Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should have been sjw autocorrect. And to pp unconscious bias is a lot different than active racisim

I will actually throw y'all a bone that unconscious bias is an issue due to the fact that there are racial stereotypes based on some truths but become an issue and racist when applied to a situation without actually evaluating it first

I would support having a conversation on the last paragraph but a book that starts from a false premise of all whites are racist is not only wrong but dangerous especially when used as support for a racist driven agenda against whites from poc

Citation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. So much white fragility. AKA snowflakes.

Put on your big girl panties and read the book. You won’t melt.

It’s not the reading it, it’s the discussing such a loaded topic with coworkers that’s the problem. Do you honestly not see how a white person who disagrees with the book’s premise and says so during the discussion, could be placing themselves in a very precarious situation?

If someone isn’t willing to read a book with an open mind and discuss on any level (even if they disagree), then that person isn’t intellectually curious enough to be in a teaching position.

I’d also be curious why they “disagree with the premise”.

Oh really? What would you say about making The Bell Curve a required reading and discussion, and labeling anyone who balks at it “not open minded and intellectually curious”

Nailed it, PP.

She would Have “nail it” if she posted a book that sited research that has been peer reviewed and there are some that were.

NP. Well I guess she could have "sited" (sic) some works but I'm not sure you would have the capacity to understand the sites (again, sic).

You should email apple and tell the iOS 13.1.6 does not know which site/cite to use on voice to text.

She did so...

Ha, now you're blaming Apple for your inability to proofread. I get it. Nothing is your fault. Poor, poor you!

Anonymous wrote:“ What? No it doesn't! You think that the only racism that's real racism is intentional and malicious? That's obviously not the only kind-- willful and intentional racism is probably a pretty small sliver of racism these days. That doesn't make unintended racism "not real racism," though. Is this why people freak out about being called racist-- you honestly think the only meaning of racist is "I don't like people of color/I proudly admit I think they're inferior to me?"”

We will have to agree to disagree. I agree that the unintentional slights and biases should be addressed to help shape a fairer society to live in. I strongly disagree with the premise that we should label those people as racists and think it is counter productive to the goal of working toward change.

Also Diangelo slams the phrase I very much agree with the “you get more flies with honey” approach of winning people to your side and to being open to change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "book" is basically

white people are always racist

black people can't be racist ever

Yep. That is the summary.

Which is a shame. In contrast my organization has had some short Virtual trainings that a corporate diversity trainer does and they are VERY well done. She is relatable, uses more neutral language (everyone needs to “X” vs just “White people need to...”). And definitely comes at it from a sense that seems to convey “hey we are all good faith and nice people here, but sometimes we do some hurtful things accidentally without realizing it. Let me tell you about what some of those are to help make it easier to avoid those unintended slip ups”.

+2 The bolded is basically what my (black) son stated when he handed me (white mom) the book to read. You don't really need to know any more than that. Buy the book, open it a few times and bend some pages so it looks like you've read it, and then nod, nod, nod in meetings where the book is discussed. Say as many mea culpas as appropriate.

I agree with another poster that the backlash from all of this is going to be intense. Not just whites but Hispanics, Asians, Jewish, you name it.

Oh your poor son.

Don't feel sorry for my son, sweetie. He is at a Top 10 university with a 3.95 gpa. He knows BS when he reads it.

If he gave it to you to read, he’s trying to send a message...not subtly, and you aren’t getting it. Poor kid.

He gave it to me to read because we often switch books. He reads a lot of trash and he is never afraid to tell me his opinion when he does. I get that your agenda is to castigate and malign regardless of consequences. I also get that you're feeling insecure and angry so you're lashing out. I think you need to talk to your therapist about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol I can't believe you idiots are actually trying to defend this book

If the book said all black people are racist

and white people can't be racist

would you tolerate that,,, no.... so how the f can you tolerate it in reverse

OP here. I just started reading the book and to be fair the author doesn’t state this. She does say that racism exists among all groups, however she does state that this book is specifically geared towards a white audience and is focused on white racism. The problem I have is is I don’t think the employer should require us to read (and more specifically discuss) a book that is solely focuses on white racism. Can you imagine requiring such a conversation about Asian racism, or Hispanic racism?

I mean, if the majority of teachers were Asian or Hispanic and there were multiple studies about the detrimental effects of their racism/implicit bias on educational outcomes for their students then yes?

But what if someone doesn’t agree that most white teachers have such a degree of implicit bias that it is detrimentally effecting their students of color? If we say that are we going to be chastised for not recognizing our racism? Don’t you see that this is a topic that a white teacher simply can’t disagree with without possibly jeopardizing their career?

What would you base it on, though? This isn't just a question of white people spitballing about whether they agree or disagree. When both the research and the experience of students of color suggest that the problem is widespread, you really think it's inappropriate that people might judge you for saying, "Well, I personally have never noticed a problem, so clearly there isn't one?"

Anonymous wrote:She should have been sjw autocorrect. And to pp unconscious bias is a lot different than active racisim

I will actually throw y'all a bone that unconscious bias is an issue due to the fact that there are racial stereotypes based on some truths but become an issue and racist when applied to a situation without actually evaluating it first

I would support having a conversation on the last paragraph but a book that starts from a false premise of all whites are racist is not only wrong but dangerous especially when used as support for a racist driven agenda against whites from poc

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. So much white fragility. AKA snowflakes.

Put on your big girl panties and read the book. You won’t melt.

