University of Alabama - “ peak neo-antebellum white Southern culture” - NYT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Cottom strikes me as genuinely confused and conflicted. So much of the essay bashes the sororities for being too white, only for it to end with statements like "why would anyone want to integrate that?" and "Sometimes the proper place for something is the past, and the thing just does not know it yet." It's as if she's saying Black students shouldn't want to be in those sororities... which would be all the explanation needed for why they have low percentages of Black members, right?

Also interesting that Cottom doesn't mention that Black students are more likely than white students to receive an actual bid after completing the recruitment processs, reinforcing their low numbers in the sororities are by choice.

https://thecrimsonwhite.com/82701/news/a-raci...%20in%20fall%202020.

Finally, it's clear Cottom is concerned with "power" at Alabama. She uses the term 10 times, speaking in vague ways about how "the power" of these predominantly white sororities is "the brotherhood that desires it." Seems pretty insulting to the women of Alabama! She further insults the rest of their Greek system referring to how a not so secret society comprised of its leadership is like organized crime "with training wheels" because they have "influenced" campus elections in the past (is that so surprising let alone illegal?). It's pretty clear she sees the power being disproportionately concentrated among white males at the university. Now, it might've been interesting for her to show her research skills (?) to actually back up that position, but she doesn't. She's a columnist for the most famous newspaper in the country and a professor at a public flagship (so, she's employed by the people), but she can't be bothered with taking the time to vet her own serious allegations. If she had been serious about exploring the recent history of power at the campus, she might've looked at the recent student body presidents. Of the last 10, 4 are white women, 3 are Black men, and 3 are white men. I get that there are other data points, but come on! This is totally inconsistent with her premise that white males run the show at Alabama. It took me 5 min to figure that out, and I'm not a sociology professor making wild claims in a major newspaper.

Let’s not let this factoid go unremarked.

That would require Dr. Cotton’s fans to engage in critical thinking.

PP here. Dr. Cottom, of course. Apple autocorrected her name for me, annoyingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, time to lock this thread up perhaps?

Tangently related to the essence Colleges and Universities, and has delved into other issues.

Perfectly inline with the observation that leftist academics and thinkers cannot tolerate any critical discussion of even the most mediocre writing.

Oh this is absolutely true of the folks in the Fox News comments sections, too.

Let he who is without sin....

Sure. So if your standard is “I want to act like the people in the comment section of Fox News,” I guess you’re meeting that standard. Well done to you, I suppose.

Hello, I just said that both groups are bad--the Fox News echo chamber and the left echo chamber that says we have to accept bad research. What's wrong with you?

Do you want the thread shut down or not? If not, you are then using the “let he who is without sin” quote incorrectly. People are responding to that, because it sounds like you are taking the position that because Fox News comment section writers can’t handle any criticism, it’s okay for people here to ask for this thread to be shut down since there are posts in this thread that are critical of a left-leaning writer.

I wasn't the pp who asked to shut the thread down. I don't think it should be shut down. There are multiple posters here. Get a grip.

Okay, so you just misused the quote about stones. Maybe work on that.

What? You're bullying the left over trying to shut down any criticism of Cottom (admittedly some of the left here are trying to shut down criticism, but I'm left and I've been criticizing her article for pages now). When the right is just as bad or worse.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" absolutely applies to you.

Sigh. I give up.

Also, please do not misuse the term bullying so egregiously. It’s embarrassing.

You’re a RWNJ bully go doesn’t want to admit to the folks on your own side who can’t handle criticism. Own it.

🤣🤣🤣

I love the idea that you seem to believe that “the left” as a whole can apparently be “bullied” by a single DCUM poster. Lol. That’s beautiful.

Please let the grown-ups converse and go sulk elsewhere because someone didn’t cheer on your every single thought.

Stop with the ad hominems already, you’re no better than some of Cottom’s supporters on this thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, time to lock this thread up perhaps?

Tangently related to the essence Colleges and Universities, and has delved into other issues.

Perfectly inline with the observation that leftist academics and thinkers cannot tolerate any critical discussion of even the most mediocre writing.

Oh this is absolutely true of the folks in the Fox News comments sections, too.

Let he who is without sin....

Sure. So if your standard is “I want to act like the people in the comment section of Fox News,” I guess you’re meeting that standard. Well done to you, I suppose.

Hello, I just said that both groups are bad--the Fox News echo chamber and the left echo chamber that says we have to accept bad research. What's wrong with you?

Do you want the thread shut down or not? If not, you are then using the “let he who is without sin” quote incorrectly. People are responding to that, because it sounds like you are taking the position that because Fox News comment section writers can’t handle any criticism, it’s okay for people here to ask for this thread to be shut down since there are posts in this thread that are critical of a left-leaning writer.

