The Tunnel Of Oppression: A Review

Last night, I experienced oppression. Being a white, American, Catholic, middle-class, privileged, heterosexual, conservative male, I had never before been able to experience oppression first-hand. Luckily, the RHA and a number of other groups decided to host a Tunnel of Oppression for people such as myself, so that we could “engage … in an immersive experience of scenes where participants experience first-hand different forms of oppression through interactive acting, viewing monologues, and multimedia.” In short, the experience was something of a liberal haunted house, where instead of being spooked by ghosts and goblins, you are instead spooked by such things as Border Patrol Agents, homophobia, and identity crises.

I am not sure if this was planned or not, but the entire first floor of Cobb is currently covered in Harry Potter decorations, which really did nothing to dispel my haunted house theory. Nevertheless, our tour of the Tunnel began as we walked into the room with the signage of Platform 9¾ hanging over the door. The first exercise (following the Roller-coaster-like introduction, where we were informed that we could of course step out of the Tunnel if the experience was too much for us) was one of those if-this-applies-to-you-step-forward (or backward) gigs. However, the only purpose of these questions seemed to be to segregate the white, American, Catholic, middle-class, privileged, heterosexual, conservative males from the rest of the group. My hypothesis was proved correct, when at the end of the exercise, my companion and I were standing in the front of the room and the six or so black members of our group (among whom was one-time presidential candidate, Joe Levin-Manning) were at the very back of the room. Maybe that makes me an oppressor? I prefer to blame this result on my altitudinal disability and the fact that this disability requires me to take smaller steps which would allow those in the room with longer legs to more easily move away from me.

Following this, we were each given a nametag with various derogatory names on them. I was a “Towel-Head.” We then proceeded down a flight of stairs (at which point the “Gimp” in the group was forced to take an elevator), passed a group of homeless people, and viewed a display that appeared to bemoan the existence of wheelchair ramps in the world. I cannot even pretend to understand what makes wheelchair ramps so oppressive, but the fun does not end there. We then viewed a skit of sorts that discussed the problems that revolve around self-image, weight, etc. The next part of the tour was absolutely classic.

Walking down the hall, we were confronted by two police officers, who lined us up against a wall and began checking IDs. However, they did not of course check everyone’s ID, just mine (the “Towel-Head”) and the “Wet-backer,” who upon being unable to produce ID, they promptly arrested. I will also note that the two officers had clearly defined and greatly exaggerated Southern accents. This was one of my main critiques of the Tunnel. Rather than provoking a substantive discussion about policy issues, the Tunnelers preferred to set up caricatures, straw men, and gross generalizations. In this case, they characterized those officers who legally enforce immigration laws as nothing but stupid, Southern hicks who hate Mexicans. There is, of course, plenty of room to debate immigration laws, but characterizing the current situation in this way was quite childish.

They also seemed to deride profiling techniques that law enforcement officials often use to catch criminals. But is that not what police work is supposed to be? In order to catch the bad guys, you have to have some idea of what they look like. If you know that your crook has a huge scar down the side of his face, wouldn’t it make sense to more closely examine those people with scars down their faces? There is no point in examining the people without scars, as you know your crook has a scar. The same principle applies to race.

We next moved on to the GLBTWXYZ room, where two people impersonating Evangelical Christians accosted the “Homo” in the group and began calling down fire and brimstone. There were several problems with this display. The first was that the Tunnel people were again setting up a straw man. Not everyone who disagrees with the idea that homosexual couples can enter into a traditional marriage is by definition homophobic. There is room for substantive disagreement on the issue without having to descend to petty name-calling. The two performers also did their best to use rather exaggerated Southern accents while they rattled off Bible quotes. The fact that this accent kept popping up throughout the tour indicates that the organizers of this little event have a rather low opinion of people who live south of the Mason-Dixon Line. This may be in part because the South tends to be the more conservative part of the country, but that is just a guess. If I was from the South, I would be insulted. However, in light of what I learned last night, I am doing my best to feel insulted on behalf of Southerners.

