On Friday, a Facebook friend shared an article entitled "OU College Republicans student group expresses concerns about mandatory diversity training." The article quoted several members of OU Republicans who expressed clear distaste for OU’s mandatory diversity training. Before delving into my response, I want to state that I completely understand that OU’s particular diversity course and its implementation have problems. However, what I found troubling about the opinions expressed by these OU Republicans was the apparent lack of willingness to acknowledge the urgency and necessity of any diversity education at all.
I first want to make sure that everyone remembers with crystal clarity why we implemented mandatory diversity training to begin with. The SAE video that was exposed to our campus last year contained literal death threats against black people. That’s the bottom line. If you think I’m speaking in hyperbole, I need you to confront the ugly truth that the lyrics in the chant explicitly referenced lynching, an act of tremendous violence against black Americans and other people of color that unfortunately cannot be considered "historical," as it still occurs and is regularly referenced today.
These trainings, created in the maelstrom of emotions and consequences that followed the exposure of SAE’s threat-laced chant, are not perfect. But contrary to what these members of OU Republicans would have you believe, diversity education is necessary in today’s world and is especially necessary on a campus like ours.
First, I would like to know exactly which parts of the curriculum made students "uncomfortable." I have no doubt that diversity education can be difficult for students who enjoy racial, gender, sexual, class and religious privilege, but I would caution my colleagues from avoiding discomfort completely. As so many of the students quoted were quick to point out, where does discomfort belong if not at the university level? If we desire an environment that truly exposes students to the "truth" of the world, why should we allow exemptions from emotionally taxing discussions about the systemic privilege that most of us — myself included — enjoy?
Secondly, I was frustrated by a student’s criticism of inclusive language training. The student claims that in the real world we should just "apologize and move on." Ultimately, this argument misses the real goal of such training. The goal of inclusive language training is to draw our attention to biased, discriminatory or outmoded ways of thinking, along with the underlying prejudices that such language has reinforced. By understanding which words are hurtful to different groups of people, we can avoid using them at all and causing harm in the first place. When we train ourselves to speak mindfully, we take the blame off the person who we have hurt and assume responsibility (as compassionate, educated adults) for our actions.
Another student expressed that OU’s diversity training was too divisive, leading to further labeling based on identity rather than on common humanity. This line of thought stems from an incorrect conception of diversity — one that merely views people in accordance with a quota system, marking any two people with the same identity totally interchangeable. Thirty years ago, that might have been enough, but activists now realize that in order to unify and truly love one another, we must celebrate the things that make us different. Not a single one of us knows what it means to be completely human. The "human experience" cannot be condensed or or expressed in just one way; if it exists at all, it can only be fully seen when we all stand together, celebrating the differences and various identities that have shaped the way we, as gloriously diverse individuals, live in the world. The point isn’t to label us so that we can be kept apart; the point is to let us wear the labels we desire with pride, so that we never have to hide or obscure the things that make us, us.
Diversity — meaningful, inclusive, celebratory diversity — is not the same as this conveniently blameworthy, amorphously defined spectre of "political correctness," which terrifies the OU College Republicans. Continuing to ignore underrepresented groups perpetuates oppression, and if we criticize "political correctness" in order to avoid changing our worldview to accommodate others’ experiences of oppression, we continue being part of the problem.
OU is a public university. I don’t know why you chose to attend it, but our state and school have a responsibility to respect and protect every single member of our community. While this training may make you "uncomfortable," it does not give you the right to willfully ignore the harm that you may be causing to your fellow students. It is within your rights to discuss or criticize what you have been told in such trainings, but it is ignorant, condescending and hurtful to place your personal comfort over a frank exploration of others’ opinions and experiences.
If you are a member of this organization who disagrees with the article published on Friday, I challenge you to speak out. Show us you care about our community’s openness and diversity. While the students quoted in the article may feel some sense of bravery for criticizing inclusivity efforts, I propose we flip that assumption. Being able to admit that our preconceived notions, prejudices and seemingly inconsequential words are harming our friends and loved ones — and humbly working towards bettering ourselves — that's real courage.
Audra Brulc is an international studies junior, a consultant for The Oklahoma Group, a blog writer for Students for Social Justice and a student leader in the College of International Studies.
Post a comment as
Report
Watch this discussion.
(11) comments
In our country it is unconstitutional to require anyone to think the way you think and to punish you for thoughts and opinions. It simply is a fascist concept that is prohibited by our Constitution. Perhaps you would be more comfortable in a country that does not value concepts of free thinking. I would suggest you avail yourslef to one of them so that you could be happier and not impose your totolitarian views on fellow citizens. Thanks.
Audra must have been brainwashed many years ago. First she says the following. "I have no doubt that diversity education can be difficult for students who enjoy racial, gender, sexual, class and religious privilege, but I would caution my colleagues from avoiding discomfort completely. As so many of the students quoted were quick to point out, where does discomfort belong if not at the university level? If we desire an environment that truly exposes students to the "truth" of the world, why should we allow exemptions from emotionally taxing discussions about the systemic privilege that most of us — myself included — enjoy?"
