Displaying posts categorized under

EDUCATION

Barnard Event: Zumba Is ‘Cultural Appropriation’ By Katherine Timpf

Barnard College is hosting a lecture later this month titled “Health at the Expense of Cultural Appropriation: Yoga and Zumba.”

Yes — Zumba.

The lecture is part of a series titled “Barnard BLUE.” According to the college’s official website, “BLUE” stands for “Building Leadership & Understanding Equity,” and it’s “aimed to engage students in intentional dialogues to explore their identities and what it means to foster inclusive communities.” Titles for other sessions in the series include “Sorry for Party Rocking: College Party Culture & it’s Implications” and “Faux Feminists: Pop Culture Icons & Hypocrisy.”

Now, people freaking out that yoga is “cultural appropriation” definitely is stupid, but it’s a complaint that I’ve heard before, and seeing it as the subject of a lecture at a liberal women’s college hardly surprises me. But Zumba? As in, the form of jumping-around aerobics that moms like? I’ve got to admit that that’s a new one.

Although it’s not clear what exactly the claims of the lecture will be, I’d assume that the “cultural appropriation” complaints about Zumba have something to do with the fact that workouts are traditionally performed to Latin American music.

The title of the lecture, “Health at the Expense of Cultural Appropriation: Yoga and Zumba,” really does illustrate how completely stupid it is. After all, I really have a hard time believing that enjoying a workout centered around a typical kind of music — even if that kind of music isn’t from your own culture — is really coming at the “expense” of anyone, however, making people so terrified that their workouts might be racist that they’re too scared to do them could come at the “expense” of their health. We’re an obese nation, and if people like to stay in shape by doing Zumba, then good for them . . . whether they’re white (ew!) or not. Seriously, how far does this go? Are we going to get to the point where white people can only work out to white-people-music without having to have some sort of cultural consciousness discussion beforehand? I sure hope not, because working out is already annoying enough as it is.

One of the most beautiful things about this country is that we are made up of a mix of people from different cultures, and that that mix gives us so many opportunities to enjoy art and music from cultures other than our own. Now, I do understand how someone claiming another culture as their own — or claiming to understand what it would be like to experience life as someone from another culture — would be offensive, however, I highly doubt that anyone who’s going to Zumba class will think that their going to Zumba class means that he or she is some kind of Latin American cultural expert. They just think that they’re someone who went to Zumba class, and I’ve got to say, there are certainly bigger problems facing us than that.

The War on Grammar Clumsy attempts to avoid offending anyone do violence to the English language By Josh Gelernter

This week, the 127-year-old American Dialect Society voted the plural pronoun “they,” used as a singular pronoun, their Word of the Year. Reporting the story, the Washington Post illustrated the new use of “they” with the mystifying sentence “everyone wants their cat to succeed,” the old way having been “everyone wants his cat to succeed.”

Trying to depluralize “they” is an asinine effort, stemming from a stupid misunderstanding made by stupid people whom the ADS has chosen to indulge rather than to correct.

The misunderstanding is best illustrated by a Washington Post copy editor who was quoted in the Post’s “singular they” piece. He describes the “singular they” as the “the only sensible solution to English’s lack of a gender-neutral third-person singular personal pronoun.”

But English does have a gender-neutral third-person singular personal pronoun – it’s “he.” Per the dictionary of record, Webster’s Second International Unabridged, the primary definition of the pronoun “he” is “the man or male being previously designated.” The meaning of “male being” is self-evident, but the meaning of “man” has been forgotten by many badly educated people. The first definition Webster’s gives for “man” is “a member of the human race.” Webster’s gives a quote from Hume by way of illustration, “All men, both male and female.” “A male human being” is the second-given, secondary definition.

“Woman” always refers to a female human being, but in the abstract, “man” is neuter (or “gender-neutral,” as the Post says); likewise, “she” always refers to a previously designated female, but in the abstract, “he” is neuter. Just as an actress always refers to a female actor, whereas the abstract “actor” refers generally to both female and male actors. The Academy Awards give an Oscar to the “best actress,” while the Screen Actors Guild gives a SAG Award to outstanding actors, “male actors” and “female actors.”

Surely the American Dialect Society is aware of this. Certainly, they out to say so. You might ask why it matters one way or the other. Aside from being wrong, and sounding wrong, using “they” as a singular steals precision from the language. It is destructive. It makes horseshoe throws of sentences that would previously have been bull’s-eyes. English lost precision when “you” replaced “thou.” Ideally we’d still use “thou” as the familiar for an individual. But at least that change had a good reason; “you” caught on as the more polite form of address, as its equivalents remain in so many other languages (“tu” and “vous,” “tú” and “usted”).