I wasn't the pp who asked to shut the thread down. I don't think it should be shut down. There are multiple posters here. Get a grip.

Okay, so you just misused the quote about stones. Maybe work on that.

What? You're bullying the left over trying to shut down any criticism of Cottom (admittedly some of the left here are trying to shut down criticism, but I'm left and I've been criticizing her article for pages now). When the right is just as bad or worse.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" absolutely applies to you.

Sigh. I give up.

Also, please do not misuse the term bullying so egregiously. It’s embarrassing.

You’re a RWNJ bully go doesn’t want to admit to the folks on your own side who can’t handle criticism. Own it.

🤣🤣🤣

I love the idea that you seem to believe that “the left” as a whole can apparently be “bullied” by a single DCUM poster. Lol. That’s beautiful.

Please let the grown-ups converse and go sulk elsewhere because someone didn’t cheer on your every single thought.

Stop with the ad hominems already, you’re no better than some of Cottom’s supporters on this thread

There are no ad hominems in that entire post.

Are you the PP who also incorrectly used the term ad hominem earlier? Or was that one of Dr. Cottom’s supporters? I can’t remember. Perhaps it is a shared failing.

[Anonymous]

I would like to understand more seriously from people who like the article what specifically they like about it? It seems weakly reasoned and badly written to me, and the only posts in this thread from people who liked it seem to be just attacks on anyone who didn’t uniformly cheer it on, hence all the posts about how any criticism is because people are “threatened.” What exactly do you think was well-written and/or well-analyzed? Maybe I missed a post that explained that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would like to understand more seriously from people who like the article what specifically they like about it? It seems weakly reasoned and badly written to me, and the only posts in this thread from people who liked it seem to be just attacks on anyone who didn’t uniformly cheer it on, hence all the posts about how any criticism is because people are “threatened.” What exactly do you think was well-written and/or well-analyzed? Maybe I missed a post that explained that.

+1. I’d like to hear from the folks who liked the article what they think the connection is between white sororities and the white patriarchy. Beyond the fact that the girls apparently want to marry the patriarchy and are maybe keeping the patriarchy white, or something. I’ve asked before, and the answers have all been along the lines of, “I shouldn’t have to explain that to you.” Yes, please explain it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would like to understand more seriously from people who like the article what specifically they like about it? It seems weakly reasoned and badly written to me, and the only posts in this thread from people who liked it seem to be just attacks on anyone who didn’t uniformly cheer it on, hence all the posts about how any criticism is because people are “threatened.” What exactly do you think was well-written and/or well-analyzed? Maybe I missed a post that explained that.

thoughtful reflection on “diversity” and commentary on a media phenomenon I didn’t know about (RushTok).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to understand more seriously from people who like the article what specifically they like about it? It seems weakly reasoned and badly written to me, and the only posts in this thread from people who liked it seem to be just attacks on anyone who didn’t uniformly cheer it on, hence all the posts about how any criticism is because people are “threatened.” What exactly do you think was well-written and/or well-analyzed? Maybe I missed a post that explained that.

+1. I’d like to hear from the folks who liked the article what they think the connection is between white sororities and the white patriarchy. Beyond the fact that the girls apparently want to marry the patriarchy and are maybe keeping the patriarchy white, or something. I’ve asked before, and the answers have all been along the lines of, “I shouldn’t have to explain that to you.” Yes, please explain it.

They were **overtly**segregated until 2013 yo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to understand more seriously from people who like the article what specifically they like about it? It seems weakly reasoned and badly written to me, and the only posts in this thread from people who liked it seem to be just attacks on anyone who didn’t uniformly cheer it on, hence all the posts about how any criticism is because people are “threatened.” What exactly do you think was well-written and/or well-analyzed? Maybe I missed a post that explained that.

+1. I’d like to hear from the folks who liked the article what they think the connection is between white sororities and the white patriarchy. Beyond the fact that the girls apparently want to marry the patriarchy and are maybe keeping the patriarchy white, or something. I’ve asked before, and the answers have all been along the lines of, “I shouldn’t have to explain that to you.” Yes, please explain it.

They were **overtly**segregated until 2013 yo.

But more recently they’ve been making every attempt to integrate, dude. The stat somebody gave above says blacks are more likely to get bids than whites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to understand more seriously from people who like the article what specifically they like about it? It seems weakly reasoned and badly written to me, and the only posts in this thread from people who liked it seem to be just attacks on anyone who didn’t uniformly cheer it on, hence all the posts about how any criticism is because people are “threatened.” What exactly do you think was well-written and/or well-analyzed? Maybe I missed a post that explained that.

