the freedom to succeed or fail.
As I hinted before, I think the Chief outlived his time. It is no less sad that he is gone.
So you are against diversity and sameness? That's totally awesome. I'll going to make you a "special boy debate trophy" out of cheese.
Diverse culture and strength are a result of the freedom to succeed or fail, and a major part of that freedom is equal opportunity to succeed or fail regardless of that background. Naturally, this has its limitations--if "work" or "collaboration" are not parts of the culture, that will have direct implications for success. So will "being different at all from the cultural majority" in a society that doesn't embrace difference. That's where we get into trouble. It doesn't matter if I have above average realty skills if unintentional race-based decision making is ruling the market. Ultimately, all of us suffer for that.
What we do agree on is that the burying of history or true feeling on a issue is detrimental. I don't believe that the University should promote the subjugation of certain people's as that is the antithesis of its role in the state. However, destroying any evidence of such is not constructive either.
In the history department, there used to be a wall of shame which showed the historical segregation in terms of faculty in the department. It was pretty intimidating for many of the studentsto walk down that hall. On the flipside to ignore that history was not a good option, especially for the history department of all places.
Ultimately, they chose to keep the group photos but remove the individual photos and preserve them. Then they filled the rest of the hall with exciting new projects that are being worked on in the department, which considering the make-up of the department, were naturally more diverse.
It was a good balance between not destroying the history and not replicating the historical oppression.
That is all.
I read your post in its entirety. That was how I was able to respond and integrate some of your points into my response.
For someone who puts thought into his points and seems to take great pride in his own opinion of himself, I never expected a trollish response to a thoughtful post.
Oh well, maybe it's the weather.
of my post. I am not "against diversity". Diversity is a byproduct of great things, and suppressing diversity suppresses those great things. But that does not mean that diversity in and of itself is valuable. It is not even a sign that things are going well, or a precondition for having those great things. Nor it is always produced by those great things.
Maybe that doesn't, but I think this does: diversity, by definition, provides variety. Variety, in turn, facilitates flexibility and robustness of adaptation.
Diversity in a gene pool enhances survival. I find that valuable. Diversity in ideas keeps our minds sharp and open to alternatives in problem solving. I find that valuable. Diversity in culture enhances the synthesis of new combinations and perspectives. I find that valuable. Even when exposure to diversity only reinforces our own core beliefs or world views, that also is valuable.
I believe that the diversity here at IlliniPundit provides it with a value it would not have otherwise. Were that not true, I wouldn't be here at all.
But suppose we were all different, but not free? Without freedom, diversity is meaningless. Without diversity, freedom will generate it.
... diversity will enhance the synergy of those striving to create freedom.
That is called "begging the question".
"Striving to create" presupposes the freedom to strive.
Diversity can make a group more creative and wise, but only if they are allowed to demonstrate difference, that is, if they are free.
A homogenous group with freedom will become diverse. If they are not allowed to be diverse, they are not free.
However, this is turning into the Argument Sketch, so you get the last word if you wish it.
The historical reality has never been wide-ranging freedom, but rather so-called freedom for one group with dominion over other groups. Of course this is not real freedom, as to bind someone else is to bind oneself.
People should be free to be racism and ignorant if they want, but certainly part of freedom is my right to criticize their actions and opinions.
""begging the question?"
I think you may have been doing that the entire time, to wit: your objection is only valid if the status of freedom is absolute, homogenous, and binary, as in all or nothing. That obviously is never the case in actual practice.
If it were, no one who ever lacked freedom would have the freedom to attain it on their own, and their status could never change except by intervention from external forces. By your argument, if someone is able to achieve freedom by their own actions, that only proves that they were free all along. Who's being circular now?
Freedom is always a matter of degree. We are each of us free in some ways and less free in others. POWs (whom most would consider decidedly lacking in many freedoms) often still manage to have the freedom to find ways to communicate surreptitiously with each other. Sometimes, slaves manage to escape entirely on their own. And anyone who does not feel free to speak nonetheless still has the freedom of their own thoughts.
Immigrants, African and otherwise, and natives do not by themselves give strength, but only when they are free to be different.
I couldn't agree more. But you may remember that for many, many years our country has pushed assimilation over diversity. Even today you can see state legislatures attempting to pass "English Only" laws, which are attempts to force assimilation.
I agree that minorities in this country should be free to be different than the majority. They should be free to speak Spanish if they want, to have an African-American Cultural Center, and to huddle in Chicago neighborhoods where they can get perogies at the local Polish-speaking deli.
So, for me anything that makes people more comfortable to express their diversity is a good thing. The Chief held back Native Americans from being able to move beyond the headdress and mocassins image. The Yale painting forces black people to look the other way as the trudge to class.
In this way I see a pattern, but a pattern that is the opposite of what you see. I see these actions making our country free to become more diverse, and thereby stronger.
Now we are getting somewhere.
Yes, we always have "freedom", even if only the freedom to choose jail over silence, or the freedom to refuse food and water.
Similarly, there is always at least the diversity of occupying different physical locations.
So is it your position that given only the level of freedom to choose to live or to starve, to swim or drown, that there is some level of diversity which will lead inexorably to a society that is at least as free as we have now?
No, No, NO!
You are again getting the cart before the horse. There is no need to encourage diversity, since people tend to differ anyway. Diversity is a source of strength only if people have enough common ground to communicate.
