I was disappointed by your portrayal of the CUT in last week’s issue of the Carletonian. Yes, I happen to live with three members of the CUT senior class, so some may say that I’m a little biased in their favor, but I would like to point out a few specific issues I think any student athlete would have with your article.
I have become increasingly aware of the fact that the public discourse that happens at Carleton is surprisingly intolerant of opinions that stray outside a cage of generic liberalism that we’ve created. Our intolerance is insidious in that it actually stems from one of Carleton’s best traits, which is our community’s deep desire for tolerance. What forms does this curious intolerant tolerance take?
I was reading Time magazine the other day, and I came across an article on actor Benedict Cumberbatch. Now, this may seem like the silliest way to begin an article on women’s rights, but he brought up a term that has been circulating in the media for some time. “Cumberbitches.”
We -- four of the many moderators of carlmicroaggressions.tumblr.com -- wanted to take this opportunity to explain the purpose of Carleton Microaggressions and talk about some of the criticisms of the site in order to foster a more open dialogue on campus about privilege, oppression, power, resistance, understanding, and the role of the blog within these conversations.
In hopes of spurring a conversation concerning race and general difference on our campus that I think needs to be less focused on political correctness and more focused on the issues at hand, I am writing this article. It will clarify and correct my comments in the Carletonian three weeks ago on the “Carleton Microaggressions” blog and discrimination at Carleton.
You are in a deserted field, far away from the nearest worker. Except you are not alone. It would be better if you were alone, because then your supervisor wouldn’t be cornering you. You know what’s going to happen next, but you can’t do anything about it.
Well, the Internet never fails to surprise me. There is a blogger, Matt Forney, who I can’t believe is real. His blog, “Matt Forney: The man who shouted love at the heart of the world,” is the nightmare of any self-respecting individual. Although most of his posts frighten me, the one that made me question his sanity was his ideological rant titled, “The Case Against Female Self-Esteem.”
I’ve always been an adamant feminist, insistent that women and men are always equal, no matter the situation. Humans are individuals, and we can’t say that some of us are one way and others, another. It differs. But physical capabilities--sports--is where I draw blank.
Thirteen Carls sat in a room Wednesday night and the conversation went something like this:
When it comes to any decision, from the mundane (Burton or LDC today?) to the dire (shall I launch the warheads, Mr. Secretary?), we are faced with an opportunity cost. The CSA is now considering a decision that, while neither mundane nor dire, is a pressing matter both financially and socially for all of us. As thoughtful people, we the people whom the CSA serves must carefully consider the implications of this phrase that could become another part of our lives if we chose so: “Wi-Fi on the Bald Spot.”
Firstly, I want to deplore the public officials who allowed the controversy about attacking Syria to break out while our students were on campus, possibly compromising their neutrality by luring them into expressing opinions on an issue of global importance and so, in the long run, harming the planet by withering their career prospects. Obviously by “neutrality” I mean neuteredness.
Secondly, what would Paul Wellstone do?
Finally, I wonder how this issue played/is playing over in St. Olaf’s.
Of course Carleton is a diverse place and a microcosm of America. On the other hand, of course a school with a vocal subculture that celebrates the class politics of Harry Potter has a certain set of handicaps to contend with when it tries to discuss its own diversity.