We next moved onto a display about world religions, which had nice little diagrams about what various people around the world believe. A few minutes later, we were rounded up by some guerrilla fighters and gassed. While we were being gassed, we had the opportunity to learn about genocide around the world and listen to a clip of people being gassed. This part of the tour seemed to do a good job of trivializing some of the larger mass killings of the 20th century. The two comical and absurd guerrilla fighters coupled with the tape of the gassing and the pictures of children killed by genocide taped along the inside of a play-gas chamber seemed a rather inappropriate and irreverent way of discussing this rather somber topic.

We then moved on to a performance on relationship violence. There was a noticeable hole in this performance though. Considering that the Tunnel seemed oriented to exposing students to oppression in all its forms, you would think that in this part of the tour, they would have included both a male and a female who could talk to the issues of relationship violence. Alas, they did not. Instead, I was treated to two women pouring out the stories of their oppression. While they claimed that the stories were true, the way in which they were told seemed to suggest that they were at least partially manufactured and that they were about as true as any of the stories told by the Democrats any time they talk about health care.

The final room was very strange. We talked about race relations. There were three speakers. The first one was an Asian woman who complained about getting a B on a test and was afraid of the abuse her parents would rain down upon her. This one was hard to take seriously, as it replicated the stereotype (which I thought we were supposed to move beyond) that all Asians are rocket scientists and their parents slave drivers when it comes to school. We then heard from a black man from New Orleans who complained about the lack of resources for black people after Hurricane Katrina and in relation to schooling. Of course, the common denominator in both those problems is the government, which he did not seem to appreciate. Somehow it is my fault as a white, American, Catholic, middle-class, privileged, heterosexual, conservative male that he suffered during the hurricane and that he went to a poor school. I would suggest that he instead look towards the government of Louisiana as the originator of his problems.

We then heard from a Latina woman who complained about how hard it is to get a visa and how people like her do the “dirty work that Americans don’t want to do.” A discussion about immigration policy is a topic for another post; however, her last comment nearly set me off. To be blunt, it is simply not true. As a white, American, Catholic, middle-class, privileged, heterosexual, conservative male, I have done such “dirty” work, even alongside migrant farmworkers. I have worked in a field and done all sorts of unpleasant work. And I know that I am not the only white, American, Catholic, middle-class, privileged, heterosexual, conservative male to do it. It is not fun, but it pays, which is why people do it, especially in this economy.

Finally, we were treated to the woes of a woman who is half-white and half-black. She seemed intensely fixated on the color of her skin and whether she should consider herself a black person or a white person. She concluded by saying that a new race is emerging “mixed, bi-racial, or multi-racial.” I will suggest that it does not matter what she decides to call herself. As Dr. Martin Luther King suggests, what matters is the content of your character, who you are as a person, and what you decide to do with your life. The color of your skin or your race should be insignificant details.

The Tour ended when we entered the Hallway of Happiness and were debriefed in a kumbaya session afterwards (what is a liberal feel-good event without one?). Thus ended the haunted house and the Tunnel. I suppose that most people come away feeling like they have really accomplished something and have successfully been made aware of oppression in the world. I came away convinced that the people running RHA are insane and wondering how anyone could want to spend three days of their life running such a thing. As far as awareness goes, I am now more aware of just how ridiculous these sorts of events are and to what depths some people will descend when they attempt to debate politics. It was a fun experience though. It was a neat twist on people watching, and provided me with valuable insight into the liberal mind. One thing I might suggest they add is a section on political and intellectual oppression. I wonder how they might have reacted had I worn my official Carolina Review t-shirt to this event. My instinct tells me it would have been rather ironic to observe.

67 comments

  1. Wow, this is unreal, nice expose Marc. First of all, does every student living on campus support RHA with fees? Is it technically a division of the university? I went to their website, and it suggests that they are financially supported by residents. A group of that nature should not articulate such a blatantly prejudiced agenda and coerce students into supporting it.

    Second of all, if I was the sort of person who got offended, I would be, as a Christian, white male southerner. It is painfully ironic that this group is attempting to combat oppression based on stereotypes, yet they commit the same offense against southerners multiple times in this tour. The inclusion of that element absolutely represents a contempt for southern conservative Christians, and at worse in represents a classification of them as second class human beings, those who do not deserve the same politically correct hypersensitive tolerance that liberals so ardently demand for homosexuals, blacks, and women.

