or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › What Is Your Professor's Religion? Does it matter? Should it?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What Is Your Professor's Religion? Does it matter? Should it?

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
There was an interesting piece in the Salt Lake Tribune on Saturday about the hiring practices of Utah's universities. Here's a quote:

" At the 10th annual Diversity Forum in Logan last December, business and community leaders pressed USU President Kermit Hall to improve the ratio of LDS faculty (fewer than 15 percent) to Mormon students (more than 70 percent). Hall offered this reply, which he has repeated in public since then: "We don't discriminate. We have a record of hiring the best qualified."

I know that in the course of applying for (private school) jobs (elsewhere) I have been asked to testify to my "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" and whatnot. But this is different. Here in Utah, some 40 percent of the population is Mormon. 70 percent of the students are Mormon. And very few of the faculty are.

Is this a problem? Should it even be considered? Is there an inherent advantage to seeking religious diversity among faculty? Even if that diversity means that they could very well either misunderstand the culture of the students they're teaching or even, at worst, offend/insult them?

Cheers
Scott

Edit: Forgot the link to the story. Click
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #2 of 47
Just hire people that can do their job. Their religious views are of no concern to a state university. There are a million other factors you could open the door to, to make it "proportional" to the people being taught. You could say, "Well, 75% of X University is liberal, so we need to hire 75% liberal faculty." It's just stupid. Like the USU guy said, hire people that are qualified to do their job.

By the way, what is LDS? (EDIT: I suppose that stands for Latter-Day Saints.)
post #3 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Ganondorf
Just hire people that can do their job. Their religious views are of no concern to a state university. There are a million other factors you could open the door to, to make it "proportional" to the people being taught. You could say, "Well, 75% of X University is liberal, so we need to hire 75% liberal faculty." It's just stupid. Like the USU guy said, hire people that are qualified to do their job.

By the way, what is LDS?

LDS = The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints = Mormon

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #4 of 47
The only area of education where I would have some doubts would be in the area of Theology and possibly evolution/ big bang science.


Otherwise...1+1 =2 is the same for Hindu, Muslim , Jew or Christian.

Aqua

Ps: A good teacher moves past their own prejudices.
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
post #5 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquafire
The only area of education where I would have some doubts would be in the area of Theology and possibly evolution.

Otherwise...1+1 =2 is the same for Hindu, Muslim , Jew or Christian.

Aqua

There's more to the university than science and math, though.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #6 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
There's more to the university than science and math, though.

And nothing that can't be dealt with through a Universities' internal standards or ethics committees.

Aqua.
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
post #7 of 47
I don't think for one second that a faculty should reflect its community at least in terms of its racial or religious component. Quite oppositely, faculty diversity is an important educational aspect of college for students. Generally it reflects an institution's "Institutional Diversity Emphasis" according to (Alexander W. Astin, What Matters in College: Four Years Revisited). Specifically, a diverse faculty encourages a type of diversity called "classroom diversity." Other researchers use different names and classifications, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it refers to "the incorporation of knowledge about diverse groups into the curriculum that colleges and universities present to this more diverse array of students (Patricia Gurin, UMuch AA Lawsuit Briefs). (It works in concert with structural [admissions] diversity and informal interactional diversity to use Gurin's terminology).

I guess a discussion about how diversity operates would be worthwhile, but let's just say that if we're talking education outcomes, then everyone should value diversity. To those who say "let the most qualified person get the job," I ask, what constitutes merit? Once again, if we're talking education outcomes, diversity has clear and overwhelmingly worthwhile benefits.
post #8 of 47
Why should a university represent the demographics of the town around it? Do not students come to great universities from around the country and around the world?

Professors should be hired based on their ability to teach the class _their education level, their published works, their reputation in the academic community. No demographic standard should be upheld. To do so is absurd.

Kirk
post #9 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquafire
The only area of education where I would have some doubts would be in the area of Theology and possibly evolution/ big bang science.