+1. I’d like to hear from the folks who liked the article what they think the connection is between white sororities and the white patriarchy. Beyond the fact that the girls apparently want to marry the patriarchy and are maybe keeping the patriarchy white, or something. I’ve asked before, and the answers have all been along the lines of, “I shouldn’t have to explain that to you.” Yes, please explain it.

They were **overtly**segregated until 2013 yo.

But more recently they’ve been making every attempt to integrate, dude. The stat somebody gave above says blacks are more likely to get bids than whites.

fine but to claim “oh so nutzzz crazy lady talking about racism in Alabama sororities!” is really not honest, at all. you don’t shrug off racism that quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to understand more seriously from people who like the article what specifically they like about it? It seems weakly reasoned and badly written to me, and the only posts in this thread from people who liked it seem to be just attacks on anyone who didn’t uniformly cheer it on, hence all the posts about how any criticism is because people are “threatened.” What exactly do you think was well-written and/or well-analyzed? Maybe I missed a post that explained that.

+1. I’d like to hear from the folks who liked the article what they think the connection is between white sororities and the white patriarchy. Beyond the fact that the girls apparently want to marry the patriarchy and are maybe keeping the patriarchy white, or something. I’ve asked before, and the answers have all been along the lines of, “I shouldn’t have to explain that to you.” Yes, please explain it.

They were **overtly**segregated until 2013 yo.

But more recently they’ve been making every attempt to integrate, dude. The stat somebody gave above says blacks are more likely to get bids than whites.

fine but to claim “oh so nutzzz crazy lady talking about racism in Alabama sororities!” is really not honest, at all. you don’t shrug off racism that quickly.

You found her many omissions and unsupported claims honest?

I think an essay saying “the sororities at Alabama have come a long way but could still improve, here’s how and why the data supports me” might’ve gone over better than simply claiming “they are too white and serve the patriarchy and not worth keeping.”

[Anonymous]

Thus whole thread may be one of those “jokes” that adolescents perpetuate to annoy parents. The supposed “conservative posters” are posting things so childish, stupid and bizarre that it seems like it must be a parody. Not all conservatives are that stupid. Nice work, children, you got all the grown-ups annoyed. Now it’s lights out - time to go to bed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to understand more seriously from people who like the article what specifically they like about it? It seems weakly reasoned and badly written to me, and the only posts in this thread from people who liked it seem to be just attacks on anyone who didn’t uniformly cheer it on, hence all the posts about how any criticism is because people are “threatened.” What exactly do you think was well-written and/or well-analyzed? Maybe I missed a post that explained that.

+1. I’d like to hear from the folks who liked the article what they think the connection is between white sororities and the white patriarchy. Beyond the fact that the girls apparently want to marry the patriarchy and are maybe keeping the patriarchy white, or something. I’ve asked before, and the answers have all been along the lines of, “I shouldn’t have to explain that to you.” Yes, please explain it.

They were **overtly**segregated until 2013 yo.

But more recently they’ve been making every attempt to integrate, dude. The stat somebody gave above says blacks are more likely to get bids than whites.

fine but to claim “oh so nutzzz crazy lady talking about racism in Alabama sororities!” is really not honest, at all. you don’t shrug off racism that quickly.

Nobody is shrugging off racism, and you're the one who's not really being honest, at all. Some of us would like some facts with our discussion of racism, that's the problem here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thus whole thread may be one of those “jokes” that adolescents perpetuate to annoy parents. The supposed “conservative posters” are posting things so childish, stupid and bizarre that it seems like it must be a parody. Not all conservatives are that stupid. Nice work, children, you got all the grown-ups annoyed. Now it’s lights out - time to go to bed.

Sounds like your kids are trying to tell you something. Sounds like maybe you should listen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thus whole thread may be one of those “jokes” that adolescents perpetuate to annoy parents. The supposed “conservative posters” are posting things so childish, stupid and bizarre that it seems like it must be a parody. Not all conservatives are that stupid. Nice work, children, you got all the grown-ups annoyed. Now it’s lights out - time to go to bed.

Sounds like your kids are trying to tell you something. Sounds like maybe you should listen.

Not my kids, hon. But ther is a history of theses antic on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thus whole thread may be one of those “jokes” that adolescents perpetuate to annoy parents. The supposed “conservative posters” are posting things so childish, stupid and bizarre that it seems like it must be a parody. Not all conservatives are that stupid. Nice work, children, you got all the grown-ups annoyed. Now it’s lights out - time to go to bed.

Idk. I am not conservative, but I think the point that liberal academics are unable to tolerate even the mildest of criticism these days is reasonable and certainly seems demonstrated in this thread.