    In their attempt to create a contrived effect, they did to a group of people precisely what their culture says deserves a death sentence if done toward a minority group. We don't have to imagine what their response would be if people portrayed in jest similar stereotypical representations of blacks, gays, or women. It happens, and the liberals drum up charges of deep prejudice.

    These people don't think.

  2. Wow. This event sounds so rough man. I feel your pain. I couldn't have sat through it. I am not sure why they were insulting Southerners?? Chapel Hill is in the South, after all. haha

  3. This is the perspective of one person that went through Tunnel, and a very skewed perception at that. Of course, this event can be taken however one sees fit, and it's good that Marc went through the Tunnel. Unfortunately, he did not see it as a good event, and like the CR normally does, criticized every piece of the event as a liberal ploy. I can see that the idea of the event was to expose students to different types of oppression that occurs around the world, and hopefully get them to think about little changes they can make in their lives that allows for open-mindedness and understanding. I thoroughly enjoyed the event, and hope that others were able to leave with an open heart, an open mind, and hope.

    1. It's not a "liberal ploy." It's just how people around here think. It's idiotic, but it's not like they think they're being idiotic. The people who put this on are simply adding to the all-encompassing idiocy of some of the people around here who are, nearly invariably, in charge.

      1. First, dictionary.com defines idiot to be someone with mental retardation or someone who's either foolish or stupid. I know a few of the people who put this on and a few of the people in charge who fit your description. I can offer candid evidence that they're not mentally retarded or stupid (marked by lack of intelligence). As far as foolish goes, that's quite subjective and to claim foolishness on the part of these individuals requires an argument. I read the Carolina Review and I admit that there are good points made (at least occasionally), but I'm only convinced of the soundness of a claim when there's an argument to back it up. That's fair. There's no argument to back up how the general atmosphere surrounding this campus's "politics or culture" is idiotic, similar in behavior to that of a mentally retarded person or similar in behavior to that of a person lacking in intelligence and thus without such an argument you're claim that this general atmosphere is idiotic is no different than the (many) similarly yet to be validated claims that the Carolina Review is stupid, an opinion I don't share by the way.

      2. Way to take a response the wrong way. You ARE retarded for taking the denotation of the word instead of the connotation that was clearly meant. And don't criticize a whole newspaper because you disagree with the views given.

      3. It's interesting that you find me retarded for taking "the wrong interpretation," especially when after reading my response, you took "the wrong interpretation." I didn't criticize a whole newspaper; at best, I brought up aspects that I both appreciate and dislike. By your reasoning, by taking an obviously wrong interpretation of my response, you ARE retarded.
        Taking the denotation of the word instead of the connotation? Really, this is a complaint? Have your read the article concerning "the golden virtue," i.e. tolerance? I wonder if you'd complain after reading that article and attack it for only examining the "denotation" as opposed to the connotation of the word or for that matter even consider how the word's changed since becoming politicized. I don't criticize all of the Carolina Review because quite frankly, i do agree with its points from time to time. Also, way to go for promoting a positive space for discussion, because that's really what we need in a forum committed to accomplishing worthwhile discussion, more baseless attacks. Next time you "try" to argue a point, "try" attacking the argument instead of the person making it. I don't judge you for it though, not all of us learned that in middle school.

  4. After reading your article, there are a few things that I would like to clear up. First of all, the stories in the relationship violence room were actually 100% true, and they did happen at UNC. And yes, men do experience relationship violence, but the majority of sexual violence is against women, which is why that was the focus of that room. Secondly, the actors in the homophobia room did not use any accents beyond how they normally speak. The actors from the day laborers room were from Oxford, NC and Tennessee, so they were drawing on personal experience when they were acting. I am from Durham, NC, and I was in no way offended by their performances.

    But most importantly, the experiences depicted in the Tunnel were not exaggerated. They were real. Homosexuals really do have bible verses thrown at them by angry evangelicals, but also by people they see every day at work, school, anywhere. Mixed race individuals really do feel as though they have to choose a race because of societal pressures. The apathy of privileged people is a major cause of the abysmal living conditions of the poor. People live with this kind of discrimination every day.