So what are you saying? Only people that major in theology and related fields are (big revelation here) the only people that teach it at a university level. Same with biology/natural sciences for evolution/big bang science, as you put it. Why should their religion play a role in their selection for the job? I think the idea is absolutely proposterous, and I am disgusted that anyone would give it any remote notion of credibility.

Not only is it stupid, it's just flat out discrimination at a public level.
post #10 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
There was an interesting piece in the Salt Lake Tribune on Saturday about the hiring practices of Utah's universities. Here's a quote:

" At the 10th annual Diversity Forum in Logan last December, business and community leaders pressed USU President Kermit Hall to improve the ratio of LDS faculty (fewer than 15 percent) to Mormon students (more than 70 percent). Hall offered this reply, which he has repeated in public since then: "We don't discriminate. We have a record of hiring the best qualified."

I know that in the course of applying for (private school) jobs (elsewhere) I have been asked to testify to my "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" and whatnot. But this is different. Here in Utah, some 40 percent of the population is Mormon. 70 percent of the students are Mormon. And very few of the faculty are.

Is this a problem? Should it even be considered? Is there an inherent advantage to seeking religious diversity among faculty? Even if that diversity means that they could very well either misunderstand the culture of the students they're teaching or even, at worst, offend/insult them?

Cheers
Scott

Edit: Forgot the link to the story. Click

It is interesting to read the many knees jerking on boards. Some of them are going to hurt themselves.

If this were a racial or cultural issue with a "disadvantaged" minority, many of these same folks would be screaming for hiring preferences. If a school, or should I saw WHEN a school is say, 85% black and has a faculty that is 90% white, it is cited as proof of systematic racism within the hiring organization. It is also claimed that the teachers, not being members of that community, nor easily being able to walk in their shoes/relate, will be much less effective educators.

There are more and more lawsuits being brough against universities for imposing speech codes, and enforcing basically one political view. I still don't understand the mentality that many different looking people, all espousing the same view, and likely all coming from the same type of financial background (since affirmative action isn't based on financial need, but on race) is somehow diversity.

I don't know how you would improve the ratios, but it does seem odd that so many good LDS students, even ones who obviously attend the school and graduate from there would be unqualified to teach or gain jobs as the same schools. I know all applicants for the jobs don't attend that school but my point is really, that if there is someplace to find well educated, qualified LDS candidates, it would be Utah. So I do think it reflects some sort of systemic problem.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #11 of 47
Seems like the "diversity" of the community is used to pillar the "diversity" of the faculty. You know, "This neighborhood is 90% african american and the faculty at this private university is only .5% african american" with the implication that it's racist.


So all you diversity statistics quoting freaks? Shouldn't the faculty reflect the local community?
post #12 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Seems like the "diversity" of the community is used to pillar the "diversity" of the faculty. You know, "This neighborhood is 90% african american and the faculty at this private university is only .5% african american" with the implication that it's racist.


So all you diversity statistics quoting freaks? Shouldn't the faculty reflect the local community?

Your post doesn't make any sense.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #13 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Is this a problem? Should it even be considered? Is there an inherent advantage to seeking religious diversity among faculty? Even if that diversity means that they could very well either misunderstand the culture of the students they're teaching or even, at worst, offend/insult them?

That's all a part of growing up for both students and teachers. If the students are so on edge about their religion they probably can't walk down an average street in an average city without getting offended so it's about time they learned how to chill.

A professor should have run into this before, unless they're rookies. And in the event that they're a rookie, they should learn pretty quickly. If a professor can't over time learn to be receptive to their students then they shouldn't teach.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #14 of 47
race and religion are not at all the same.

race is something that is perceived to be outwardly obvious; something that you can make a quick judgment about; something that is easy to bias against.

religion is internal unless you are required to wear some outward vestiges. the biases only develop more slowly.
post #15 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
race and religion are not at all the same.

race is something that is perceived to be outwardly obvious; something that you can make a quick judgment about; something that is easy to bias against.

religion is internal unless you are required to wear some outward vestiges. the biases only develop more slowly.

Actually you are showing typical American ignorance.

