Apr

26

91 Comments

  1. how  

    Jung, so how do your white friends smash their privilege? Some pointers would help.

  2. BS.  

    With The Current's first "green" publication yesterday, the student journal on contemporary politics, culture, and Jewish affairs prevented the emission of 250 pounds of greenhouse gases and saved approximately 2.7 trees.

    That's a load of self congratulatory crap. When a department with a legitimate need for paper switches to 'green' suppliers, I'm willing to call that the saving of X trees or the prevention of carbon emission.

    But The Current did not "save" trees or emissions by printing out reams and reams of their magazine. Printed student periodicals are a wanton waste of paper for the sake of a few students' vanity. Ordinarily, I'd suffer that quietly, because all of our lives involve wastefulness in one regard or another, but it seems ridiculous that we should praise the environmental stewardship of a publication that wasted 24.3 trees instead of 27.

    If those Current staffers want to feel better about themselves, they should stop wasting money and trees on printed issues that end up littering dormitory hallways only to be thrown away, un-read, when maintenance comes by and sweeps.

    Can anyone here justify the extra expense of producing a print publication here on a campus where computers are ubiquitous? Every campus publication I've seen has an online version of their print content. Why not save much more money and many more trees-- publish your PDFs online and put up a few well-placed fliers.

    As for me, I pledge to avoid reading printed campus periodicals unless I find one in arm's reach in the bathroom.

    • Anon  

      The current is on 25% post consumer waste recycled paper and 25% general recycled paper. This means of the approximately 12 trees worth of paper used to publish it, 3 trees worth came entirely from recycled paper goods, and 3 came from paper that would have been thrown out after an some production process. This is far better than any other campus publication can claim.

  3. Frat parties  

    The editorial is spot on and it's about time non-Greeks started commenting on these issues. Obviously fraternities aren't as relevant to the whole campus social structure here as they are at other schools (even at other Ivies), but with roughly 1/10th of the students having gone Greek, it still affects at least a sizeable portion of the student body when the administration implements these Draconian alcohol policies.

    My organization throws unregistered parties and so far we've been able to pull it off without incurring too much disciplinary action. This is due to regulating the amount of people who come in as well as, believe it or not, turning people away or kicking them out when they've been overserved. If someone is too drunk to walk, we make sure that they are escorted home (even going so far as to make sure that drunk girls are taken home by girls in order that they feel safe).

    I'm not saying we should be congratulated - these seem like obvious risk management policies to practice. I think, though, that it demonstrates that the University vastly underrates students' abilities to take care of themselves and each other.

    At one beer an hour for 21 year olds only, it's no wonder that people don't register parties. When students are able to create a good party environment without putting themselves at too much risk, it's no wonder we feel we don't have to register.

  4. Could  

    Alex Jung please stop with his superfluous, shallow and frankly unoriginal histories of white supremacy?

    he's a fucking unnuanced tool (which is why he writes for spec).

    yes, alex, please tell me...how can i shatter my whiteness?

    for one thing, the word itself could be deconstructed faster than spivak can say derrida.

  5. Exam Week Spec

    Dooes anyone know if the Spec will be publishing during exam week? Actually what are the days they skip out on?

  6. Spec  

    will be publishing Monday and Wednesday only.

  7. As  

    a student of color, I definitely support Alex Jung's shutting-the-fuck-up.

    Have whites created and maintained systems of imperialism and racism? Of course. Are anti-oppression training and ethnic studies departments the best solutions? I don't think so, and Jung should be ashamed for necessarily associating dissidence/criticism of his solutions with whiteness.

    Btw, his op-ed "Twinkies & Oreos & Coconuts-Oh My!" is horrendous.

  8. Anonymous  

    It's no secret that CU wants to get rid of the Greek System. Ever since they put the Greek Affairs advisor under the housing department instead of student affairs, it's been going downhill. They have been extremely unhelpful and unrecptive to the greek community this year. CU is not on our side on any issue and I find it absolutely ridiculous.

