OPINION & EDITORIAL
Mandatory training infringes on rights
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Darryn Beckstrom:
- Ignorance, irresponsibility doom broken segregated fee system (November 15, 2005)
- State should endorse monotheism (November 22, 2005)
- Neutrality violations rampant in SSFC (December 14, 2005)
- Acidic justice (June 30, 2005)
- New course for Madison in 2006 (January 15, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Column minimizes diversity issues (October 6, 2005)
- Diversity isn't just color (September 7, 2001)
- Creating a point for 'diversity and climate' (February 11, 2003)
- Letters to the Editor - 1/22/01 (January 22, 2002)
- Beckstrom bids farewell after year as ed board chair (May 3, 2006)
by Darryn Beckstrom
Tuesday, October 4, 2005
Diversity is a loaded term — plain and simple.
But the diversity sensitivity training required for all teaching and project assistants on this campus only adds to our society's hypersensitivity towards diversity and casts a proverbial dark cloud over freedom of thought.
As a teaching assistant at this institution, I decided a few weeks ago it was finally time for me to attend the three-hour workshop. If I had paid, I would have complained to a manager and asked for a refund.
Early in the training, students were asked to break into small groups to discuss their thoughts and feelings toward improving diversity on this campus. Disappointed the workshop didn't go as far as pass out a "warm fuzzy" to each participant and engage in the singing of "Kumbayah," we subsequently discussed our findings with the larger group.
Famished and still trying to understand the purpose of this workshop, I raised my hand from the back of the room to ask a simple question — or so I thought: "How do we define diversity?" The moderator was most likely taken back by the question and engaged in the oldest ruse in the book when unsure of the answer — throw the question out to the group. For once, a packed room of graduate students was silent.
Why wasn't I surprised?
I find it ironic the pith of the training couldn't be defined. While a definition wasn't provided, the message of the training was ostensibly apparent: Don't say anything that might offend any group of people who are perceived to be socially disadvantaged or marginalized.
This seemingly innocuous message does nothing more than suffocate free speech and engage the university in inducing thought reform.
Fortunately, I'm not alone in my thoughts about mandatory diversity training. Last year, a hand full of legislators in the Colorado state Legislature introduced a measure that would condemn mandatory diversity training for college students after the University of Colorado implemented such a program. Though the measure failed 6-5 in the House Education Committee, it raises important questions regarding the implications these programs have for the principles protected by the First Amendment.
Such policies as speech codes and mandatory diversity training on our nation's college campuses are blatant violations of freedom of speech, conscience, and thought. More simply, they put the nail in the coffin when it comes to the pursuit of truth and knowledge.
The university, through this training, forces graduate students to consume what is considered to be "politically correct" by those in Bascom Hall in regards to ethnicity, race and equality, among other issues. For every student who agrees with these views, though, there is another student who disagrees. Unfortunately, students are not asked to respectfully debate these issues in an open forum like mature adults, but rather they are forced to accept the viewpoints of the organizers and leaders of these training sessions.
Our nation's highest court has firmly established the government cannot regulate viewpoints. Writing for the majority in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, Justice Jackson prominently concluded, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
It's disappointing this university would flirt with violating such a concept.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for diversity and a nondiscriminatory campus. And the intentions of some of these programs are undeniably good. But at what point are we willing to silence free speech and intellectual thought in an environment that prides itself on being a "marketplace of ideas?" This is a public university, and unlike the classrooms of a sophomoric high school, the ivory tower is situated in a public forum where ideas are to be freely exchanged.
I don't know whether to be more irate at the university or the Teaching Assistant's Association — the organization responsible for the implementation of the diversity training during collective bargaining negotiations 15 years ago — for allowing such mandatory training to occur.
Nonetheless, I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is no constitutional right not to feel offended. But there is a constitutional right to engage in unfettered debate and discourse.
Darryn Beckstrom (beckstrom@badgerherald.com) is a doctoral student in the department of political science and a second-year MPA candidate in the La Follette School of Public Affairs.