    I guess what I really don't understand why you feel the need to tear this project down. Even if you didn't agree with the way the issues were presented, the project as a whole was obviously done for a good cause. And if you read the comments of people who experienced the Tunnel, it obviously impacted people in a good way. Whenever someone tries to make a positive change in their community, it should be applauded, not insulted in such a petty way.

    1. To me at least, the accents sounded forced and exaggerated. Regardless, I do find it most curious that you chose to put the people on your team with the most obvious Southern accents (or imitations thereof) into the roles of the racist police officers and militant homophobes. Instead of discussing how such forms of discrimination might actually be shown in modern society, you chose to erect (rather ridiculous) caricatures which you then proceeded to viciously attack. In a rather ironic twist, while you went about deploring the evils of various types of oppression, you yourselves acted as oppressors. You unjustly and unfairly attacked those people who might have political views that dissent from your own. In this case, Southern Christian Evangelicals were the victims.

      I don't judge things by intentions (the road to Hell is after all, paved with good intentions), but by results. And what I saw was a blatantly shameless attempt at political indoctrination through the demonization of those who oppose you on such things as the definition of marriage and immigration policy.

      I'll also add (as I noted above) that I felt that the display on genocide was wholly inappropriate and totally out of line.

      1. Initially I did not want to become entrenched in this battle, but your specious remarks and sensationalist writing style are remarkably irritating. I'm sure you're just going to write me off as another "bleeding-heart liberal" with some socialist agenda, but here are my thoughts on the matter:

        First of all, as an actor in the homophobia room, I would like to assert that I do not have a Southern accent and did not imitate one. In fact, we all had a conversation about how we should avoid any accent so as not to marginalize other people. If you'd like me to feign a Southern accent, I'd be happy to comply as a point of comparison. In terms of the "fire and brimstone" dialogue–I had ONE line that quoted the bible. Maybe you think that Southern Evangelical Christians are the only people who refer to said text, but I will tell you that as a New Yorker, I have had the Bible referenced to me on a myriad occasions. Sometimes it is for being an ally of LGBT rights, at other times it is for my Judaism. These are the people I was channeling in the homophobia room. Maybe you think that all New York Jews are born with a vendetta against Southern Christians–personally, I am not a fan of anyone who uses G-d to perpetuate hate.

        Marc, you and I obviously have different political views, and I must respect that people are entitled to whatever views they please. I personally am not moved by your racial-profiling "scar analogy". Nor am I going to ever going to understand how you can believe that some people are not deserving of constitutional rights. I accept that I am not going to change your mind.

        I also accept that the Tunnel is not an experience that affects everyone in a positive manner. And I agree with you that there are all types of oppression in this world, and many are much more subtle than what you witnessed in the Tunnel. The Tunnel is not a perfect mechanism. But the point of it is to make people think differently about societal roles. It's message is not, "If you are a privileged white male–Congratulations! You're an Oppressor!" This is what you wanted to construe from the experience. Marc, I can tell you are not a an unintelligent person, but some of your views are limited. Fine, you hated the "Liberal Haunted House"–but is sparking communication such a bad thing? Based on your article, the Tunnel gave you a nice platform to express your views.

        I would just like to ask that you refrain from making lies in order to advance your point (my so-called Southern accent, as an example). Please don't be a demagogue. It's really unbecoming.

      2. Whether or not you intended to imitate a Southern accent is really beside the point. You did. Perhaps it was subconscious, perhaps you didn't even realize you were doing it. The fact of the matter is, you were doing it and, it did nothing but further feed the stereotype that you were producing. As for the fire and brimstone, obviously Southern Evangelical Christians are not the only people who reference the Bible. But when you attempt to sound like one in order to mock them, that's who people are going to think you are. There was also nothing in your performance to suggest that you were impersonating anyone other than a Southern Evangelical Christian.

        I feel like an intelligent discussion on some of the various constitutional issues here would be much more fruitful than the shock treatment that I was exposed to in the Tunnel.