    • ttan  

      I think the Assistant Director of Greek Life (Victoria Lopez-Herrera) is in the Office of Residential Programs, which falls under the Division of Student Affairs.

      See:
      https://directory.columbia.edu/people/uni?code=vl2165

      No Residence Life issues falls under the purview of Housing & Dining, with the exception of summer RAs and summer housing.

      • although  

        you are technically correct tao, the physical upkeep of the brownstones used to be under institutional real estate but since have been moved under housing and dining. since then relationships have gotten even more testy and upkeep has gotten worse.

        it is no secret that some in the administration would like to see frats gone.

    • umm  

      ...does being a Greek at Columbia really just mean unrestricted access to stupid amounts of alcohol by underage drinkers who are crammed together in a potential fire-trap? Sad.

      Or do you think the University should wait for an alcohol-overdose death or some horrible fire deaths before acting? Worse than sad.

      • Seriously?  

        One of the functions of Greek Life is to provide a social atmosphere for Greeks and non-Greeks alike. Many people enjoy drinking on the weekends. Qualifying more than one beer an hour (not to mention mixed drinks) as "stupid amounts of alcohol" is ridiculous.

        We aren't asking for the university to turn the other eye so we can shotgun beers and chug grain alcohol. We're asking the university to reconsider their policies, which right now stipulate that even two individuals above the age of 21 aren't allowed to play beer pong in their fraternity house should they wish to. Talk about "stupid."

  9. alex jung sucks  

    I like how he decries racisim, but groups all white people into a color-hating category.

    I am white, and I know there are issues that I will never understand and have been privledged to not have to deal with in this country, but sheesh. I think stop hate means stop hate agains everyone.

  10. Im a slave for you  

    I thought that article was rediculous. bwog got it right by pointing out that the author likely wouldnt have gotten her paying job without references from three internships. and her allegations that all internships are dreary and worthless are unwarrented. I have a terrific internship, unpaid of course, in which I have learned more in a semester than from several classes. Don't knock the ultimate humbling experince- hard work for no pay.

    • It's a total scandal

      That you're expected to work for zero bucks before getting a bullshit entry-level job. Media, arts and ngos are the worst; but there are definitely shithole places like real estate agencies that expect you to work for free before getting paid. Sick.

      Kim il Alex Jung wants to write about something racist (or classist really) then he should write about unpaid internships

  11. Hello  

    Anyone ever heard of "apprenticeship?" This has been going on throughout the ages. While you're learning your trade, why should you expect to get compensated? If money is a concern, then get a job. If you want a high-paying career after college, though, you need to make some sacrifices. Unless you go into finance, in which case interns are paid handsomely.

    • Disagree  

      The "apprenticeships" of the past bear no resemblance to the unpaid internships of today. An apprentice at least was supposed to have food and shelter provided to him. The requirements of most unpaid internships (3 days full-time) would mean most people doing them would have to work, say, 3 more days at another job for $12/hr, just to pay the rent and get groceries, and that would be if they lived in a shitty part of the city, cooked every meal, and through some miracle of God, did not have to put a two-month security deposit on their sublet.

      Unless you have mommy and daddy sending you a monthly check, the "sacrifice" required to work for free in this city means:

      a) running up sizable credit card debt;
      b) taking out a personal or unsubsidized.

      I will reserve judgment on whether that's 'fair' to you.

      I will make a wild guesstimate, however, that the vast majority of students on financial aid here will not work for free this summer.

  12. ugh bad article  

    I can't stand Jung's articles. All he does is dicuss how wrong everyone else is and how he's gay. Nobody cares that you're gay! Seriously! Stop acting like the world is out to get you. In reality, nobody gives a fuck about your sexual orientation.