And the same word-blind stupidity is spreading to our armed forces. As of last week, the U.S. Navy is dropping all job titles that include the word “man.” A chief yeoman will become just a chief. “Fire Controlmen” will become nondescript “Petty Officers.” To avoid insult, “sailors will no longer be identified by their job title,” says the Navy Times; the titles “airman, fireman, constructionman and hospitalman” will be “replaced by job codes”; “B320” or “B450” or some other colorless non-word.

All this because no one has told Navy secretary, Ray Mabus, that the suffix “man” does not necessarily mean male.

Georgetown University Presents Index Islamophobicus: Andrew Harrod

The “link the report makes between Catholic media, Catholic book publishers, and Islamophobia needs to be severed,” stated ethics professor can Catholic priest Drew Christiansen at a September 12 Georgetown University presentation. He referenced a new report by Georgetown’s Saudi-funded Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU) that presents new censorship dangers to Catholic “Islamophobes” who speak critically of Islam.

The report by ACMCU’s Bridge Initiative, Danger & Dialogue: What American Catholics Think and Write about Islam, found that “Catholic media outlets discuss Islam negatively overall” despite Islam’s supposedly benign nature. A Pope Francis quotation asserted “it’s not fair to identify Islam with violence” and hackneyed apologetics for Islamic law stated that sharia, rather than uniformly endangering human rights, “has been interpreted in diverse ways.” By contrast, “[t]hose surveyed who consume content from Catholic media outlets have more unfavorable views of Muslims than those who don’t.”

Surveyed Catholic views on Islam in Danger & Dialogue were correspondingly negative. In all, “[n]early half of Catholics (45%) believe Islam ‘encourages violence more than other religions around the world.'” “Catholics more often identified Muslims’ potential shortcomings or faults as major obstacles to good relations, than they mentioned Catholics’ faults,” the report stated in an accusatory tone without specifying such Catholic faults. Yet brutal realism justified that “[t]hree-quarters (75%) of Catholics felt that violence and terrorism committed by Muslims was ‘very much’ or ‘somewhat’ of an obstacle to better relations.”

As a contributing cause to these findings, Danger & Dialogue focused on how the “Islamophobia industry sometimes influences the production of Catholic content on Islam.” The report reiterated well-worn accusations from leftwing, George Soros-funded organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Center for American Progress (CAP) concerning “Islamophobes” in Catholic media. Muslim reformer Zuhdi Jasser, Donald Trump’s Catholic presidential campaign adviser Walid Phares, and Catholic academic William Kilpatrick all received critical citations. The report noted that books by the best-selling Catholic writer on Islam, Robert Spencer, a supposed “anti-Muslim hate group” leader and “misinformation expert,” are available in Washington, DC, area Catholic bookstores.

Such individuals were anathema to the panelists who presented Danger & Dialogue in Georgetown’s Riggs Library. The university’s well-known Islam apologist, Professor John Esposito, echoed the report by stating that “Islamophobia is growing exponentially in the US and Europe….Many would say it is at an all-time high.” ACMCU board member and Catholic Theological Union professor Scott Alexander in turn contrasted that Esposito, “one of my most faithful and treasured mentors,” belongs among Islam scholars to the “Islamophilic category, a category to which I unapologetically place myself.”

Dunbar High School After 100 Years Lessons from the destruction of an educational success story for black students. Thomas Sowell

One hundred years ago, on October 2, 1916, a new public high school building for black youngsters was opened in Washington, D.C. and named for black poet Paul Laurence Dunbar. Its history is a story inspiring in many ways and appalling in many other ways.

Prior to 1916, the same high school had existed under other names, housed in other buildings — and with a remarkable academic record.

In 1899, when it was called “the M Street School,” a test was given in Washington’s four academic public high schools, three white and one black. The black high school scored higher than two of the three white high schools. Today, it would be considered Utopian even to set that as a goal, much less expect to see it happen.

The M Street School had neither of two so-called “prerequisites” for quality education. There was no “diversity.” It was an all-black school from its beginning, and on through its life as a high quality institution under the name Dunbar High School.

But its days as a high quality institution ended abruptly in the middle of the 1950s. After that, it became just another failing ghetto school.

