UNR Students for Liberty » Diversity

Campus Discussion: Diversity

Barry Belmont — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:31:00 +0000

Oh. My. Goodness…

Racism and Comedy, Or; How to Make a Point

Barry Belmont — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:33:20 +0000

How is the “debate” about the supposedly “racist” skit done by a comedy troupe here in Reno even still an issue? No person involved is a racist. It seems that no person involved has been offended. No one cares. This. Shouldn’t. Be. An. Issue. But it seems to be and to prove a point I’m going to take the issue and crank it up to 11 as only a member of the UNR Students for Liberty can.

You see, there is actually no such thing as race. It is biologically irrelevant and civilly divisive. And even though the comedy troupe doesn’t appear to have been trying to make fun of race, maybe they should have. In fact, maybe I should. Below are a bunch of funny things about race — none of which are “offensive” in any meaningful respect.

If you choose to be offended by any of this you need to do two things: 1) Grow up. We’re adults, we should be able to talk about all issues with a sense of level-headed maturity. 2) Dash your misplaced sense of superiority against the rocks. Yes, these things are childish, but they’re also pretty funny. So crack a smile, while discovering that “race” really has no place in today’s society.

…And just to drive the point home, this is what blackface looks like:

…there’s nothing scary about it. It’s just some guy with shoe polish on his face. He isn’t unraveling the fabric of society. He isn’t destroying hearts and shattering minds. This picture, old timey, faded, black and white, is literally the epitome of absurdity in race relations.

It’s just a guy with shoe polish on his face.

Racist Comedy at UNR…

Barry Belmont — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:36:39 +0000

No, no, we’re not talking about the ever-present farce that are diversity initiatives, we’re talking about a recent comedy skit performed for the ASUN Leadership conference. Apparently this troupe did a skit about Barack Obama and one of the actors, to impersonate him, painted his face black. This, many people seem to think, is a direct mimicry of “blackface” comedy that was meant to insult black people a long time ago. And while one of the actors sensibly claimed, “If we are going to portray a girl, we are going to dress like a girl,” there still seems to be a huffing and puffing about this particular incident.

Clearly, we over here at the UNR Students for Liberty would be fine even with actual racist comedy as we feel the freedom of expression is more important than upholding tired notions of racial identity, but it seems that this is not the case. And though we rarely find anything within the Nevada Sagebrush comments section that is worth the neurons we waste on it, this particular response, which we quote at length, is absolutely wonderful. Go Brandon Ford:

“I like the fact that I was interviewed and nothing I said seemed to matter. I am a African American male at the University of Nevada, Reno and was in the audience when this sketch was performed. In no way was that racism. It was just a sketch highlighting Barack Obama and the things he has done over his first year in office. Because brown makeup is used, it is automatically racism. In that entire sketch or show, were they trying to single out a race or anyone. It is comedy, deal with it. Saturday Night Live does the same thing and we laugh and tune in the next week. A amateur troupe does the same thing and now they are racist. Seriously??? When a clown puts on white makeup, is he not entertaining people? When people are dressing up like women and over sized women is that not the same thing? People are creating racism and a problem now exists because something so small has to get blown up for no reason. As a black man, I did not feel threatened nor did I feel like these comedic actors were attacking my race. I am a proud person but I know the difference between racism and comedy. Now, we have three performers who happened to be white on the chop block because they did what they like to do: MAKE PEOPLE LAUGH!!!! If I did a Bill Clinton impression I will try to make my skin paler and hair grayer and whiter. I can’t sell my performance without looking it. Because it was a white performer who portrayed Obama, who wanted his performance to seem as realistic as possible, put makeup on his face not to defame him but to merely be like him. He even sounded like our president which was quite impressive. I am from a state and town that is predominately black and I know for a fact those same people I call friends would sit with me and laugh too because: IT’S FUNNY!!!! As a adolescent I had experienced racism that was real and for real, and never on that Saturday afternoon in the theater in the JCSU did I once think that those three performers were racist of any kind. During that sketch or any sketch they did, it never once crossed my mind that these actors were racist or trying to send the wrong message. They were looking for one thing and that was to: MAKE PEOPLE LAUGH!!!! And they got what they wanted. I am proud to call those of who you accused my good-good friends here at University of Nevada, Reno and never would once think that they meant any of this nonsense taking place as I speak. There is a reason why racism and its undertone still exists, and this the reason why. Thanks for free speech on campus UNR, we greatly appreciate it!”