    • Anonymous  

      "In reality, nobody gives a fuck about your sexual orientation"

      Sadly, I think a lot of people give a fuck about Alex Jung's sexuality. The reality outside of your ignorant & silly comment is that homophobia is incredibly prevalent in our society.
      40% of all homeless youths self-identify as GLBTQA, almost 30% of gay students report being physically assaulted by a fellow student, and homosexuals are 7x more likely to be the victim of a crime than are straight people. These statistics don't sound like the result of whatever apathy/acceptance over sexuality you're claiming exists.
      I have relatives and friends of the family that I will never meet because no one cared or talked about a "gay disease" in the 80s until it touched straight people and Michael Jordan.
      Today we have a president who wants an amendment to the constitution barring certain people's right to marry, and 40 states have some version of a "Defense of Marriage Act."

      And if I could have hoped this ignorance stopped at 116th street, comment #68's offensive caricature of homosexuality as Jung showing up for an interview in a "pink miniskirt" proved me dead wrong.

      A lot of people care about homosexuality and have a problem with it, and it is something that needs to be talked about. Just because you don't "give a fuck" about the reality around you doesn't mean Alex or anyone else should stop talking.

  13. jungscolumn  

    [Insert requisite "as a person of color" comment here]

    While I agree that Jung's column lacked nuance (when i first read it I was like 'is this for real'?), he does make very good points, particularly towards the end. Although if deconstruction is what he's after, equating WHITENESS with the myth or currency of whitness is shabby indeed - but, hey, it's a limited wordcount and if you read it you catch his drift.

    I generally enjoyed his column. It's a generalization, of course, but not a superfluous one to state that white people at Columbia (not only of course) never think about the conditions of their privelege.

    • blechhh  

      #20; "It's a generalization, of course, but not a superfluous one to state that white people at Columbia (not only of course) never think about the conditions of their privelege."

      You're right, it's not a superfluous one, it's just patently incorrect and unhelpful.

      And Alex Jung's article bit. This whole voice crying in the wilderness, subversive contrarian pose is tired. Wow, way to start your article with "radical motherfucker" in the first line, you're really shattering world-views.
      "My columns have been part of a dialogue-of communicating ideas that are largely excluded from the mainstream." = bullshit rebel posing, overstatement of self-importance. What dialogue?

      "Race is not an issue for most white people quite simply because they don't feel its weight. When a critique of white privilege alights on their shoulders, white people quickly cry reverse racism."
      Reduction of all white individuals' responses to group's "cries" of reverse racism...awesome way to cut off "dialogue" before it can happen.
      And alighting on shoulders? What the fuck? You're a person, not some angel-bird thing.

      "How then, would you like me to act? Shall I dance for you kabuki-like with chopsticks in my hair?" No, maybe just argue rationally, without turning opinions into generalizations into universals into bullshit. That'd be cool.

      "To turn an oft-heard phrase around, some of my closest friends are white. They are anti-racist lovers of justice, wholly non-representative of their group."
      Just read that nonsense again.

      It's weird, but Jung keeps his argument in a sort of good ol' days, relying on John Brown and WEB DuBois to cast light on a modern racial situation. Employment historical examples and a fairly antiquated argumentative mode of "white people don't think about THIS stuff!" is strange to observe in someone who is ostensibly so anti-Core. His style actually shows how much he's indebted to it / burdened by it.

      • McFister

        Well said. I not only think about the conditions of my privilege, I enjoy those conditions. It's quite effortless to be aware of this stuff without being the 'good' kind of 'anti-oppressive' white guy that Alex advocates for.

      • horrified  

        when will privileged (yes, i said it) columbia students realize that being committed to any notion of human equality demands an active fight against oppression instead of backing out with the claim, "but i'm not racist"?
        why is there such disgusting resistence to even acknowledging america's racialized class system?

        alex clearly states (and is forced to overstate because of your ignorance) the difference between white people in general, and "Whiteness" as an ideology of american white supremacy which structures all of our institutions. the point is that as a white person you are forced to interact with this ideology in some way (all of us are, actually, but this is only news to white people). you can either reproduce racism and profit from your race by exploiting others, or you can radically resist it. your choice.