The other so-called “prerequisite” that the M Street School lacked was an adequate building. Its student body was 50 percent larger than the building’s capacity, a fact that led eventually to the new Dunbar High School building. But its students excelled even in their overcrowded building.

Some students at the M Street School began going to some of the leading colleges in the country in the late 19th century. The first of its graduates to go to Harvard did so in 1903. Over the years from 1892 to 1954, thirty-four of the graduates from the M Street School and Dunbar went on to Amherst.

Of these, 74 percent graduated from Amherst and 28 percent of these graduates were Phi Beta Kappas. Other graduates from M Street High School and Dunbar became Phi Beta Kappas at Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and other elite institutions.

Graduates of this same high school pioneered as the first black in many places. These included the first black man to graduate from Annapolis, the first black woman to receive a Ph.D. from an American institution, the first black federal judge, the first black general, the first black Cabinet member and, among other notables, a doctor who became internationally renowned for his pioneering work in developing the use of blood plasma.

Nevada’s School Choice Victory Unions lose their attempt to kill education savings accounts.

Children won a big victory in Nevada on Thursday as the state Supreme Court upheld the state’s revolutionary education savings accounts (ESAs), the nation’s first universal school choice program. Note to Donald Trump: This is worth celebrating.

ESAs allow parents who withdraw their kids from public schools to use state funds to pay for private school tuition, tutoring, curriculum and school supplies. Each account in Nevada is funded at 90% to 100% (more for low-income and disabled kids) of the average statewide per pupil expenditure. Parents can roll over funds from year to year, and there is no cap on the number of participants.

About 8,000 parents applied for accounts last year but were blocked from tapping the funds because of lawsuits by the American Civil Liberties Union and other friends of the teachers unions. Those groups argued that the ESAs violate the state constitution’s requirement that the legislature operate a “uniform system” of public schools and prohibition on using public funds for sectarian purposes.

A 4-2 majority rejected their arguments, ruling that ESAs do “not alter the existence or structure of the public school system” in part because the funds once placed in the accounts “belong to the parents and are not ‘public funds.’” The court added that “it is undisputed that the ESA program has a secular purpose,” and the state constitution “does not limit the Legislature’s discretion to encourage other methods of education.”

While the state won on the core issues, the court did hold that the legislature violated a constitutional mandate to appropriate funds for public schools “before any other appropriation is enacted.” That’s because the legislature diverted money from last year’s education appropriation bill to fund ESAs.

Anti-Semitism at My University, Hidden in Plain Sight by Benjamin Gladstone

Benjamin Gladstone is a junior at Brown University.

Providence, R.I. — Last semester, a group came to Providence to speak against admitting Syrian refugees to this country. As the president of the Brown Coalition for Syria, I jumped into action with my peers to stage a counterdemonstration. But I quickly found myself cut out of the planning for this event: Other student groups were not willing to work with me because of my leadership roles in campus Jewish organizations.

That was neither the first nor the last time that I would be ostracized this way. Also last semester, anti-Zionists at Brown circulated a petition against a lecture by the transgender rights advocate Janet Mock because one of the sponsors was the Jewish campus group Hillel, even though the event was entirely unrelated to Israel or Zionism. Ms. Mock, who planned to talk about racism and transphobia, ultimately canceled. Anti-Zionist students would rather have no one speak on these issues than allow a Jewish group to participate in that conversation.

Of course, I still believe in the importance of accepting refugees, combating discrimination, abolishing racist law enforcement practices and other causes. Nevertheless, it’s painful that Jewish issues are shut out of these movements. Jewish rights belong in any broad movement to fight oppression.

My fellow activists tend to dismiss the anti-Semitism that students like me experience regularly on campus. They don’t acknowledge the swastikas that I see carved into bathroom stalls, scrawled across walls or left on chalkboards. They don’t hear students accusing me of killing Jesus. They don’t notice professors glorifying anti-Semitic figures such as Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt or the leadership of Hezbollah, as mine have.

Here’s What Happens When a College Lets Students Pick Their Preferred Gender Pronouns By Kyle Foley

Like some other colleges these days, the University of Michigan is bowing to progressive convention and letting students who don’t want to be referred as either “he” or “she” pick their own gender pronouns. Whatever they choose determines the way professors and other staff at the school will address them.http://heatst.com/culture-wars/heres-what-happens-when-a-college-lets-students-pick-their-preferred-gender-pronouns/

While the whole exercise it meant to allow students to re-identify as any one of dozens of obscure genders (like agender, sisgender, etc), some students are having a bit of fun with the challenge. One student, Grant Strobl, seemed to have sparked a mini movement by officially changing his preferred pronoun to “His Majesty.” His are some of the other ways students now want to be addressed.