Anonymous (October 4, 2005 @ 5:03am):
As a liberal, I would readily support the idea of teaching others how to avoid being offensive to others. But in the beginning, it was more of an exercise in militant extremism. In the early days of sensitivity training, students were yelled at, singled out because they were white or heterosexual or "genetically perfect"(read "attractive") and were held up as an example of how "privileged" some people are.
Eventually common sense prevailed and those days are finally gone. So many people who otherwise were tolerant and well-meaning were categorized as oppressors because they were considered to have some unfair advantage over others simply because of their family's wealthy status, because they were white, hetersexual, male, Christian, conservative or physically attractive. And those self-appointed gurus of political correctness enjoyed the freedom of vilifying the rest of us relentlessy, all for the sake of trashing innocent people's reputations.
After 9/11 the country took a hard swing to the right and folks with at least half a brain would put up with no more of "I'm OK and you're a hatemonger." Hopefully liberals have learned a lesson from all this. You can work for a cause and make some positive changes, but step on one pair of innocent toes too many and it's all downhill from there. If being a liberal comes back into vogue before this decade is over, let's make an agreement to not take it overboard next time. Sound like a plan?
Anonymous (October 4, 2005 @ 8:26am):
Diversity is bunk.
Go get 'em.
Anonymous (October 4, 2005 @ 8:50am):
Just curious, do you actually think for yourself or just regurgitate the conservative arguments I made when I was 7?
You really give conservatives a bad name. The fact that you somehow managed to get into graduate school makes me wonder at the quality of the UW as an institution.
Anonymous (October 4, 2005 @ 9:25am):
It is intriguing that Ms. Beckstrom, in this column, writes passionately in support of her ability to think and do as she pleases in a classroom where "ideas are to be freely exchanged." But just two weeks ago, however, she railed the activist judges on the 9th Circuit for having the nerve to hold that the government could not force elementary school children to affirm their belief in a Judeo-Christian god on a daily basis. Which is it Ms. Beckstrom? Do you truly believe that "no official, high or petty can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein?" Is it permissible for government to indoctrinate young children in areas as personal as religion, but not okay for government to require mature independent-minded and thick-skinned academics like yourself to undergo a little diversity sensitivity training? Forcing children to recite the Pledge as it was amended in the 1950s sounds a lot like forcing citizens to confess by word their faith in a government prescribed orthodoxy. If you're okay with those children being forced to recite the Pledge, then I'm okay with the University and the TAA forcing you to attend diversity training. Ultimately, I think you put it best at the end of your column two weeks ago: "Whether 'under God' remains in or is removed from the Pledge, there will undoubtedly be some despondent people in this nation. Nonetheless, life is often a zero-sum game -- someone must gain something at another's expense." Well, life is a zero-sum game Ms. Beckstrom, and I'm not bothered by the fact that happen to be a despondent person who feels oppressed by mandatory sensitivity training.
Anonymous (October 4, 2005 @ 10:05am):
Did you bother to provide this feedback to the trainers after the fact? How did they respond? Did you follow up to see if any plans are in place to improve the training?
Did you offer them suggestions? Did you contact the TAA to find out what the background and future is for this program? Or did you just sit there drooling over having found something to complain about?
You see, this would have been 100% more interesting if you had done these things and written about that process. Instead, all I can conclude is that you are just a whiner that enjoys whining more than trying to make a real difference.
Anonymous (October 4, 2005 @ 11:51am):
I await the author's explanation as to how speech codes--which penalize particular viewpoints or discussion of specific subjects--and diversity training, which, while irritating and sophmoric, forces you to say nothing, are analytically similar. Or, how, as the title suggests, the author has a "right" to not attend something her employer, foolishly or not, requires her to do in order to receive a slightly higher paycheck.
No one is "forced" to accept any view during the training session. If one is too bored or cowardly to speak up, that's your problem (and your description seems to suggest you weren't "coerced" into silence). If someone later took action against you based upon your viewpoint, then you would have a point. As it stands, you don't.
The author suggests she distinguishes between feeling offended or cowed and an actual violence of First Amendment rights, but her distinction does not stand up. The First Amendment requires that we develop the character and toughness to deal with speech we don't like--or training sessions that make viewpoints we don't like. Unles someone actually silences you, you're just whining (again) about how difficult it is to be a conservative.