There are many parts of the world where religion isn't something you really choose, but rather is part of your identity. Churches helped bring about the nation/state model we use to day and many people still closely identify their church with their nationality.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #16 of 47
how can i see that on a person walking down the street?

you are showing your failure to understand simple english.
post #17 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
how can i see that on a person walking down the street?

you are showing your failure to understand simple english.

If you, for example cannot understand how being Jewish for example, can be a nationality and a religion, then that is an issue you have to deal with.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #18 of 47
huh?

did you even read my post?

note i actually even said wearing vestiges of the religion.

i don't think you can see nationality either, so i really do not see where you are coming from on this one trumptman.

the simple truth of the matter is that when i walk down the street and i see a person, i am more likely to associate that person with a specific "race" than with a religion (and i rarely even think about nationality) if i associate them with anything but being human...
post #19 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
huh?

did you even read my post?

note i actually even said wearing vestiges of the religion.

i don't think you can see nationality either, so i really do not see where you are coming from on this one trumptman.

the simple truth of the matter is that when i walk down the street and i see a person, i am more likely to associate that person with a specific "race" than with a religion (and i rarely even think about nationality) if i associate them with anything but being human...

Who said anything about wearing vestiges of religion?

You can see nationality in plenty of instances. You speak of race because in the United States race is a big deal. You might see someone and think them asian. However if you were to speak to them, you might find they are Korean and not say, Cambodian. If you spoke with them at depth, you might even find out that they find it very insulting to think you could mistake Koreans for Cambodians because to them the differences between the two are as profound as claiming someone black and white look the same.

But the thing is you focus on some sort of external sign that they are a certain religion, and don't get that certainly nationalities are associated almost exclusively with certain religions.

After 9/11, we didn't hear people being worried about hate crimes against people just because they were Arabic. There was worry also about hate crimes against them because they were Muslims. There are countries where the entire population is considered to be Muslim.

India for example has around of the people 80-85% practicing Hinduism. There are plenty of people that simply think of being Indian as also being Hindu. To claim that someone couldn't discriminate this way is just being naive.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #20 of 47
again, you just don't get my post.

It is far easier to bias against a person by how they look than by what internal conceptions they have including nationality and religion. That was the point and you don't get it.

Edit: even in your description you use appearance as the initiator.

(as an aside:
I am notoriously bad at placing a person's appearance with a region let alone a nationality. I make no assumptions and hence your comments appear close minded. I always ask and if I am told that they are from India, I still don't assume that they are hindu. If I want to know their religion I will ask. I don't assume anything about people I meet unless I see them say wearing a cross or a skullcap... and still even then, i am not always sure.

It is always safer to assume nothing.)
post #21 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
After 9/11, we didn't hear people being worried about hate crimes against people just because they were Arabic. There was worry also about hate crimes against them because they were Muslims. There are countries where the entire population is considered to be Muslim.

Actually, I heard about complaints from Indians, muslim and non-muslim Arabs, Israelis, etc etc. Anyone who appeared to be "brown" was subject hostilities post 9-11. Actual hostilities and not just fears.
post #22 of 47
I'm not sure how state schools could legally hire based on religion.
post #23 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
again, you just don't get my post.

It is far easier to bias against a person by how they look than by what internal conceptions they have including nationality and religion. That was the point and you don't get it.

Edit: even in your description you use appearance as the initiator.

(as an aside:
I am notoriously bad at placing a person's appearance with a region let alone a nationality. I make no assumptions and hence your comments appear close minded. I always ask and if I am told that they are from India, I still don't assume that they are hindu. If I want to know their religion I will ask. I don't assume anything about people I meet unless I see them say wearing a cross or a skullcap... and still even then, i am not always sure.

It is always safer to assume nothing.)

I assure you I get it. I fully understand that you don't look for nationality or religion when you look at a person. Even your definition of race is much shallower than some definitions. I'm not trying to get you to change them, or see things differently when you walk down the street. I'm simply saying that others do see these things differently and can act upon them in a negative manner.