        • hahhahaha  

          1. There are poor students who attend this school. Every student on this campus is privileged for having been accepted, though.

          2. What the fuck is an active fight against oppression? Is it hating white people? That seems to be what you and other idiots like Jung support. Lay it out for us. What exactly do you fools ask of people?

          3. What is exploitation? Whom have we exploited? You keep throwing accusations but bring NO evidence, and the burden of proof is on you!

          4. The argument "I have done nothing wrong" is completely LEGITIMATE. People who have done nothing wrong deserve no insult, deserve no punishment.

          5. Jung, stop posting on Bwog. You're not fooling anyone.

        • you fool  

          "some of my closest friends are white. They are anti-racist lovers of justice, wholly non-representative of their group."

          That is NOT overstating the difference. That is DIRECTLY EQUATING white people with racist, justice-haters. Jung makes no distinction whatsoever. His argument is that whites are evil, and non-gays hate gays. Period. That's his whole column, week to week.

        • i agree  

          that stagnant, intransigent systems of racism require its opponents to become more radical, but that still doesn't change the fact that:

          1) Alex is bad writer.
          2) He's full of himself (As commenter 20 quoted "My columns have been part of a dialogue-of communicating ideas that are largely excluded from the mainstream.")
          3) He supports idiotic dichotomies by associating criticism of his policies with whiteness (The notion that minorities MUST identify directly with their ethnic/sexual identities...geez talk about Foucaultian.)
          4. He is a terrible writer.

          • p.s.  

            i'm colored.

            go ahead, jung, and call me an uncle tom, you asshole.

          • haha  

            awesome.

            Let's have some fun with double standards, shall we? Work with this quote: "some of my closest friends are white. They are anti-racist lovers of justice, wholly non-representative of their group."

            "Some of my closest friends are black. They are non-violent haters of rape, wholly non-representative of their group."

            "Some of my closest friends are Arab. They are anti-fundamentalist hairless lovers of Jews, wholly non-representative of their group."

            Are any of those okay?

          • flargh

            Some of my closest friends are Lee C. Bollinger and Mary McGee. They are boldly anti-white and cling to every/any/all events, causes and issues that even provide a speck of opportunity to trumpet their perverse loyalty to far-far-left political groupthink, wholly non-representative of what people in their positions should endorse.

          • still horrified  

            how can you be entirely blind to structural inequality? please realize that having a nuanced understanding of race means that you must understand first of all that our society is built on white supremacy. and secondly, attacking this is vital to dismantling racism. why is criticizing white supremacy a crime, while denying people of color's right to basic equality is just dandy to all of you?
            also, keep in mind: white racism means that people of color are denied health care, education, economic security, the ability to participate in government, and basic physical safety (just to name a few). white racism is expressed in the form of terrible public schools, police brutality, a vicious prison system, i could go on.
            and this "reverse racism" that you speak of? this is expressed in the obnoxious whining of columbia students on bwog. THINK before equating these two things.

          • i dont  

            think that #44 is blind to structural inequality but rather is criticizing jung's use of language. your point regarding institutionalized racist inequality is valid and accurate. the institutions continue because of the majority's passive acceptance. but contrasting the majority against his "lovers of justice" white friends, jung's statement suggests the majority actively and intentionally supports these systems.

            and please don't associate the notion of "reverse racism" with whites only. plenty of us colored folk know that it exists and undermines the movement.

          • yeah but...  

            the thing is, jung is so _stupid_ about it...

          • Jon

            I think the point you're missing is that it isn't minorities who are denied access to healthcare or good public schools; it's poor people. Wealthy minorities get just as much healthcare as wealthy whites.