Whatever else we might do, intentionally failing to teach some group the language everyone else speaks is foolish for the majority and harmful to the minority. It guarantees ghettodom, a segregation unbridgable by any amount of equal access to power. It also guarantees rebellion, balkanization, and disunity. The end result is war.
"So is it your position that given only the level of freedom to choose to live or to starve, to swim or drown, that there is some level of diversity which will lead inexorably to a society that is at least as free as we have now?"
Not necessarily. I never claimed that diversity was inherently ubiquitous. That quality isn't necessary for diversity to have intrinsic value, which is what I initially claimed in response to your denial of it.
Nor do I claim now that even the tiniest grain of diversity can overcome insurmountable odds, like some kind of moral plutonium. Clearly, the impact of the power of diversity is a coefficient of the amount of diversity present, but that doesn't negate the fact that diversity has value in and of itself.
So if the existentially minimal level of freedom combined with some level of diversity cannot necessarily produce our level of freedom, are you claiming that more than minimal freedom is required for combination with some level of diversity to reach our level of freedom? Or are you saying that our level of freedom is too great?
Or are you simply claiming that diversity is of "intrinsic value", without regard to its effects?
As above, I draw a distinction between a lack of diversity or a failure to encourage it, both of which I consider harmless, and an enforced lack of diversity, which I consider an attack on freedom. Literally and metaphorically, I want everyone to know English, but I would oppose suppression of other languages.
"... are you claiming that more than minimal freedom is required for combination with some level of diversity to reach our level of freedom?"
Um, maybe. That's a pretty general question, which means it probably can only be answered in the broadest possible sense. But yeah, if somebody is literally squeezing the life out of people, they'll probably need at least a little wiggle room to overcome it by themselves.
If we're dealing in absolutes, we might as well flesh it all the way out. I agree with you that freedom eventually promotes diversity, but I don't know that diversity automatically and inevitably promotes freedom at all times. I think that it tends to, but it's probably not absolutely guaranteed.
And I don't necessarily think that diversity is absolutely necessary at all times for freedom to advance. There are no doubt periods possible in any given struggle for freedom when progress can be made even in the absence of diversity. Diversity can certainly enhance that progress, and that's when the value is demonstrable. And I agree that active suppression of diversity diminishes freedom by definition.
"Or are you saying that our level of freedom is too great?"
Now why in heaven's name would I say that?
"Or are you simply claiming that diversity is of "intrinsic value", without regard to its effects?"
I think what I'm claiming is that diversity has value precisely because of its effects. You started me down this path by claiming that diversity had no value in and of itself. I hope we're not just confused over semantics. In some philosophical schools of thought, nothing has intrinsic value, but only that value which we ascribe to it. I would contend that something that has beneficial effects has value, or should have value ascribed. It does to me, anyway.
"I draw a distinction between a lack of diversity or a failure to encourage it, both of which I consider harmless"
I would argue that there are lost opportunities there, so I don't know that it's completely harmless. I would agree that it's at least not actively or deliberately harmful.
"enforced lack of diversity, which I consider an attack on freedom."
On which, as I said earlier, we agree. In fact, I suspect that we mostly agree, except as to your original claim that diversity had no value in and of itself, and your attempts to defend that. I see freedom and diversity as providing mutually reinforcing feedback. To that extent then, I don't see diversity as exclusively a happy side effect or result. I think it can be a valuable contributing factor, as well as a result or indicator.
I, in general, do not understand the power nor the sanctity of symbols. I am relatively anti-symbol. I see myself as rather empathic and I have the ability to see other perspectives, but someone really needs to explain to me the power of tradition and symbol.
Feel free to criticize this following example, but I think it has some relation. Israel (formally or informally, I'm not sure) banned the music of Richard Wagner as his music was glorified by Hilter and Nazi Germany. Daniel Barenboim, former music director of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and an Argentine Jew, thumbed his nose at this tradition and led an orchestra in a performance of Wagner to active boos.
Been to a symphony concert in the past few decades? Concertmaster comes out. Applause. Tune. Conductor comes out. Applause. Silence. 1st movement. Pause. Coughs. 2nd movement. etc etc. End of music. Applause. Great music but rather ordinary presentation. I think this could be the fault of the audience, but anyway. So I understand your rails against the bland. Man. Active boos? Booing WHILE the music is playing? That's AWESOME.
I forget my point. I did have one. I guess I understand where Israel was coming from. It kind of looks like political correctness, but this was institutionalized from the beginning of Israel's existence. Daniel Barenboim is exercising musical freedom. I admire that. I admire the audience's active response to it. They had the right to be upset.
Despite the weak "it's offensive" arguments of anti-Chief activists, I have no empathy for the continuance of tradition or symbol for the sole reason that it's tradition. And so my weak position on the debate is, "Look, if it offends someone, why continue it?" I don't see keeping the Chief as a free-speech situation because pro-Chief supporters have had their time to speak. It's been there. Barenboim is actively exercising musical freedom by encouraging the performance of music that had not had a voice before. I applaud that. I'm glad that he chose to conduct Wagner's music.
So let's say the situation was reversed. Let's say Israel didn't realize that Wagner was evocative of Nazi Germany and has been performing his music all this time, but new reports emerge and a growing chorus (no pun intended) of naysayers want Wagner's music no longer performed. Would I support it? I dunno, great question. I might.
That leads to the question of where does it end. I don't know. Another great point. But I'd like to think that there is no such thing as a slippery slope, and that everything is subject to change, both back and forth.