As an aside, many would argue that not being able to have an idea about a person and their cultural background, isn't a sign of openmindedness, but of cultural ignorance. I don't know these things because I look for differences. It is because I live with these various folks day in and out. You get a much deeper understanding of people when you live among them. My knowing a Korean would be insulting to be thought of as Cambodian isn't closemindedness. It is because I have hung out and befriended both Koreans and Cambodians (along with Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, etc). Believe it or not, just because someone is from what would be a minority culture in the United States doesn't mean their own culture is tolerant, or open at all. You likely consider say, Cambodians and Filipinos to be the same race. However their definitino of race is more narrow than yours and you could have a fight on your hands if that Filipino happen to be touchy about Cambodians.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #24 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I'm not sure how state schools could legally hire based on religion.

I don't think they could hire based on religion. However they could review the process and insure that there is not some part of it that ends up screening out religious applicants to some excessive degree.

For example many LDS students often take time off to go one a mission for their church. If their resume explained a gap in their work and educational history as attending to a mission, someone could be using that to toss them off the qualified pile.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #25 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
You likely consider say, Cambodians and Filipinos to be the same race. However their definitino of race is more narrow than yours and you could have a fight on your hands if they happen to be touchy about Cambodians.

Nope, I don't. I don't think race is a valid descriptor at all. So while I understand that other people may use race as a description, and may even associate nationality with race, and I am aware of the issues involved, I don't care if I have a fight on my hand as long as i don't make the same stupid judgments (and I never will have a fight because I don't assume anyway).

I am culturally aware, but there is a distinct subtlety that you keep missing and keep missing. how can you tell that a person wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt is cambodian?

I would really like to know.

Edit: I really don't think you realize how much people depend upon their eye sight to make judgments. My definition of race is as functional as you can get when considering quick biases and making assumptions only based upon the sense human's depend upon most.
post #26 of 47
For the record: I lived in Salt Lake City for 18 months, and it was sheer hell as a non-Mormon. You are distinctly and definitely a second class citizen. They make the Quebecois look sane by comparison.

Two anecdotes:

Two blocks away from my house was the first drive-in espresso stand in all of Utah. I got to know the owner pretty well, it opened the same month I moved there. Mormons aren't supposed to drink coffee, so a SLC police car was parked across the street for the first six weeks of them being open, writing down license plate numbers. Those license plates were run through the DMV to get names and addresses, and those were then compared against the LDS church rolls to see if any members had strayed, so that they could be talked to by church elders.

Think about that for a minute.

A city resource (a police office and squad car) was being used to gather information on public citizens, which was then run through state resources (DMV records) to extract individual information *on the behalf of the church* so that *they* could enforce religious beliefs for their members.

The espresso stand owner called the police department, and was blocked at every turn. "None of your concern." "If you weren't running that place, it wouldn't be happening, it's your fault." etc, etc.

Second anecdote:

One morning I left some papers I needed at home, so I drove back from the office about 9:30. I pulled up in the driveway, and see my then girlfriend in her bathrobe yelling at two Mormon missionaries in the back yard. I ask what's going on. "They were watching me get dressed through the bedroom window!" "Is this true? Were you two looking in the bedroom window?" "Well, yes... we knocked on the front door, didn't get an answer, but heard a noise, so we were going around the house trying to get someone's attention." (It never occurred to them that if no one answers the door for you, maybe it's *on purpose*.)

I go in and get the phone, dial 911, and head back out.

"911, what is the nature of your emergency?"

"I'd like to report two peeping toms."

(Name, address, etc are given)

"Can you give me a description of the two men?"

"Better than that, I can give you their names."

"You know them, sir?"

"No, but they're standing right here, and their names are on their name badges."

"... Sir, are they missionaries?"

"Yes."

"Sir, stop harassing them and let them do their job. *click*"

I had just been hung up on by a 911 operator while trying to report a crime, and she did so simply because the perpetrators were Mormon missionaries.

That was the moment I decided to move.

The newspapers are Mormon run. The government is Mormon run. Every infrastructure is Mormon run. Conflict of interest is everywhere... and no Mormon sees a problem with it. (At least, none that I talked to.)