Dear Gracie II, Or; How To Miss The Point, Again

Barry Belmont — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 05:45:32 +0000

Dear Gracie.

Diagnosis Part I. The Problem.

What is that thing called where one points out one’s faults in another person? It’s taught in Psych 101 classes. Oh what’s it called? From Wikipedia: Psychological projection [...] is the unconscious act of denial of a person’s own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, the government, a tool, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have the same feelings or motives, rather than what they really think. Yeah, that’s what you’ve got. Not being a psychologist (and the first to admit it!), I would say my diagnosis of you is rudimentary at best, but one does not need to be an otorhinolaryngologist to see the nose right in front of you.

Diagnosis Part II. The Signs.

1. You posted a 450+ word response less than one hour after the original 1000+ word letter was written. I guess my suggestion to “Please spend more time thinking about your responses than typing them. Gut reactions are not befitting you.” was taken with the seriousness I expected it to be.

2. You either knowingly misrepresented my position or failed to grasp it to begin with. I didn’t say there is “only” right and wrong in the world. Rather I said that right and wrong exist (knowing full-well that there are innumerable issues which do not fall into this dichotomy: there exists, after all, shades of grey)…which is a rather innocuous statement of reality if you think about it. (For instance, there either is a moon or there isn’t one.)

3. You kept harping on a point that is pointless to this discussion: it doesn’t matter if the VisLupiKids got their racial facts wrong about the U Commy. I. Do. Not. Care. I am not defending the VisLupes, nor their position, that has nothing to do with my letter. In it I claimed that you constantly dodge issues (“How To Miss The Point”) which your response is yet another example of and that your position with respect to “diversity” is misguided.

4. You constructed me as a straw man and said I am “not open to new ideas and dialogue.” And what evidence do you have to support this opinion? If you were too busy lacing your good points (cultural diversity brings about a greater understanding of humanity in general) with meandering B.S. (seriously a whole paragraph, rehashing what your original comment said?) then it’d be much easier to engage in important issues seriously with you. But instead watch how easy it is to make your claim: You, Gracie, are not open to new ideas and dialogue, and that offends me.

5. You claim that you ‘don’t close [your] mind and think [you're] the “right” and everything else is the “wrong” ‘. Well no one but a fool would agree with that statement. You do, in fact, think you are right. Everyone does. Anyone who doesn’t think their opinion is right and act on that assumption simply doesn’t. And no one thinks “everything else is wrong in society.” That’s just asinine.

6. You then say that I am doing the same offensive thing as you are. Though apparently my way of “classifying” doesn’t seem to rely on the bigoted notion of skin color and instead relies on the merit of opinions and ideas… Even if this were true, you’re just making me sound better here, and you sound worse. Though now that you mention it, what exactly is wrong on judging people’s opinions based on the merit of their propositions?

7. You end by brushing over your errors and “admitting” to them while simultaneously insinuating that I cannot. Having obviously never attended a SFL meeting where I often discover my position to be wrong, I’d say you’re just swatting at a straw man again. But whatever, get your rocks off in the comment section of UNR-based websites you callow little thing.

The Diagnosis Part III. The Symptoms.

You are a bad defender of your poor positions. You lack any insight into anything that I would be interested in. You make meaningless claims on meaningless subjects. You have a knack for hollowing words of their significances and leaving them as so much dead pixels splayed across a screen. When you do manage to infuse some kind of point into your speeches, it is rarely a point you would be proud to make (such as being seen as racist, when, in all likelihood, you are not). You project all of your own arguments’ flaws onto your opponent. You defend positions no one criticizes and completely glean over those which others have problems with. You are good at what you do, problem is that what you do is bad.