It’s not the reading it, it’s the discussing such a loaded topic with coworkers that’s the problem. Do you honestly not see how a white person who disagrees with the book’s premise and says so during the discussion, could be placing themselves in a very precarious situation?

If someone isn’t willing to read a book with an open mind and discuss on any level (even if they disagree), then that person isn’t intellectually curious enough to be in a teaching position.

I’d also be curious why they “disagree with the premise”.

Uh, you don't understand the issue, PP. RIF (reading is fundamental). It isn't that the poster is concerned about reading and discussing the book, the poster is concerned about a supervisor hearing the poster's opinion, disagreeing and then penalizing the poster for his/her opinion.

I agree with the poster that this is a great danger. The supervisor could think the book is the greatest truth ever written or the supervisor could think the whole thing is hogwash; either way a subordinate disagreeing with a supervisor's opinion during a book club "discussion" could have negative consequences for the subordinate.

Your simplistic approach shows your immaturity. Try to look outside of yourself a little bit. Once you have a job and experience the work world perhaps your worldview will grow to accept that others can make have opinions that are valuable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously the author means White Christian people because Jewish people, even white ones, have absolutely no problem discussing racism. We experience it regularly -- some of us daily. We are acutely aware of racism against us based on nothing but our DNA for many of us who do not consider ourselves religiously Jewish, but just had one grandparent who was Jewish and so our family was sent off to death camps. And because of our own experience with racism, we are able to talk about it when we see it happening to other peoples, too. I do understand how White Christian people may have this problem, but White Jewish, White Muslim, White ____[Add minority status here] does not have this problem. We experience it firsthand.

My Jewish relatives are the most anti-Black people I know. I do not attribute that to them being Jewish, to make a blanket statement that all members of a religious persuasion are racist or not is beyond small-minded. You are really weird, frankly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. So much white fragility. AKA snowflakes.

Put on your big girl panties and read the book. You won’t melt.

It’s not the reading it, it’s the discussing such a loaded topic with coworkers that’s the problem. Do you honestly not see how a white person who disagrees with the book’s premise and says so during the discussion, could be placing themselves in a very precarious situation?

If someone isn’t willing to read a book with an open mind and discuss on any level (even if they disagree), then that person isn’t intellectually curious enough to be in a teaching position.

I’d also be curious why they “disagree with the premise”.

Oh really? What would you say about making The Bell Curve a required reading and discussion, and labeling anyone who balks at it “not open minded and intellectually curious”

Anonymous wrote:She should have been sjw autocorrect. And to pp unconscious bias is a lot different than active racisim

I will actually throw y'all a bone that unconscious bias is an issue due to the fact that there are racial stereotypes based on some truths but become an issue and racist when applied to a situation without actually evaluating it first

I would support having a conversation on the last paragraph but a book that starts from a false premise of all whites are racist is not only wrong but dangerous especially when used as support for a racist driven agenda against whites from poc

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. So much white fragility. AKA snowflakes.

Put on your big girl panties and read the book. You won’t melt.

It’s not the reading it, it’s the discussing such a loaded topic with coworkers that’s the problem. Do you honestly not see how a white person who disagrees with the book’s premise and says so during the discussion, could be placing themselves in a very precarious situation?

If someone isn’t willing to read a book with an open mind and discuss on any level (even if they disagree), then that person isn’t intellectually curious enough to be in a teaching position.

I’d also be curious why they “disagree with the premise”.

Oh really? What would you say about making The Bell Curve a required reading and discussion, and labeling anyone who balks at it “not open minded and intellectually curious”

Nailed it, PP.

She would Have “nail it” if she posted a book that sited research that has been peer reviewed and there are some that were.

NP. Well I guess she could have "sited" (sic) some works but I'm not sure you would have the capacity to understand the sites (again, sic).

You should email apple and tell the iOS 13.1.6 does not know which site/cite to use on voice to text.

She did so...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol I can't believe you idiots are actually trying to defend this book

If the book said all black people are racist

and white people can't be racist

would you tolerate that,,, no.... so how the f can you tolerate it in reverse

OP here. I just started reading the book and to be fair the author doesn’t state this. She does say that racism exists among all groups, however she does state that this book is specifically geared towards a white audience and is focused on white racism. The problem I have is is I don’t think the employer should require us to read (and more specifically discuss) a book that is solely focuses on white racism. Can you imagine requiring such a conversation about Asian racism, or Hispanic racism?

I mean, if the majority of teachers were Asian or Hispanic and there were multiple studies about the detrimental effects of their racism/implicit bias on educational outcomes for their students then yes?

But what if someone doesn’t agree that most white teachers have such a degree of implicit bias that it is detrimentally effecting their students of color? If we say that are we going to be chastised for not recognizing our racism? Don’t you see that this is a topic that a white teacher simply can’t disagree with without possibly jeopardizing their career?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. So much white fragility. AKA snowflakes.

Put on your big girl panties and read the book. You won’t melt.

It’s not the reading it, it’s the discussing such a loaded topic with coworkers that’s the problem. Do you honestly not see how a white person who disagrees with the book’s premise and says so during the discussion, could be placing themselves in a very precarious situation?

If someone isn’t willing to read a book with an open mind and discuss on any level (even if they disagree), then that person isn’t intellectually curious enough to be in a teaching position.

I’d also be curious why they “disagree with the premise”.

Yup, perfect.

Oh really? What would you say about making The Bell Curve a required reading and discussion, and labeling anyone who balks at it “not open minded and intellectually curious”

Nailed it, PP.