What do you do when facts are uncomfortable? Do you deal with those facts as they are, or simply pretend they don\’t exist?
The University of Minnesota apparently has decided on the latter approach.
Excerpted from Chuck Ross\’s article at dailycaller.com:
Facingbacklash for allegedly stigmatizing minorities – particularly Blackmen – the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities announced on Tuesdaythat it will no longer include racial descriptors in crime alertsissues to students and faculty.
“Thischange supports our safety goals while recognize the harm that theuse of race in crime alerts causes for some members of our community”the university, which has 50,000 students and is located inMinneapolis and St. Paul, said in a statement.
Whilethe school acknowledges that many students prefer to have alldescriptive information about criminal suspects made available, itfeels that the cost of reinforcing stereotypes is too great tocontinue with the policy.
Translation: A lot of campus crime is being committed by Black males. Therefore, in an effort not to reinforce stereotypes, the university will just eliminate race from the crime alerts. That way, no one will know what their skin color is, and no stereotypes will be reinforced.
What planet are these people living on?
The purpose of a crime alert is to make people aware of what crimes are being committed and who is committing them. If Black people are committing a disproportionately large percentage of that crime, that is reality. Not racism, not stereotypes, but reality.
Do these geniuses think that students – very much including Black students – want key elements of a criminal\’s description withheld from them?
Can they possibly believe that dropping skin color from the crime alerts is not going to be seen as race-based? Of course it will be.
Put another way: if you wanted to stereotype Black males – really do a job of it – you would institute the University of Minnesota\’s new policy. Why? Because everyone will know the rules are being changed to shield students from being told the extent of Black criminality on campus.
And while we\’re on the subject, why stop at Black? We don\’t want to stigmatize short people, do we? Or tall people. Or overweight people who might have a glandular condition. Or thin people, who might be anorexic. Or people who don\’t dress fashionably, since maybe they are poor and can\’t afford preppie duds. Are those descriptors going to be eliminated too?
This policy puts an asterisk – a truly vile one – next to the name of every Black student on campus, including every Black student who has nothing to do with crime, which I assume to be the vast majority. It hangs a big, fat sign on their backs, saying “MAYBE I\’M THE BLACK CRIMINAL THE CRIME ALERTS ARE NOT TELLING YOU ABOUT”.
This is supposed to make things better? This is supposed to prevent the reinforcement of stereotypes? You would have to be an idiot to believe that….or, evidently, a University of Minnesota administrator.
Real racism. It comes in all forms from all sources. No group is immune to it and no group is immune from it. Certainly not the “brain trust” (such as it is) of a University that thinks singling out and stigmatizing Black people somehow protects them from being stereotyped.