The Diagnosis Part IV. The Solution?

Once again, I’m not a doctor. I have no valid medical opinion. I have very few valid opinions. In fact, all of the evidence I have presented is open to interpretation. But as I see it, you have no idea what I am driving at nor any idea how you should feel about it. Rather than careful consideration to pertinent arguments, you’d rather spam the internet with your dribble babble NonSpeak like an internet troll gone bureacratically berserk with power.

To remedy this I suggest you either a) pull your head out of your ass in order to better see, hear, and understand the world or b) leave issues you know little about alone, perhaps to revisit at another time when you are more knowledgeable about the topic.

As a side note, if you’re “actually really interested in” my opinion about race, think briefly about how ass-backward the statement “Some people are proud of their heritage” really is… Don’t see anything wrong with it? Well, consider that “Some people” doesn’t just mean Mexicans at a fiesta or Japanese people drinking tea on their floors or Indians doing a rain dance, it also means neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, the Black Panthers, and Muslim terrorists. There is nothing to be “proud” of based on your skin color or your religion or your gender or your social, political, or economic upbringing. It’s luck of the draw: just because someone thinks they were born with a royal flush doesn’t mean they aren’t just a royal pain in the ass.

Finally, consider the simple example my dad related to me: what about a blind man who can’t see any of this “diversity.” What then? There are no “black” or “brown” or “white” people to him. Is he supposed to feel for the crosses and stars of David and ankh’s on people’s necklaces to determine their religion? Must he grope for breasts to determine gender?

Put yourself in his place for a day, Gracie. Try to feel how much better the world is when you stop trying to categorize others and realize we’re all just hurtling around this big ol’ universe on a tiny rock. We’re not men, we’re not women, we’re not white nor black nor brown, we’re not Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, we’re not vegetarians and meat-eaters, not gay or straight, not the differences that divide us. We’re just people.

We’re 99+% of the same genetic stuff. It’s time we start acting that way.

I mean it this time,
Barry Belmont

Dear Gracie, Or; How To Miss The Point

Barry Belmont — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:20:33 +0000

Dear Gracie,

I read what you write sometimes. Whether it’s on the Sagebrush website or your failed Senate blog or (more recently) on the VisLupiGang’s blog, I read your stuff. I read your stuff and I am appalled. Appalled sometimes at the grammar and syntactical structure. Appalled sometimes at the use of overly passive aggressive langauge. Appalled at all those idiosyncratic personality quibbles that make you and I unrelatable to one another — I seek to destroy that which you seek to maintain. But lately I am appalled at the utter pointlessness of your remarks.

On the ViLuEsGre blog, in the comments, you said something to the chagrin of:

In talking about diversity, you only talked about race and gender, not other things like socioeconomic status or sexual orientation.

Implying that “diversity” is not “only” made up of “race and gender” but also “socioeconomic status” and “sexual orientation.” A perfectly reasonable position. When people talk about the concept of “diversity” in regards to “diversity initiatives” in colleges and workplaces they generally mean to include such things as race, gender, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, etc… Nothing wrong with that definition. You then went on to state:

You also didn’t even analyze the races close to what they would have classified themselves [...] Furthermore, you have not listed or analyzed the entire Unity Commission, as three (to my knowledge) are not listed– which consist of two males and a female, all of different ethnicities.

Regarding the “races” of the Unity Commission’s members. And while it’s a mangling of phrasing, your meaning is fairly intuitive: the article you’re commenting on misrepresented the amount of “diversity” (in this case, in the form of “racial diversity”) in the U Commy, a fact that can easily be born out by the the evidence. You hold that there is a fair amount of racial diversity in the U Commy and this is a good thing. You then go on to say something about Republicans and end by saying:

you should probably do a bit more research, before trying to label somebody a specific race–you should probably also take other diversity classifications into account, and then, maybe, you could have an argument.

Now, I don’t see the big, important, F-ing deal with the determination of specific “races” because as a biology major (and born after 1967) I know the term “race” has no real meaning except as a way to put people into arbitrarily different groups, but hey, to each their own. Let those who want to call this person White and this one Black and this one Brown have their way and say so to their hearts’ content.