            Although race and discrimination are real and obvious problems, focusing only on "white supremacy" ignores the bigger issue of class. Minorities are disproportionately poor, but the solution to the problems you listed isn't to fight "white supremacy," it's to fight against poverty for everyone.

            Race has always been a tool to divide poor whites from poor minorities to prevent any meaningful action to help the poorest in society (For instance, immediately after the Civil War, it was the wealhty southerners who tended to be most progressive on race. When the populist movement, comprised of poor blacks and whites, arose against the wealthy land owners, however, the upper classes switched and began to advocate for stiff segregation laws to convince poor whites that it was the wealthy whites who were their allies and the minorities who were their enemies). Jung's article plays directly into that false division.

            Also, I seriously resent having Du Bois listed as a "token thinker." Du Bois was my favorite 20th century author. Calling him a token thinker implies that he doesn't actually belong in CC and demeans his vast contributions to the modern understanding of race, segregation, and discrimination.

        • yaaay!  

          "the point is that as a white person you are forced to interact with this ideology [of whiteness] in some way (all of us are, actually, but this is only news to white people)."

          It's only news to white people, right? RIGHTO! Because they're all stupid, shocked, lily-white crackers who love Kenny G and lattes and shoulder pads, right? White people are all ignorant, right? That's it, right?

          "why is there such disgusting resistence to even acknowledging america's racialized class system?"

          I'm not trying to resist acknowledging that, I'm just fed up with shitty approaches to fixing it.

  14. no. he's terrible  

    "some of my closest friends are white. They are anti-racist lovers of justice, wholly non-representative of their group."

    That is DISGUSTING. He is directly saying that white people as a whole are racist and opposed to justice. Can we write an article about how blacks are violent and stupid? How would that be any different?

    • no, see  

      since only alex jung can stereotype, not you. i mean, cmon, you thought this was logical?

      on a slightly more serious note, i wonder what mit considers a "black-sounding" name. if it's names like latoya or something like that, i would propose that perhaps it's not the racism, but the prejudice that those names are less-sophisticated, are more lower-class. i don't know: maybe i'm just a white person, i'm too subconsciously racist to really understand.

      *ducks for cover*

      • whoa  

        what the fuck? less sophisticated sounding? what is sophisticated, then? your WHITE version! how can you say that isnt racism? thinking a name is more sophisticated than another, and that "other" being a black-sounding name IS racist you prick.

      • please  

        you're making my head hurt. it's still prejudice to prefer one thing over another due to appearance.

    • I agree  

      Do people not see just how awful that phrase is?

      I think all races can band together and agree that Alex Jung's article is terrible.

  15. I Wonder  

    "every great thought the world ever knew was a white man's thought."

    I always wonder if Dubois knew if Augustine wasn't white (he was a Berber), or if he only trying to make a point about the way white people generally think.

    Regardless, I think it does Augustine a pretty big disservice to call CC and Lit Hum dead white men classes. Especially since by doing so you'd be buying into the white man's lies that all the great writers of pre-modern Western Literature are purely white (see Pushkin and Dumas for other widely known/unkown examples).

  16. gluh

    Is Mr. Jung even vaguely aware of the fact that he's, like, an extreme racist? I mean, like a friggin' borderline "gonna' get me a shotgun and kill all the whiteys I see" kinda' racist? No offense to fans of Garrett Morris, Hitler or Mr. Jung intended.

  17. MeMeMeMe

    If Alex walked into a forest and yelled "RACISM!" but no one was around to hear it, would it make a sound?

  18. uh...  

    Does Alex Jung ever write about anything other than how much white people suck? He's never pointed out that socioeconomically, Asians are on average the best-off of all Americans. It's not just Caucasian people who have an advantage.

    • haha  

      Yeah, occasionally he writes about his sexuality, and how oppressed he is.

      In actuality, Alex, people don't hate you because you're gay. They hate you because of your writing.

  19. need further proof?  

    "some of my closest friends are white. They are anti-racist lovers of justice, wholly non-representative of their group."

    substitute "black" for "white" above, and what do you get?