AND: University of Michigan Professors Will Face Disciplinary Action for Ignoring ‘Preferred Pronouns’By Jillian Kay Melchior http://heatst.com/culture-wars/university-of-michigan-professors-will-face-disciplinary-action-for-ignoring-preferred-pronouns/

The University of Michigan yesterday unveiled a new webpage that allows students to choose their preferred pronouns, including “they” and “ze.”

Preferred pronouns will appear on class rosters, and if professors accidentally use the wrong pronoun, “you can acknowledge that you made a mistake and use the correct pronoun next time,” said the university’s provost and vice president for student life in a campus-wide email announcement. It also called using preferred pronouns “one of the most basic ways to show your respect for their identity and to cultivate an environment that respects all gender identities.”

A university spokesman tells Heat Street, “If there were a persistent pattern of ignoring a student’s preference, we would address that as a performance matter.”

The new Wolverine Access page allows students to add, change, or delete preferred pronouns, which will be shared only with “those who have a legitimate education interest in the information,” the new webpage says. Students who don’t specify a preferred pronoun won’t have one listed, the university said.

The college’s IT team made the change, so it had no specific cost, a university spokesman said.

The decision comes after a University of Michigan junior founded the Wolverines for Preferred Pronouns Initiative, also starting a Change.org petition that has gained more than 750 signatures this year.

Terrorists On Campus Jerusalem University’s “Crossing the Line 2” exposes the campus war on Israel and Jewish students. Frontpagemag.com

SEE THIS VIDEO http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264342/terrorists-campus-frontpagemagcom

Editor’s note: The following documentary, “Crossing the Line 2: The New Face of Anti-Semitism on Campus,” exposes the growth of the anti-Israel movement on North American university campuses and the rise in violent anti-Semitism that has followed. The documentary was produced by Jerusalem University. For more information, visit StepUpForIsrael.com.

Georgetown University’s Errant Priest-Professor : Andrew Harrod

Who writes of the “stubborn, feckless resistance of Hamas,” an anti-Israeli jihadist terrorist group? Astonishingly, it is Georgetown University ethics professor and Catholic priest Drew Christiansen, a man like many Georgetown academics who pairs distinguished credentials with abiding antipathy towards Israel and apologetics for Islam.

Christiansen is the former Jesuit weekly America’s editor-in-chief and director of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Office of International Justice and Peace. His resume can thus impart considerable authority to his causes. Accordingly, he recently addressed on September 12 yet another event against “Islamophobia” at Georgetown’s Saudi-funded Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU).

Notwithstanding Christiansen’s erudite pedigree, his views concerning Islam and Israel are not at all nuanced. His priestly colleague, the late eminent conservative scholar and commentator FatherRichard John Neuhaus, already discerned in 2008 that America “under its editor, Fr. Drew Christiansen, has an apparently irrepressible urge to engage in bashing Israel.” The same outlook dominates a National Catholic Reporter blog column begun in 2014 by him and his coauthor Ra’fat Aldajani, described by Christiansen as a “Palestinian-American who represents the majority Palestinian view.”

The pair unequivocally describe Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians as the “West’s last colonial war.” Apparently oblivious to longstanding Arab attempts to destroy an Israel condemned as illegitimate, these authors claim that “Israeli occupation of Palestinian land” after Israel’s 1967 Six Day War victory is the “root cause of the conflict.” This occupation is “illegal,” they proclaim, even though it resulted from Israel’s defensive war and is legitimated by United Nations Security CouncilResolution 242. As properly interpreted, this resolution calls upon Israel to make undefined territorial withdrawals while receiving in return “secure and recognized boundaries.”

Not heeding Israeli legal claims to the Jewish ancestral heartland of Judea and Samaria captured by Israel in 1967, Aldajani and Christiansen deem Israeli settlements here “more properly ‘colonies’ as the French call them.” This Israeli “predatory land grab” also includes Jerusalem and “Israel’s illegal and internationally rejected claim” to the entire city unified by Israel’s 1967 victory. “No amount of insisting that all of Jerusalem is Israel’s ‘undivided and eternal capital’ will change the reality that it never will be,” the pair writes, who call for renewed division of the city into the capitals of Israel and a future Palestinian state.