        If the message of the Tunnel was not that privileged white males are evil people, then what, may I ask, was the purpose of the first room? The questions themselves seemed rather weighted to segregate the white males from the rest of the group. As I noted in the post, at the end of that little exercise, myself and the only other white guy in the group were at the front of the room, while all of the "minorities" in our group were at the back. What else am I supposed to take away from that? I will note that I didn't hate the event (it did after all give me an opportunity to produce a probing and insightful analysis of one facet of liberalism), however, I do have some concerns about the world views being advocated by it.

        I would ask that you refrain from calling me a liar unless you have concrete evidence to the contrary. I call things as I see them (or in this case hear them). Sometimes the truth just hurts. But you'll have to excuse me, being a demagogue, I must go rally the masses.

      3. "In fact, we all had a conversation about how we should avoid any accent so as not to marginalize other people."

        That's impossible. Everyone has an accent. Duh.

        And I feel so bad that Christians quote the Bible for you. Boohoo. You must feel so oppressed! Why are you so sensitive about it? Guilty conscience? Does it annoy you? Aww. Poor guy. You know how annoyed I was at UNC by gays who always had to throw their sex life in my face? Sorry, but I don't sympathize with you at all.

      4. Just out of curiosity, (you could say I'm working to be more self-aware) how were gays throwing their sex life in your face?

      5. Riley, I think you would find it rather irritating if someone came up to you every day and told you that you were evil and going to hell because of something you can't control.

      6. Can't control? You know, I've always had a problem with this. Liberals and gays alike seem to tote the concept of homosexuality as a lifestyle. The gay life style, as I've heard it.

        Well, THAT is a choice. What makes gays "evil" isn't that they are gay, but that they choose to give into that urge. People have bad urges all the time. On multiple occasions, I've felt the need to beat in someone's head, but I choose to ignore that desire. Now, before I get complaints about comparing having bizarre sexual urges to feeling the need to beat someone, I am basing my comparison on the belief that the homosexual "act" is wrong. It goes against nature, and while liberals may cry foul, they have yet to prove that homosexuality is a natural trait. Until they find the gay "gene" (if it exists), liberals don't have a leg to stand on when defending homosexuality.

        Gays are told something completely differently. They are told to embrace that unnatural desire and celebrate their homosexuality.

        @ wgary:
        They throw their sex life in our face every time they wear their rainbow pins, and behave and dress in the manner of the stereotypical gay. One can indeed be gay without acting "gay". That is why phrases like "That's so gay." are perfectly appropriate. It describes the lifestyle, not the fact that they are attracted to members of the same sex. It's the gays and liberals who seem to mix the two up.

      7. I'm not going to debate too long on this point, because there's an overwhelming volume of sociological studies, genetic studies/statistics, biological and anthropological studies (I can give you some sources, should you care enough to request them) that suggest homosexuality is not only natural, but normal and that it occurs in at least 60 other species within the animal kingdom (obviously, the animal kingdom, but I digress). While it is certainly a choice to pursue one's sexual interest, you must recognize that your belief or the beliefs of others who say homosexuality is wrong is exactly that your belief/opinion and that of others who agree with you. As soon as you leave the circle of members who agree with you, your argument falls on its face, because it depends on the "belief/opinion" that it's wrong. Science, not that the mention of it will necessarily win that many points in this forum, has been used fairly, time and time again and through its methodology shown that homosexuality is not only normal, but natural (I'm being redundant here, but there's a reason), so in response to the "Liberals don't have a leg to stand on claim," well, they do. Now equivalently, as soon as you decide to reject science and its results, then the liberal argument admittedly looks weaker, but then we could launch into individual rights and individuals, like it or not, have the right to do what they wish, sexually with other individuals, we are talking about adults, just to be clear. Essentially, it's not your right or anyone else's to tell another adult how to have sex, period. Oh and I'm not going to address the comparison you made, since you went ahead and distinguished between the two.