  20. who cares anymore?  

    alex jung is just in love with the idea of fighting oppression, even if it causes him to adhere to a worldview that is as myopic as those of the evil white people he rails against. i'm sure he feels it gives his life some higher purpose, and it also pulls off the handy trick of allowing him to be shrill and self-righteous behind a cover of activism. the unfortunate thing is that any good points he could ever make are obscured by ridiculous statements like the previously mentioned "kabuki" line. at least this is his last submission; every spring i look forward to the graduation of another of spec's obnoxious columnists (see nell geiser last year).

  21. Capitalist

    I spend my time ignoring Alex Jung, making money, and perpetuating the ideology of oppressment.

    Alex Jung has not affected me in any way.

  22. thing is  

    Alex ain't changin his ways soon, no matter how much criticism he gets. The criticism's actually a reverse effect since he thinks he's a modern-day John Brown!
    Anyway, I haven't read his other columns, but could the white people forget about his self-importance and simply acknowledge that, beneath Jung's personal cries for attention, this article does have a point?

    And jennie's article: dude, I would never work unpaid. not in nyc, not when i'm from out of state.

  23. keep your pants on  

    All you white people get offended whenever anyone makes the legitimate point that centuries of exploitation (it's really not that hard to understand, post #40, ever hear of slavery?), colonisation, and imperialism still have an impact on contemporary society. Anyone who is blind to whiteness in our culture (especially here, in uber-gentrified New York City) is legitimizing the fantasy that our world is "post-race." That is to say, you're upholding the myth that because the Civil Rights movement occurred 40 years ago, it now means that we are all equal and all enlightened. Race is no longer relevant to us. Well, that discourse in itself is a product of whiteness--it is an effort to silence the voices that insist, rightfully, that racism still exists. Guess what, white people? Just because people of color can sit where they want on the bus doesn't mean that we are free of racial prejudice. Importantly, the law cannot be cited as the authority on race relations in this country. Today, racism often appears more implicitly than explicity, that is to say, more subtly veiled than blatant. However, that doesn't mean that it doesn't still exist under the shotty "we're all equal" veneer that we use in order to silence further interrogation of racial prejudice.

    As a white person (who grew up in an almost exclusively white community), I'm always troubled by the failure of white society to acknowledge that centuries of domination and exploitation cannot be miraculously resolved in one fell swoop by Martin Luther King, Jr. (yet, this is how we're taught in elementary school). The end of the Civil Rights movement, as we recognize it, does not signify the end of racial stratification, and nor does saying "we're all equal" suffice as a response to our past.

    • who was  

      even talking about that? with the exception of #40, who assumed that race doesn't matter anymore? it's a shame that you've assumed that if we don't automatically agree with jung's views, his style, or methods, we automatically assume that the civil rights movement was a total success.

      what a dingaling.

  24. it's awesome  

    to preface one's argument by saying that all opposition is an accusation of reverse racism or a denial of the influence of white supremacy. then whenever anyone disagrees, you're off the hook!

  25. omg  

    i think the definitive word on Jung's column is that he is a lazy, self-indulgent writer and a hypocritical activist. i am a rich white male and i have more understanding of race and identity than he. learn some humility, kid.

  26. new idea  

    I nominate Alex Jung as the new "most hated man on campus."

    Kulawik just got served! Way to go Alex!

  27. CML  

    New Facebook group idea: "I'm oppressing E. Alex Jung." Anyone who has ever had a thought or spoken a word is welcome to join.

  28. Hey Jung  

    you say being white gives me undeserved privileges, huh? Then why the fuck are you parading around in your "I'm a N*****F*****" (see: http://youtube.com/watch?v=G2nTbqbtGug) T-shirt like you became a gay minority by winning a contest? Guess what, YOU have the advantage, you imbecile. Why? Because if I want to go to anywhere in life, I have to work my ass off every day of the week. You? You can show up at the interview with a 2.0GPA and a pink miniskirt, and you'll get the job, because of fucking "diversity" requirements. Did YOU get into CU after attending MLK HS in the ghetto? No? Then stop acting like you did.