Anonymous (October 4, 2005 @ 2:04pm):
So Darryn, you attended a session where you were required to discuss with your peers what diversity meant and what it's implications were on campus. When asked what diversity should be defined as, the prof did not spoon feed you the answer, but rather made it part of the discussion that you and your peers were to engage in.
Exactly how did this stifle free speech?
Ask your self this question the next time you are ranting about diversity training, or anything else that you preceive to be "politically correct"...what makes less sense: to be offended by things, or to be ofended that others are offended?
Anonymous (October 4, 2005 @ 5:59pm):
How many more articles can you write using the same pointless drivel?
Anonymous (October 4, 2005 @ 6:19pm):
Amen.
Anonymous (October 4, 2005 @ 6:56pm):
Keep it up. If all of these obviously lefty posters are upset, you're doing something right. I hope you continue your fine contribution to genuine campus dialogue.
Anonymous (October 4, 2005 @ 7:11pm):
Perhaps it's time you questioned what you have been spoon fed.
Anonymous (October 4, 2005 @ 9:37pm):
Folks, what Darryn is saying is that the politically correct militants who terrorized the campus community and beyond have worn out their welcome. We all suffered the stigma of being hatemongers, a stigma which few of us ever actually harbored. We don't need a bunch of self-appointed watchdogs to growl and snap at us to keep us in line. And who was watching THEM anyway?
Now that we no longer have to put up with their crap, we can move on to some truly thoughtful, intelligent discourse.
Anonymous (October 5, 2005 @ 12:18am):
"Fortunately, I'm not alone in my thoughts about mandatory diversity training. Last year, a hand full of legislators in the Colorado state Legislature introduced a measure that would condemn mandatory diversity training for college students after the University of Colorado implemented such a program. Though the measure failed 6-5 in the House Education Committee..." - If you truly are not alone in your thoughts then surely you can find a better example than FAILED measure in the state of Colorado to support your stance. Talk about reaching....
Anonymous (October 5, 2005 @ 12:24am):
Can you actually cite some specific examples of views provided at this training that you do not agree with? You have posted responses in this columns before; I implore you to do so again and enlighten us. While the training may be a "waste of time" - I can think of nothing taught that was controversial.
Anonymous (October 5, 2005 @ 1:13pm):
Don't bother with the TAA, Darryn, have you seen the Daily Planner they pass out? Quotes Molly Ivins and Eugene Debs, to name a few.
Anonymous (October 5, 2005 @ 3:52pm):
I've noticed that our gallant campus conservative has many complaints about liberals: diversity training, wanting to take the word "God" out of the pledge, not wanting to eat lunch with conservatives, etc.
Meanwhile, liberals have very similar complaints about conservatives: war on false pretenses, massive deficits and refusals to deal with them, torturing prisoners of war, etc.
Very similar indeed.
Anonymous (October 5, 2005 @ 9:55pm):
Well, you see, one group of issues would concern campus issues, and the other would concern national issues.
See the difference there?
Anonymous (October 6, 2005 @ 9:04am):
My point exactly. One set matters hugely; the other could hardly matter less.
But also, since when is the pledge of allegiance a campus issue?
Anonymous (October 6, 2005 @ 4:18pm):
Hey Darryn, I think you're at the wrong University. And I think your role as a TA should be questioned as well. As a minority, I wouldn't even step foot into your discussion room. Maybe that's why retention rates here so high for minorities? Thanks for the contribution sucka!
Anonymous (October 12, 2005 @ 9:31am):
Ms. Beckstrom presents us with an article aboutthe woes of her diveresity training without choosing to enlighten us with one example of something that was said that she found controversial. The one example provided is an open ended question provided to the class, which is hardly equivocal with coercion. Without an example of something that was offensive, we're led to believe that the mere idea that the university would want their teaching assistants to be aware of diversity issues in the classroom is offensive. Diversity of viewpoints is something that this writer, and many other conservative columnists in this paper, have discussed at length. Maybe that's something that could be discussed next time they're forced into diversity training and someone asks what diversity means.
