Absolute acceptance, advocacy stifles diversity
Written by Katie Wycklendt on April 10, 2007 – 11:52 pm - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
Listed previously on Daniel Suhr’s thorough summary of upcoming campus events is Saturday’s Diversity Conference. Sponsored by MUSG, the conference would not have made much of an unusual call to my attention had it not been for the ever-informative Facebook News Feed.
It called loudly. If the title of the conference is any indication, the focus will be going “Beyond Tolerance: Moving Toward Acceptance and Advocacy.” From the event’s Facebook page:
On Saturday, April 14, MUSG will host a diversity conference entitled, “Beyond Tolerance: Moving Toward Advocacy.†This This is an exciting event that will integrate interesting workshops, inspiring media presentations and a thought-provoking keynote.
Two notable workshops will be “Hurricane Katrina: A Man-Made Disaster†and “Racial Aesthetics: The Standard of Beauty in a Racist World.â€
The conference will also feature screenings of Media that Matters short films, which are geared toward social justice oriented topics from gay rights to economic justice. The screenings should spark worthwhile discussion and foster meaningful social action and advocacy.
Carlos Andrès Gòmez, an award-winning poet and actor from New York City, will give the keynote address. Carlos is also a former social worker and teacher and will speak about his experiences with social advocacy while integrating poetry and style.
This title alone is quite curious. There is nothing about diversity that requires acceptance, much less advocacy. While tolerance is the essence of a diverse community, approval and encouragement of all differences from all parties results in an actual stifling of diversity. In fact, true diversity is impossible if it calls for these things.
Alas, a frequent problem with promotions of “diversity” is that advocates of certain groups believe that we must go beyond tolerance. The title of MUSG’s conference is a blaring endorsement of that ideology. It should be noted, at the least, that the organizers deserve credit for publicly proclaiming this viewpoint rather than backhandedly promoting it.
Of course, it’s important to go beyond the title, too. As Daniel also notes, the MUSG website explains that the conference’s purpose is “to challenge participants to move beyond indifference and tolerance and toward becoming active agents of positive change against oppression.”
This indicates the larger agenda of the conference, focused on ending oppression. A complete listing of the topics and events is not readily available, but those mentioned in the Facebook blurb appear to be from quite a short, homogeneous (irony anyone?), liberal-favorites list. What does look particularly interesting and not nearly so politically slanted, however, is the fact that “the conference also seeks to examine racial issues that permeate the metropolitan Milwaukee area.”
Further, while there are no details on what types of social advocacy experiences keynote speaker Gòmez will discuss, a search of his website reveals that his poems have been included in such socially active publications as this one.
I hope to attend on Saturday, if possible, to see how closely the content of the conference matches up with the title. It would be refreshing to see diverse viewpoints represented in the presentations given.
Last 5 posts by Katie Wycklendt- Marquette Must Prosecute - Fully and Publicly - March 5th, 2008
- ¿Por qué no te callas?: Hugo Chavez Still Won´t Shut It - November 18th, 2007
- Tribune Preoccupation Wows Me - September 19th, 2007
- "Clout" Proves Easy to Come by at Black Journalists' Convention - August 12th, 2007
- License Plate Splicer on Campus - July 18th, 2007
Posted in We ask the Tough Questions. |
April 11th, 2007 at 11:42 am
“There is nothing about diversity that requires acceptance, much less advocacy.”
Are you serious?
We live in a diverse world right? We also live an oppressive world, where people easily have their human rights stripped of them because certain other groups of people are in power and feel that the other groups are not equals. Equality is the very essence of diversity. Respecting, accepting and celebrating differences without setting up an unjust community/society.
How could we have diversity if you don’t even LIKE the diverse people that you want to come in? Way to make them feel welcome.
April 11th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
We live in a very diverse world and country, no doubt, but Katie is right, diversity exists whether you advocate for it or not, and it exists whether you accept it or not and LIKE comes from MUTUAL respect.
Acceptance of diversity is EVERY individual’s responsibility regardless of a label and it is the individual, not the label, which is most important. I hope that is reflected in the conference and I hope the conference is going to encourage unity instead of division and finger pointing. Despite that at first glance it doesn’t seem like thats the case I am going to hope for the best.
April 11th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
“Acceptance of diversity is EVERY individual’s responsibility…”
Exactly. And with acceptance comes the knowledge and understanding that one person or group is no better than another. That’s where a good chunk of this campus falls short. The straight white upper class heterosexual male agenda isn’t fair to the vast majority of the population, and true acceptance of diversity would foster a world where that agenda falls away in favor of one that doesn’t pay women less and racially profile African-Americans when it comes to crime and allows employers to discriminate against homosexuals and treat the poor like they’re stupid and advocate for anti-Muslim hate speech and so on.