Maybe she is one of the few students that are privileged. Maybe here family is worth millions and is a trust fund baby. Otherwise she is not privileged. In the stupidity of liberal thought we have today. They claim it is a privilege to be white. This in spite of the attack on whiteness since the 70s. The preference in hiring that has gone on for years in the name of affirmative action. The media attack that always makes the white, especially the white guy inept and stupid. Yet objectively there are far more stupid in the races that make up the educational achievement gap that the US department of education worries about on its website. And to disprove such privilege, why is the Asian the ones that do the best in the US society. They do better on standardized tests. They have better economic achievement. Apparently by liberal thought, Asians should be considered the most privileged. I consider them to combine raw talent with a strong work ethic. It is the same privilege that whites as a group enjoy. So unless you are a talentless trust fund baby as Audra must be, don't let them lie to you and tell you how privileged you are for for any gift of intelligence you have or stable home life.
She also says that students are being exposed to "truth." But privilege is a cudgel (bat for you unprivileged) to beat people with talent or stable upbringings. When I was younger this success shaming worked a bit on me. But as I've grown older, I see that individuals have different talents and some have had the luxury of a blessed life. We all just need to do the best we can with the hand we are dealt. No one holds anyone back. Talent or the lack thereof may hold someone back or propel them forward. Having loving and nurturing parents or not will do the same thing. Very few people don't have some obstacle to overcome. But making excuses about privilege just allows people to wallow in their problems and gives them an excuse to not overcome them.
Then Audra the sweet little privileged snow flake she is, says this. "The goal of inclusive language training is to draw our attention to biased, discriminatory or outmoded ways of thinking, along with the underlying prejudices that such language has reinforced." Excuse me Audra, but what role does any branch of the government have in trying to control our ways of thinking? Who exactly decides what is biased, discriminatory or outmoded ways of thinking. Who exactly would you give that power to, to police your thoughts? A free person is free to think anything they want. So what you advocate is control, regulation, oppression, you do not advocate freedom. The you go on to target our first amendment right to use whatever language we want. I'm sure some of those words you don't like are husband, wife, mother, father, brother, sister, etc. At their core they assign sex to an individual, they assing status in a family. You and your ilk, want words like spouse number 1 and number 2, sibling number 1 and number 2, insane positions like that. You want us to call Bruce Jenner by a girls name and ignore the fact that a simple genetics test would reveal his sex is male. I understand there are now transhumanists that want to be thought of as a cat or a dolphin. I hate to break it to you, but all your communist thought control won't allow someone to change their species or their sex. On a genetic level, there is always objective truth as opposed to the political "truth" that cultural Marxists such as yourself advocate.
Wow. For someone so angry about political correctness, you sure are sensitive.
I'm angry about any part of the government telling people what is proper to think or say. Audra has every right to her opinions, she has no right to use the power of government to impose them on others. She on the other had cheers on government control and manipulation of people's thoughts and words. So when it comes to government power, I am very sensitive. When it comes to what Audra personally thinks, I could care less.
So, the University of Oklahoma is creating "re-education centers" to force students to think a certain way. What's next? Political Officers to hunt down students who choose not to conform? We should start calling liberals what they really are: "Facism!"
Actually, the University of Oklahoma is creating programs that challenge students to think outside of their own perspective. It is, in reality, allowing students to explore what they believe to be true and solidify their own foundation of thinking based on learning more about the experience of others. If students want to retain beliefs that they came into college with, regardless of if those are religious, social, political, etc., that is perfectly fine. Learning about other's perspectives and recognizing the different ways in which people experience the world doesn't weaken one's ability to think what they want to think. If anything, it pushes them to create a fuller understanding of how they see and participate in society.
When "training" becomes "mandatory," it is no longer a choice. It is indoctrination, which is a violation of a persons right to choose what they believe and how they think.
Mandatory training is indoctrination to you? Have you ever had a job before? The majority of the jobs I've ever worked have had some kind of diversity training along with the normal training you would expect. I would like to see your actual criticism of the course, though, instead of broad generalizations.
@asteroidcamper In an employee employer relationship then can mandate training. You can chose to quit and there is no implication of government power. In a college environment where the students are the customers, it is odd to think they are there to be ordered around. Since the college is a part of the government, there is also the issue of government power and the limitations placed on them by both the State Constitution and the US Constitution. Do you get how this is different?
The definition of indoctrination is "to imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view." Corporate American provides equal opportunity and sexual harassment training. No employer I have ever worked for has ever mandated diversity training (including Boeing, Control Data Corp, Computer Systems Corp, Univ. of Oklahoma, DoD, and other corporations. I've been around a very long time). How would you feel if the university mandated Christianity training to "challenge students to think outside of their own perspective?" It's the same thing! You are forcing people to think a certain way. That is fascism.
So, the University of Oklahoma is creating "re-education centers" to force students to think a certain way. What's next? Political Officers to hunt down students who choose not to conform? We should start calling liberals what they really are: "Facists!"
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.