Define before you assign.

/
 
 

A certain amount of evidence should be needed before you can call someone a racist. If you call someone a racist, and there is public consensus, then that person will likely be shunned or excommunicated. They could lose their job and credibility and so on. So, if labelling someone as a racist has real consequences, then it is important to know what the word means before it is used willy-nilly.

It could be a statement, joke, piece of artwork, policy, controversy, costume, etc. If it has any relation to race at all, there’s a chance for racist allegations. For example: you see a political cartoon and there are different races portrayed in it. Would it be racist to exaggerate the brightness or darkness of a character’s skin? If yes, then how many shades of exaggeration are necessary to qualify as racism? By this logic, it could be considered a form of racism when models on magazines have the shade of their skin electronically augmented. Models of every race have this done regularly and willfully.

Say in this hypothetical political cartoon that the artist emphasizes features of the characters that could be associated with stereotypes of the race in question. If, for example, he draws a character with big lips when the person actually has big lips in real life, were his intentions racist? He or she may in fairness draw other characters with big ears or big noses who actually have those features in real life as well. Is it then up to us to decide which enlargements are racist because of which stereotypical association the artist may or may not have been trying to portray? It could simply be the artist’s style of drawing caricatures, or it could be that they are a racist and meant to emphasize the stereotypes. How are you supposed to know? Artistic intention may be too difficult to pinpoint, especially when looking for racist motivation.

Now to the issue of Halloween, what defines a costume as racist? Most costumes in question usually represent a stereotype of a country or culture, not a race. There is no outfit that could be equated to an entire race. Clothes are about culture. Therefore, a racially motivated costume would be something like “black face” or “white face”. It is impossible to see 1920’s “black face” as anything but blatantly racist. Even then, though, when you see black celebrities such as Dwayne Wade and Nick Cannon put on “white face” for Halloween and receive no criticism for it, questions begin to arise; are they both racist? Are neither of them racist? This double standard of acceptance makes it difficult to get to the truth of the matter.

As far as “cultural appropriation” goes, although as I said earlier it is not really about race, it is still relevant enough that it should be clarified. If all cultures can be “appropriated”, which should be the standard, then it would be fair to say that wearing a Moroccan outfit as a costume would be the same as wearing a Scottish outfit as a costume. It would also be fair to say that a Scottish person wearing this Moroccan outfit would be the same as a Moroccan person wearing a Scottish outfit. Any kind of person (Mexican, Persian, Russian, Zimbabwean, etc.) can wear these outfits as costumes and be equally offensive in doing so. No person is inherently more offensive or less offensive than another. The appropriation of one culture is not inherently more offensive or less offensive than the appropriation of another. So then the issue comes down to how the costume is presented. Is it in good taste or bad taste? Who gets to judge this “taste”? How are they supposed to know the intentions of the costume-wearer? So on and so forth until we’re back full circle to agnosticism.

Be careful and sure before you label anyone or anything as racist. It is a powerful word. Every time you criticize somebody, you are acting as their judge and jury. Do some serious thinking about labels. No one wants to be labelled incorrectly, and although the person may be ignorant, they are not necessarily racist. In turn, to avoid being called racist, it may be a good idea to steer clear when possible of statements or otherwise that may be misconstrued.

 

Why are you here?

/
 
 

 

 Peer pressure is what brought you here. Everyone in your grade is picking a university. You have your doubts but do you really want to be the one kid that doesn’t go? Do you want to tell everyone that university is a waste of money and time? Everyone will likely assume that you couldn’t get in. Even if they don’t, you are still an outcast. Just the question “where are you headed next year” will drive you insane. Plus – and this is the greatest pushfactor by far – you will miss out on the fantasies you have about campus life. Frosh week, drinking, sex and all that. So you end up going. You meet people, make friends and it’s great. But why are you actually here?

“A job!” Maybe because all the current employers took the university path. You can’t get hired unless you’ve lived like the boss. Imagine going into an interview for an engineering job and telling the boss: “I have not gone to university but I have studied and learnt every necessary skill for this job. I am just as well-equipped to work for you as someone with a handful of professors’ seal of approval.” Good luck with that. Bosses want to see that Xring for example. They want you to reek of student debt and beg you for work. They want you to be desperate just like they were in their twenties. It’s the “hazing” equivalent in the professional world.

Maybe you’re here for the knowledge. Well, everything you learn here is in a textbook or online. The professor tells you what to read then repeats it back in class, usually in a more disorganized way. Then they test you to make sure you’re learning the way they want you to. I have had professors spout on about Trump for half of their lecture. Anyways, you’re paying everything you own to have a professor judge how well you’ve memorized their textbooks. Paying to see how well your theories and knowledge matches up with theirs. Then you pat each other on the shoulder. Am I here to get high-fives from my teachers?

It doesn’t matter what program you’re in. “My dad really wanted me to go into business. I didn’t want to waste his money.” If you need to spend four years to learn how to ‘network’ then you’re probably missing the point. If you’re learning to code, do you really think the best way is to have a professor and his textbooks play catch-up with the relevant coding scene? Sure, he can teach you the basics, but so can you yourself. One textbook of information per eight months is a joke compared to the capabilities of the internet. The sole reason textbooks exist is for the huge profit margins. There is no reason why your curriculum can’t be available for free online, just like ‘Khan Academy’. Calculus is not copyrighted. Shakespeare is not copyrighted.

“What about the laboratories?” or “what about the university experience?” Here’s my solution. The university becomes a sort of community centre. People can pay to book laboratory time, as they need it. The “university” can rent out more sophisticated equipment for higher prices. Classrooms are large open forums with computers. The computers can be rented or you can bring your own laptop, or books, or whatever. You don’t pay to sit as a class. People just meet up in groups naturally to study what they need to. If you don’t know something, you learn it. People who are more experienced would teach those who are less experienced like independent contractors. If what they’re teaching you is wrong in your opinion, then you take your business elsewhere. You are not locked down for eight months; you can come and go as you please. A “university” community would develop naturally. Clubs and sports teams would create themselves, as they do in the real world at places like the YMCA. People would live with other students of their own age and share their interests naturally. We need a free market of learning, not some out-dated business model. Like any other industry, technology will pass it by. The only question is “when?”