        I'm so glad you responded to this, because I'd been waiting for someone to. One of the members in this forum said that he had only seen two guys kissing once the entire time he's been here at UNC, so all four years, one instance of shared affection, so of course I was confused as to what was meant by throwing their sex life in his face. Do you know how sex life is defined? Collins defines sex life as referring to sexual activity or sexual relationships. In this way, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike could accuse each other of throwing their sex lives in each other's faces. How? Kissing, holding hands, wearing a wedding ring, the list goes on and on. There's a small minority in both camps that abhor any type of shared affection in a public space. If you or Mr. Riley fit in this camp, the one that dislikes all forms of shared affection in public spaces, then you're consistent and I concede; however, if not, then you're just picking out one group simply because you don't like their actions. Gay by the way is defined as relating to sexual attraction or activity among members of the same sex, MSN Encarta. In this way, "That's so gay," despite how silly that phrase is, is rendered completely meaningless because it's used, as you most certainly know, in contexts that make little to no sense. Often, it's not even used to describe something that could even be misconstrued as relating to homosexuality. Liberals and gays aren't mixing the two up, they're far more acquainted with what the word means and implies and are quick to correct those who don't.

        Just as a final word, I've enjoyed debating on this forum, thus far, because whether you're conservative, liberal, or independent, arguments are presented. What you sir have presented, is not an argument, but a monologue. You've called out homosexuality as being unnatural and that pursuing those sexual urges, regardless of how it's done, be it through courting or randomly "hooking-up", as evil, and you've done so entirely without proof. In fact the only proof you've offered is your belief and I'm afraid your belief alone or the belief of your peers isn't enough for gays, lesbians, etc. and allies to guide their lives by. Perhaps relying upon science is a flawed way to live one's life, but at least with science, there's the possibility of being unbiased, you can conduct, if you're willing and competent, unbiased studies and experiments. You can not claim the same of your beliefs or those who helped shape them. It is perfectly reasonable for you and your peers to keep your beliefs regarding homosexuality, but don't expect a real discussion, debate, or for that matter any real positive change to occur if all you're going to bring to the table are your beliefs and opinions. Argue with us, please, you're invited, but note there's a difference between debate and a sermon and each has its place.

      8. One more thing and I promise (ish) that I'm done on the subject. Really? Wearing a rainbow pin is that terrible? Behaving and dressing in the manner of the stereotypical gay? Really? Webster definitions aside, the point of wearing rainbow pins, at least to me, is for the sake of visibility. Many of the people who wear rainbow pins are 100% heterosexual, but they like I believe that a gay person doesn't need to hide who they are, by dressing straight (whatever that means) and inducing some sort of lower pitch in voice. While I admit, there are those whose personalities are a bit overwhelming, the very same can be said of those who are super proud of being Republican or Democratic or Christian or Muslim. I wanted to craft as rational a response as I could to your reply and hopefully I did, but seriously reviewing your reply and believing someone actually possesses these antipathies for such laughable reasons, e.g. "dressing gay" and "wearing rainbow pins," requires me as it would many others to suspend reality for a bit. Vote how you will, please, make heard your voice, but if you're really offended by gays doing what you mentioned, it sounds to me like someone else needs a thicker skin…that or a blindfold.

      9. Riley,

        You should consider how newscasters go through voice therapy. I know a few professionals who go through it and, if done correctly, they have little to no traces of any prior accent (if there was one that was distinguishable).

        And as for the last paragraph: Please grow up. Petty, crass rhetoric makes you seem like you don't know what you were talking about.

        And I'm sorry to hear that UNC gays come up to you and start talking about their sex life. That must be annoying how so many of them come up to YOU specifically and feel the need to dish out their different sexual encounters. You should write a book about that because even as a member of the LGBTIQA community I have never ever had such a thing happen to me. You must feel so oppressed!

      10. Okay, I concede (except on the accent topic–newscasters just learn a certain kind of "desirable" American accent).

        I suppose that, given a culture that accepts homosexuality as it seems to be defined today, gays and lesbians are to be expected to act, dress, and speak differently from the way in which heterosexuals act, dress, and speak. Sorry about the rhetoric.