After you, an anonymous poster, Not Gracie, had this to say to you in response:

In other words, “See, there are brown colored people in the commission. And poor people. And men. And probably some gays, too!”

Honestly, do you realize how incredibly offensive you sound Gracie?

I don’t see myself disagreeing with Not Gracie. I mean, granted Not Gracie put it a little more blatantly than you, but ultimately you were claiming that there were enough shades of skin color on the U Com to be of a satisfactory diversification. Some people might take offense to these kinds of claims, I mean, after all, why is racial diversity important? Isn’t it just sort of a new form of segregation? Separate but equal? Equal and separate? It is just a way to say You are DIFFERENT from Me in a SIGNIFICANT way.

But ever the responder to That Which It Is Better To Not Respond To, you, Gracie, retorted to Not Gracie with:

Offensive? [...] I’m not taking a stance on whether race, gender, etc define diversity, as I’m fully aware that’s what the Unity Commission is trying to combat. Labels (like sexual orientation, race, gender, etc.) don’t soley [sic] make a person/group “diverse,” by any means.

I urge you to go back and read your words as this is precisely what you did (the first quote, and the bold portion of the third). But as if this wasn’t enough you made the statement regarding the raging debates about “diversity” that prompted this letter to you:

I’m not agreeing with any argument.

You might as well say “Chicken tastes good and I like to eat it because of it” while discussing what color to paint your house. Every statement must be for or against some position if it is to be of any use at all. You either have something of merit to bring to the conversation in which case your opinion will be critiqued or you have nothing to add to an argument and you just shut the hell up. Either you think diversity involves all the things you claim it does or it doesn’t. There is only one right answer on that matter.

So, Gracie, I leave you with three things to think about:

1. Your remarks were offensive as they uphold the notion that there is such a thing as race. The entire notion of racial identity is sickening and antiquated. It promotes bigotry and elitism in equal amounts. It makes of people both criminals and victims. Racism can only exist when there are “races” upon which people can misplace their frustrations and hatred.

2. There exists right and wrong in this world. You and I hold mutually exclusive positions on a great many things. For each of these positions only one of us is right, the other is wrong. I think “diversity” as a concept is pointless and hurtful. If you think anything other than that, then only one of us will be right on this issue. I am not so presumptuous to assume it’s me, but I am aware it is not both of us.

3. Please spend more time thinking about your responses than typing them. Gut reactions are not befitting you. You make careless mistakes, you play yourself as an unknowing victim, you often only respond by saying Well, if you come meet with me or come to the senate meetings (as if many of us gave enough rats’ asses to waste our time with such trivialities), and rather than let any criticism soak in and take to heart, you immediately dismiss it and let it glide off you like rain from a duck’s behind.

Let this mix and marinate with your brain juices for awhile.

Rather insincerely,
Barry Belmont

P.S. Thanks VisLupiGang for the recent kinda-nice post about us.

Another Difficulty in Campus Involvement…

John Russell — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:39:27 +0000

Looking back on the brief experience I had with ASUN, I can’t help but laugh when the student officers and bureaucrats alike would have entire meetings trying to determine the reasons why people on campus do not become more involved with their affairs. Ignore for a moment their tarnished superiority complex or why the Students for Liberty can have more people in a room participating far more than the senate could ever achieve (with paid members), and instead consider a situation I had with a representative from the diversity commission.

Last week I primed my future posts on the repugnant moral premise the diversity movement unintentionally holds (like how the super elite humans (board of regents) are mandating for more less superior humans (“different” people) like some order request for more… lawnmowers… but more on this later) and I got an invitation from an ASUN representative to attend their meeting. Charlie Jose invited me to go to the Unity Commission meeting:

if you would like to attend a Unity Commission meeting to voice your concerns, they are at 9:30pm on Wednesdays. Visitors are more than welcome. Please let me know, and I can put you on the agenda as a special guest of the audience. you can contact me at 702.339.3864 or vicepresident@asun.unr.edu.