  29. wow  

    "He is directly saying that white people as a whole are racist and opposed to justice. Can we write an article about how blacks are violent and stupid? How would that be any different?"

    I don't know. How could it be different to insult white people and to insult Black people. What possible distinguishing characteristic might there be? Is there any difference in the history or structural position of Black and white people in the US that might be relevant? You tell me.

    Same questions apply to all the other later commenters who can't figure out why generalizing about white people might not be exactly the same and just as bad as generalizing about people of color.

    • new poster  

      I would agree that it's not as bad for the obvious historical reasons, but it still perpetuates an inflammatory, defensive and uncooperative discourse on the issue.

      My biggest problem with Alex is that he's all talk and no walk. Certainly, structural and implicit racism lives on and we should all be engaged in a conversation about it, but trying to shame, accuse and insult people into starting one probably isn't the best method. It's easy enough to say fight the system but without any specific ideas of how to do so, inane columns do little to further the cause. If you want to see one area where Alex has failed to make any actual difference, look at CQA. There was a good article about it in the Spec today. CQA continues to be run a bunch of bumbling, incompetent, cliquey drama queens who provide absolutely no resources, support or social atmosphere to the gays on campus, and it got significantly worse and more closed off the year Alex was leading. God help anyone fresh out of the closet on this campus who wants to meet some down-to-earth, friendly people... and you can thank the gays like Alex on this campus for turning CQA into the do-nothing organization it is today. Fortunately I came out before CU!

      • ihatealexjung  

        When I was a freshman here there was more the CQA did (What ever happened to First Friday Dances???). The CQA just assumes you'll find your gay community in NY, but a trip to Chelsea is a little frightening if you're fresh out the closet. EAAH does a good job in the CQA vacuum. Did all that really fall apart when Jung ran CQA? One more reason to dislike him.

        And we all know having only friends who are just like you (racially, sexual-orientation-ly, politically, economically), is the best way to end oppression, Alex. It goes for him, and it goes for the rest of us too, on both sides of the argument.

        That said, I'm so glad I'll never have to read one of his self-righteous, facile articles with his victimized tone. Ever. Again. Its articles like that that make me glad I'm graduating.

        • yeah...  

          CQA was better freshman year -- a little. At least back then they actually did stuff. What *did* happen to First Friday dances anyway?? It did seem to fall apart during Alex's time. He's not exactly the most uniting force and I know quite a few people in the community who would rather not have him speak on our behalf.

  30. Anywho,  

    to put what Alex was saying in a less antagonistic form, it is true that we don't really see white people taking up anti-oppression/anti-racism/pro-tolerance causes. Most white people think its enough that themselves aren't racist. However, this isn't enough. You have to be offended enough by the intolerance of some white people to fight racism proactively. If you are indifferent and passive, you are complicit, because your passivity contributes to its existence.

    These aren't my personal views though, but I think that's what Alex was getting at, put in a less bitchy form. I think that's a fair discussion.

  31. blah

    On the bright side, at least a little more effort was put into this anti-white editorial than usual. I read one in the Spec a few years ago where the entire tirade was predicated on the author having heard that white students were avoiding non-white students while walking across Broadway at 116th. Yep. I dunno if we can answer to such hardcore, dedicated fact finding.

  32. Good Business Means  

    Hiring people for credentials and not race, sexuality, or whatever else.

    Hell, America is based on greedy business leaders all pushing each other to strive. It exists even in our academic classes. If you see everyone else slacking off in a class, how inclined are you to study that extra hour for the midterm? How about when you see your classmates busting their asses on each assignment?

    Judgmental employers (racist or otherwise) lose out by not looking at all candidates and possibly not hiring the one with the highest potential to make them the most money.