And contrary to what I think you’re saying Nathan, you don’t have to like something to accept it. Acceptance is a basic principle of moral obligation and human dignity — I accept that there are republicans because we don’t live in a homogenous political climate and it’s silly of me to think I can change that, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it
April 11th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Essentially, Katie is right. We all ought to show tolerance toward viewpoints and attributes which differ from our own. However, acceptance is a whole different animal. Acceptance requires tacit approval. It is mentally impossible to accept all viewpoints; many of them are mutually exclusive, as evidenced by the arguments between social liberals and social conservatives on this very site. The cognitive dissonance would be staggering. Tolerance–granting permission to others to follow their own beliefs without interference–suffices.
April 12th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
mu socialists,
“The straight white upper class heterosexual male agenda ” and then the rest of it…..
You have an emotional attachment to that belief, not a rational one. You indulge in that fantacy because you enjoy your hate. It reminds me of people I used to here say the gay agenda was to make everyone else gay, and the other that it’s the gays that spread “that” disease. It’s absurd!
C’mon, you know better.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
so katie, (just an example) what part of Martin Luther King’s advocacy for legal and social freedom of all minorities and otherwised oppressed in america in the 1950s and 1960s involved forcing your grandparents and mine to throw away their white sheets and robes and stop wishing deeply in their heart of hearts for white power to stand the test of time, and for that rabble rousing outsider to stop stirring up the south?
acceptance has nothing to do with you and the rest of the GOP3 crew, or as you’ve come to be known in secret intolerant circles of those evil, evil liberal gay lovers, “whiteprivilege.com,” walking into a homosexual students room when he or she is with their partner and saying “i have absolutely no problem with what you do!” acceptance is asking you to let a black guy walk down the street in broad daylight without you shivering as if he’ll rob you, asking you to let homosexual couples hold hands if they want and do all the PDA that straight couples enjoy without demanding “in the name of GAWWWWD” they stop ruining america, etc. that’s all advocates want, and advocates want laws beefing it up just like MLK’s era
really, quit pretending like being accepting of differences is asking people like jerry falwell to do a 180 on their belief system and stand up on podiums renouncing the bible as a hateful, mistranslated device of groups led by former nazis
April 13th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
To the leftists in this discussion:
Just what would be wrong with having both sides of the issues dealt with in the “diversity” program presented?
Why not debate each and every issue raised, with advocates on both sides?
What would be wrong with that?
And why does the “diversity” crowd always produce programs that are badly stacked, with only leftist views presented?
And please don’t respond that only leftist views are the correct ones. If that in fact is true, such views ought to prevail in an open debate.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Are there really just two sides to every diversity issue? Not everything in this entire world is split between liberal and conservative. Some topics like anti-predjudice, anti-bigotry, hate crimes, or inclusion are things that should just be common sense when talking about diversity issues. There are specific Christian point of views that are common no matter where you fall on the political spectrum. If there were two sides, why didn’t the “other” side step up and answer the call for presentations?? Was it because there wasn’t any belief they held that actually had to do with moving beyond tolerance toward acceptance?
Tolerance= “Yeah, whatever, I’ll put up with you, but don’t bother me.”
Acceptance= “Hey, I respect you as a person even if we dissagree, I want to be your friend.”
The “diversity” crowd mainly presents what you call “leftist” views because in general people who are not of the majority are fairly liberal, progressive-minded people who want to CHANGE the world. They see the conditions in our world and do not feel that we are in the best situation. Conservatives don’t like change, remember? They would like to keep the status quo or bring it back to the way it used to be.
Liberals would be conservatives too if they were ignorant of injustices.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:56 am
JMichael,
You raise a very good debate here and I agree with your first point. For another example, if laws were to be enacted making gay marriage legal, it would not force Christians to believe that homosexuality is moral. Nor would it make them accept it. Nor would it make them advocate it. They would simply be living under beefed up laws that were advocated by someone else.
I don’t think we are disagreeing on much more than perhaps the definition of acceptance [at least when it comes to this particular, specific point :)]. What you call acceptance seems to be more along the lines of what I call tolerance.
Thanks for the thoughts and for reading. If there is much worth noting, I will let you know how the conference goes tomorrow. Perhaps I will come away an advocate.
Katie
P.S. Most privileged people are white (for lack of closer statistics, I have substituted income). Most robbers are black. I will not question your judgment of stereotypers.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
But if they are so “common,” what is the need to push one side?
Support for gay marriage, for example, is not “common.” A majority of Americans are against it.
So why not, when it is discussed, allow both sides to be presented?
You say “not everything in this world is split between liberal and conservative,” but you call yourself “liberal Christian.” You apparently believe some important things are split.
Gay marriage is split. Abortion is split. Taxation is split. The War in Iraq is split. Israel vs. the Palestinians is split.
Then you say:
Basically, you are saying “we liberals are right, and you conservatives are wrong.
Your lack of respect for conservative views doesn’t suggest tolerance on your part.
And again, if you liberals are right, why would not an open and balanced debate reveal that?
Could it be that deep down you fear you would lose such a debate?
Also, as for “status quo:” you liberals are the status quo people on all kinds of issues, like abortion, school prayer, affirmative action, school choice. So if “status quo” people should not be listened to, you are the ones who should not be listened to.
You really are simply convinced that your view (and the views of fellow leftists) is right, and that therefore alternative views should not be heard.