I added this time to my calendar and I was all set to go with some club members tomorrow to sit in and learn what they are all about. Their most recent event is “Sexual Awareness Week”, which seems to extend outside the realm of what I would consider diversity and I wanted to learn more. However, upon further research, I find their page on the ASUN shitho– err… website which states:

WHEN: Every Tuesday at 7pm.
WHERE: 3rd floor of the Joe in the ASUN Presidents Conference Room.
WHY: We need all the help we can get to turn our goals of unity into reality.

I then go to their facebook page which does not give any information about their meetings at all. So, I missed their meeting which was very disappointing considering diversity is a hot button item on campus right now (Sagebrush special, regents, etc.) ASUN – if I, an extremely involved and active member on this campus cannot even find out about one of your events, what chance does the mainstream student have? Pull yourself together (and don’t you dare cite your failure on lack of funds/bureaucrats).

Diversity as Viewed by a Sample of UNR

Barry Belmont — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:24:30 +0000

This is not a joke. Try, as an academic exercise, to see why we think diversity initiatives are both counterproductive and a contemporary form of racism/xenophobia/prejudice of all kind. It tries to teach that You + I > Them for our “enlightened” thinking. This is straight from the Sagebrush whose recent issue we will probably be discussing at length.

But first: a sample.

“Diversity is a tolerance of all people and an understanding of different cultures.”

“I believe that diversity is the most important thing in the whole world.”

“Diversity is a collaboration of people of different backgrounds that come together.”

“I believe that the University of Nevada, Reno has a lot of diversity which is good for our generation.”

“Diversity is very important in our county, but it isn’t as represented as much as it could be.”

“We need to acknowledge other races, other cultures and we need to accept them.”

“I really believe that UNR doesn’t have enough diversity. It’s a lot of kids who look the same.”

“I believe that diversity is not recognized enough on campus. Not as much as it should be.”

“We really have to accept diversity. There’s no sense in having a garden of all the same flower.”

…yeah, people you go to school with said these things.

It’s one thing to “accept” differences among skin color and religion and life styles and sexual orientation and quite another to point at these things and say, You are different from me and I (in my exalted wisdom) am willing to let that be okay. The elitism inherent in the position of “accepting” in the sense that one “accepts diversity” is disturbing and unnecessary. One does not need to “accept” another student as “black” or “a man” or “vegetarian” anymore than one needs to “accept” that air is there. Diversity is all around us and, yes, an appreciation of the cultures of the world is potentially beneficial, but, like air, it goes without saying. Diversity is a word that has no place in any respectable society.

And correct me if I’m wrong, but we’re all equal right? Me = You. Me + You = Us. Me + You + You + You =Us. There is no Them.

Diversity Initiatives: A Cancerous Scourge on Society and Campus

John Russell — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:40:23 +0000

An undeniable premise in programs and laws which are designed to support a class of people differently than that of another is this: “You are too weak to support yourself, so let me help you help yourself.” Such programs imply that those of diversity (color, creed, orientation, ethnicity, sex, etc) are too weak to handle liberty and are too weak to support themselves. These programs assume that such denigrates need special ‘programs’ and ‘initiatives’ and ‘commissions’ to even have a shot at being a mainstream human being. These types of “minorities”, as the dominates like to label them as, must be treated like animals to be placed, labeled, and viewed as second class citizens whose place in society is that of a dog – willingly feeding from the scraps and enjoying the privileges granted to them by mainstream, dominate humans.

Diversity initiatives are the epitome of racism and class hatred. Though outwardly they pronounce equality to denounce class conflict and segregation, inwardly their philosophy is bankrupt which breeds an attitude not of empowerment, but a sense of subservience and gratitude to their overlords. Those which support such (government) programs do so with the best intentions, but sadly promote the very attitude they intend to abolish.

I am determined to illustrate the evils in diversity initiatives: to call them out on their repugnant moral premise which they use to create a dependent and grateful second class citizenry, and to propose a solution which truly gives everyone a chance at being an equal, human being: freedom.

Stay tuned…