No wonder the fact that the university isn't Mormon run sticks in their craw.

Let them fester over it.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #27 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
Nope, I don't. I don't think race is a valid descriptor at all. So while I understand that other people may use race as a description, and may even associate nationality with race, and I am aware of the issues involved, I don't care if I have a fight on my hand as long as i don't make the same stupid judgments (and I never will have a fight because I don't assume anyway).

I am culturally aware, but there is a distinct subtlety that you keep missing and keep missing. how can you tell that a person wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt is cambodian?

I would really like to know.

Edit: I really don't think you realize how much people depend upon their eye sight to make judgments. My definition of race is as functional as you can get when considering quick biases and making assumptions only based upon the sense human's depend upon most.

I can tell somebody is wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt is Cambodian just like you can likely tell someone is Irish instead of Italian. No one is 100% accurate, but that really doesn't matter to someone who is practicing bigotry. They really don't mind tossing out the baby with the bathwater to get to what they consider to be pure.

The thread is about whether someone is able to tell someone is LDS and thus is intentionally not hiring them at the university level. Based off the percentages it would appear this might be so. I never claimed they were 100% accurate in their bigotry. In fact with their mindset, they likely would hate people who are kind of similar to, or associate often with, LDS church members as well.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #28 of 47
Thread Starter 
Actually, depending upon what kind of clothes someone is wearing, you may be able to tell whether an individual is LDS. There is a "holy garment" (a kind of underwear) that is sometimes visible. This is more often the case with women than men.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #29 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
You are distinctly and definitely a second class citizen. They make the Quebecois look sane by comparison.

"Do you know this company was on the brink of bankruptcy in '85? The same thing in '88, '90, and '92. It will survive. It always has."
-Former Apple CEO Michael Spindler
Reply
"Do you know this company was on the brink of bankruptcy in '85? The same thing in '88, '90, and '92. It will survive. It always has."
-Former Apple CEO Michael Spindler
Reply
post #30 of 47
How are they going to teach biology if they are Creationists? There is a line. And believe me there are lots of #*%@#ing Creationists trying to "teach" "biology" in the South, apparently they aren't allowed to say the word "evolution" in Georgia??
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #31 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Actually, depending upon what kind of clothes someone is wearing, you may be able to tell whether an individual is LDS. There is a "holy garment" (a kind of underwear) that is sometimes visible. This is more often the case with women than men.

Cheers
Scott

Yes, the 'Mormon smile' or 'garmies'.

It is, as far as I was able to tell, a garment to ward off evil spirits. It is intended to never be taken off, and the hardcore fundamentalist Mormons bathe one side of their body at a time, with the garmie on the other side.

It is a simple cotton garment with mystic runes embroidered on the edges. It is intended to be worn until it essentially scrap, at which point it cannot be simply thrown away. It must be turned over to the church elders who ritualistically trim the symbols off the remainder of the garment, when only then loses it's religious significance, and can be tossed. The trimmed symbols are then again ritualistically burned in the temple.

But Wiccans are bad, m'kay?
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #32 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
How are they going to teach biology if they are Creationists? There is a line. And believe me there are lots of #*%@#ing Creationists trying to "teach" "biology" in the South, apparently they aren't allowed to say the word "evolution" in Georgia??

While I take your point, I should note that I teach lots and lots of things I don't agree with.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #33 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Yes, the 'Mormon smile' or 'garmies'.

It is, as far as I was able to tell, a garment to ward off evil spirits. It is intended to never be taken off, and the hardcore fundamentalist Mormons bathe one side of their body at a time, with the garmie on the other side.

It is a simple cotton garment with mystic runes embroidered on the edges. It is intended to be worn until it essentially scrap, at which point it cannot be simply thrown away. It must be turned over to the church elders who ritualistically trim the symbols off the remainder of the garment, when only then loses it's religious significance, and can be tossed. The trimmed symbols are then again ritualistically burned in the temple.

But Wiccans are bad, m'kay?

