Prof: Valuing ‘emotion as knowledge’ fights 'white identity'Notes:
Hope Kitts, an assistant professor at the University of New Mexico, argues in a recent academic journal article that "valuing emotion as knowledge" is a good strategy for "deconstructing hegemonic white identity" in the classroom.
Endorsing the view that "racism is a white problem," she says students "should all expect to be uncomfortable at times" while they “develop a white identity that itself is critical of whiteness.”
A professor at the University of New Mexico (UNM) has called for professors to value “emotion as knowledge” to fight white supremacy and promote social justice.
Writing in the journal Whiteness and Education, UNM Research Assistant Professor Hope Kitts argues that “valuing emotion as knowledge” is a key way professors can promote social justice, especially if and when students are made to feel “uncomfortable.”
...
“To begin to discuss critical race concepts on whiteness, it is first necessary to explore the dynamics of naming the problem, calling racism white supremacy, since, as Leonardo writes, ‘racism is a white problem,’” (1) Kitts contends. “If the power of dominant ideology, in this case whiteness, rests in its invisibility and anonymity, identifying it and discussing it are initial steps towards its perception and subsequent deconstruction.”
[RELATED: Profs say classroom ‘civility’ promotes ‘white racial power’]
[RELATED: Academic: Teachers must prevent ‘assimilation’ of ‘whiteness’]
Kitt’s article, “Speaking the unspeakable: the role of speech in in a pedagogy of critical whiteness,” was published in the recent issue of Whiteness and Education. Edited by United Kingdom-based academics Nicola Rollock and David Gilbourn, the journal has been embroiled in longstanding concern about the depth of its peer-review process.
As Campus Reform has reported, many of the journal’s articles have been accepted for publication within two or three days of submission, leading academic experts to speculate over whether the journal has a faulty or even non-existent peer-review process.
Both Gillborn and Rollock have failed to respond to inquiries on whether the journal actually has a peer review process, and all 21 members of the editorial board have declined to comment to Campus Reform, as well.
Other recent articles published by Whiteness and Education include one on “confronting whiteness in a sea of whiteness,” and another on how “white power passes through the bodies of people of colour in higher education,” which suggested that helping white male athletes reinforces white supremacy.
Campus Reform reached out to Hope Kitts for comment, but did not receive a response in time for publication.
1. Tell that to the Tutsi Tribe in the Congo.
" One of the group's commanders told the Daily Telegraph in 2008, We are fighting every day because we are Hutu and they are Tutsis. We cannot mix, we are always in conflict. We will stay enemies forever.""
The purpose of the denigration
Here is a nutshell analysis of the nuts:
The Problem is Modernism vs. Post Modernism[Actually is the focus purely on power, and how to diminish whites in order to enable Victimhood Classes who cannot compete]
Much of the confusion between liberal and centrist groups comes down to this modern/postmodernist distinction. As another example, since modernists believe in science and its utility, they are aware that obese individuals are at higher health risks. For postmodernists, however, the concept of health is just another oppressive force of Western colonial hegemony (since objective truth doesn’t exist and is merely manufactured as a tool of oppression), and so an entire cadre of “fat” activists mobilize themselves on social media, emboldened with postmodern concepts. Modernists recognize that nobody should be shamed or discriminated against for their appearance and believe that everyone has the right to make their own lifestyle choices, but are also concerned that distributing scientifically inaccurate information about health poses considerable risk to those who might believe it. Again, as in so many other cases, these disagreements fundamentally can be distilled down to science acceptance vs denialism.
The same dynamic unfolds regarding Islam. While modernists perceive an influx of Islam, and particularly conservative strains of Islam, in the form of unbridled mass migration, to pose a threat to Western culture due to its authoritarian, sexist and homophobic views, postmodernists consider a discourse about Islam from a Western perspective to reinforce historical power dynamics; therefore, Islam is off limits and may not be criticized by Westerners. Modernists discern differences between people and ideology and believe that while no one should ever be discriminated against (see above), bad ideas such as female genital mutilation (FGM) and the punishments within Islam for homosexuality and apostasy are not off limits from discussion, much like the absurdity of literal understandings of Christianity are frequent butts of jokes. For postmodernists, discussing these concepts are merely further examples of neocolonialism, therefore minorities within these same minority communities must suffer in silence.
In the end, the Weinstein/Evergreen State affair poses a significant crossroads to modern society, extending well beyond the conflict occurring on campus. Evergreen State represents the natural culmination of postmodern thought—roving mobs attempting to silence dissenting thought merely based on race, informed by far left theories that weaponize a victim status drawn solely from immutable, innate traits. Unfortunately, I cannot place full blame on the students either, as they have been indoctrinated with these ideas on the very campus that is now serving as the petri dish for applied postmodernism.
It is no coincidence that, while society outside the walls of campus looks on with disbelief, administrators to this point have been siding with the students. For if they were to repudiate the actions of the students, they would also need to repudiate the ideology with which they have been brainwashing them. In other words, taking a stand against the students would require administrators and professors to re-evaluate the meaning and value of the entire raison d’etre of their adult professional careers. Holding on to madness is a way of forestalling dealing with the grief that comes with the realization that one’s higher purpose has been a fraud. I am not sure of the final outcome, as this kind of process is long, difficult, and very, very painful.
But this internal struggle serves as a microcosm for the larger battle occurring in society between the ideas behind modernism and postmodernism. And the stakes are extremely high. As Weinstein articulated in his Rogan appearance, “Let’s put it this way, I believe at the moment coalitions are unholy alliances between two things. In this case you have the real equity movement, which are people who wish to end oppression, and then you have another movement that wishes to reverse oppression, and they don’t know that they are different because until you reach equity, they are pointing in the same direction.” For the sake of basic humanity and decency, let’s all hope that the Evergreen State affair has finally exposed this vital distinction.