    Not a short-term process by any means, but hell, if anyone has a good short-term solution to racism, please tell us.

    Hooray for capitalism!

  33. poverty is key  

    I agree that the solutions now should focus on eliminating poverty, rescuing the middle class from demise and ensuring good education for everyone. But it should be mindful as well of the racial inequalities, at least as a barometer for progress in that area. That said, there is plenty of white poverty and it shouldn't be treated any differently. And some parts of the country are starting to defy the trend--in Queens, black families are making more than white families now.

    • iirc  

      If I remember correctly, that Queens figure was heavily dependant on counting immigrant families as black (ie, that figure doesn't mean that African Americans are making more than whites, just well-off immigrants...maybe that means something in and of itself, but whatever it means, it certainly doesn't mean that African Americans are making more than whites in Queens)

      • BarrackAin'tBlack

        So if someone just moved here from Nigeria or South Africa, their ability to succeed in this country with the same skin color as African Americans is diminished because they only bare the scars of apartheid, civil war, poverty and dictatorships from the last fifty years and not slavery that ended one hundred and fifty year ago? Hmmm.

        BTW, if Nigerians and South Africans don't work for you, I'll keep coming up with more and more examples until you decide to answer the question. OK?

        • immigrants  

          Immigrants have different standards of entry if they come legally. They must either have family here already, have a lot of money invested in the US, or have a job already lined up using a certain skill. This means that a huge chunk of the immigrants that are let in legally are already coming in with either a lot of money or a highly coveted and marketable skill. This is not true for all immigrants, but for a good deal of them. The enclave in Queens happens to be highly concentrated with these kinds of immigrants. That's not exactly the same as growing up in the ghetto now is it? Their road isn't easy, but if they're not coming with family or as a political refugee, then they've got to be minimally successful just to get in to the US.

          That's coupled with the fact that studies have shown that on average whites have better views of Africans (seeing them as more industrious and hard working than African Americans), and thus treat them better (this especially comes into play when you start talking about hiring and jobs, etc).

          Immigrants don't have it easy, but they shouldn't be lumped in with African Americans and then be used against African Americans when people say that a place like Queens has more affluent blacks than whites.

        • plus  

          You also neglected to respond to the comment that Queens is one of, if not the ONLY, county in the US where this is true....I fail to see how that highly exceptional county is indicative of the larger problems of poverty and equity in the US

    • also  

      also, pulling out Queens, which I believe is one of the first, if not the first, county where this is true, is in really bad form. Giving the one county in the whole country where this is true as an example makes for a poor argument

  34. wow  

    i've really, really tried having faith in columbia students but...

    this defensiveness of whiteness is so disturbing.

    your guys responses like "I am a white male and even I understand race better than jung" is EXACTLY the problem he's addressing.

    you people (whoever thinks that racial discrimination against people of color is not a HUGE problem today) really need to sit down and listen. learn about ethnic studies. challenge and critique the core's white supremacy.


    and as for class (poor/rich), i assure you that is a gross simplification. the experience of a middle class white person is NOT going to be "equal" to a middle class person of color.

  35. Tomorrow  

    Anyone who thinks blacks and whites are equal in this country is on crack. Take a look at the racial composition of the U.S. Congress; or corporate leadership; or any other leadership roles. You will find that most of America's leaders are white.

    Take a look at photographs from Hurricane Katrina. Blacks are far more likely to be poor than whites. Blacks are far more likely to get shafted than whites.

    That being said, what are we going to do about it? Use what happened yesterday as a guilt bludgeon against whites? Or build for tomorrow?

    Columns like Alex Jungs are in my opinion largely accurate. They also alienate whites by assuming that most whites are racist. This perpetuates prejudice by driving yet another wedge between the whites and people of color! After so many people worked for integration fifty years ago, why are minorities at Columbia today contributing to segregation?!

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.