Actually, it's a kind of white t-shirt like material that they wear. The idea behind it is this, so far as I can tell (and based on conversations with some very good friends who are LDS):
  • You get it when you're baptized, and are supposed to wear it at all times.
  • In the past, people didn't take it off, ever. But now they do.
  • You are expected to care for it as you would your soul.
  • The garment merely reflects the ways that the soul is tainted through our progress through the world. Just as your soul is stained, so is the garment. And just as you must cleanse your soul, so, too, must you cleanse the garment


I don't know anything about the destruction of the garment, but I can ask, if anyone is interested.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #34 of 47
Great post on your experiences, Kickaha.
post #35 of 47
Thanks. I'd like to point out that I made some good Mormon friends while I lived there, have had good friends from childhood on that were Mormon, and it was *never* an issue... until it become entwined with the state such that I was no longer considered an equal citizen in society.

Salt Lake City is a 'special' place... much like I'm sure it would be if I were to move to the Vatican.

(And the scariest part? SLC is the least fundie area of Utah.)
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #36 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
Nope, I don't. I don't think race is a valid descriptor at all. So while I understand that other people may use race as a description, and may even associate nationality with race, and I am aware of the issues involved, I don't care if I have a fight on my hand as long as i don't make the same stupid judgments (and I never will have a fight because I don't assume anyway).

I am culturally aware, but there is a distinct subtlety that you keep missing and keep missing. how can you tell that a person wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt is cambodian?

I would really like to know.

Edit: I really don't think you realize how much people depend upon their eye sight to make judgments. My definition of race is as functional as you can get when considering quick biases and making assumptions only based upon the sense human's depend upon most.

Scientific fact: there is are no sub-races within the human race. There is no black race, white race etc. We all belong to the same race. So there.
Pismo, Deus Ex Machina.
Reply
Pismo, Deus Ex Machina.
Reply
post #37 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by KANE
Scientific fact: there is are no sub-races within the human race. There is no black race, white race etc. We all belong to the same race. So there.

I always hear people say that, but I don't believe it. What about the visual characteristics that are so apparent, such as skin color, eye shape, hair color and texture, height, etc. Are those figments of my imagination?
post #38 of 47
Is a calico housecat a different 'race' than a tabby?

Of course not.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #39 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I always hear people say that, but I don't believe it. What about the visual characteristics that are so apparent, such as skin color, eye shape, hair color and texture, height, etc. Are those figments of my imagination?

If you want to think of it that way, yes, you could. But the genetic and morphological differences between so-called human "races" is far, far less than the differences seen between "races" of other species in the animal kingdom.

I mean, how do you really define race? Skin colour? Problem is, skin colour is a highly continuous trait; there aren't discrete "types" of skin colour. If you were to see a lineup of twenty dark-skinned individuals odds are you'd see that they're all of varying degrees of skin tone. It's not like you could hold up one of those Pantone colour guides to people's skin and classfy people according to specific skin tone. The same could probably be said for other traits as well.

Edit: I just wanted to say to Kickaha that it's utterly incredible how such an enormous conflict of interest could be allowed to exist in Utah. I have to admit, I'm glad you left. Frankly, I couldn't have survived as long as you did. That jab at the QuebeƧois really did make me laugh, though. Heh.
"Do you know this company was on the brink of bankruptcy in '85? The same thing in '88, '90, and '92. It will survive. It always has."
-Former Apple CEO Michael Spindler
Reply
"Do you know this company was on the brink of bankruptcy in '85? The same thing in '88, '90, and '92. It will survive. It always has."
-Former Apple CEO Michael Spindler
Reply
post #40 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I always hear people say that, but I don't believe it. What about the visual characteristics that are so apparent, such as skin color, eye shape, hair color and texture, height, etc. Are those figments of my imagination?

They're real, but I think they're not enough to differentiate a new race. I'm not really sure, and I don't really care. I seem to like dogs and cats as much as I like people anyway so it's mostly a non-issue for me.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › What Is Your Professor's Religion? Does it matter? Should it?