    2. Your claim that the tunnel was "obviously done for a good cause" and "to make a positive change", thereby exempting it from criticism and declaring it to be necessarily worthy of applause accents the ideological arrogance of its proponents. You write as if the perspectives of this event is an objective, self-evident truth, when in reality you know it to be one perspective regarding a complex and controversial problem. Your simplification of it and pretense that all should applaud your efforts again reveals your irrational pride and contempt for those who disagree.

      No one here is denying the reality of these circumstances. The point is that this event is a transparent emphasis on dividing people, building up stereotypes, and assigning blame.

  5. Marc, I'm glad you saw the Tunnel for what it is. How could they ignore the oppression of the white, American, Catholic, middle-class, privileged, heterosexual, conservative male? And how Dare they insult southerners by using natural southern accents?

    How dare they distort the truth in the relationship violence room? Despite the fact that the stories were taken from the Dean of Students office (which is responsible for blind reporting) and written as monologues, they were surely distorted.

    Also:
    -84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female
    -Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers
    -50% of offenders in state prison for spousal abuse had killed their victims. Wives were more likely than husbands to be killed by their spouses: wives were about half of all spouses in the population in 2002, but 81% of all persons killed by their spouse.
    Clearly they are marginalizing the violence against men by telling two womens' stories of domestic abuse.

    How dare they depict such things? And the worst part is that they probably would have treated you Horribly if you wore a CR shirt. Why? Because you are absolutely the victim. In a world where blacks constitute 13% of drug users, but 35% of those arrested for drug possession, 55% of persons convicted, and 74% of those sent to prison, I cannot imagine your burden. Especially since American women have average of 15 hours less leisure time per week than their husbands. It must be Horrible to know that going into marriage. It must truly suck to be able to hold hands and openly kiss someone you care about in public. I can't even imagine your pain.

    How dare they not take offense to a shirt you didnt wear?! If you had been openly conservative, it wouldn't have mattered. If you had been open about the fact that you only came to the program expecting to hate it and find flaws with it, maybe that would have.

    1. As I noted in one of the above comments, the southern accents seemed anything but natural.

      When someone tells me that a story is true, I tend to be skeptical, especially when they don't reference a source. The fact that these stories came from the blind reports doesn't exactly assuage my concerns, but it's good to see you're trying. Given that the tactic among liberals lately to preface any sort of argument with a long, manufactured sob story, you'll have to forgive me if I don't completely trust the veracity of the stories.

      I am not contesting that women tend to experience higher levels of relationship violence than men. I was merely pointing out (call it a friendly suggestion) that men also experience such things, but that your performance did not seem to indicate that. Rather the only role a man had in that room was as a perpetrator. This hardly seems fair, as your own statistics indicate that somewhere around 20% of the instances of violence are initiated against men.

      My comment on the t-shirt was to suggest that you completely neglected to mention any form of political/intellectual oppression as is often seen on university campuses. Of course, being in the majority (liberal) opinion, I wouldn't expect you to understand. I am not free to openly express myself in a classroom or a paper without fear of retribution. Any contribution that I might make to the dialogue on campus is a best ignored, and at worst slandered. This is a real issue of oppression, yet it garnered that even the slightest mention in your Tunnel. Though, I guess that proves my point.

    2. While we are spouting statistics that are supposed to make white men feel uncomfortable, why don't we talk about the murder rate? Why don't we talk about the fact that blacks are much more likely to kill whites than vice versa? Why don't we talk about the fact that whites are more likely to be executed for murder than blacks? Why don't we talk about the fact that both Hispanics and blacks have higher crime rates in almost every area of crime than whites? Why don't we talk about the fact that blacks and Hispanics are typically much more ethnocentric than whites? I mean, if we're gonna generalize.

      And if we're gonna talk about global oppression, why don't we talk about Islamic oppression of Christianity? Why don't we talk about how blacks commit racially-motivated murders against whites in Africa alarmingly often? Why don't we "raise awareness" about the global white birthrate being below replacement level?

      Look, if you're just gonna throw statistics around, then I can throw them back all day. This liberal "oppression awareness" is nothing but nonsense, whether you want to admit it or not. So you think individuals of mixed racial heritage have identity crises? Well, what about white Americans, who are ethnically mixed (consisting of various European/white ethnicities)? On the one hand, we are told that we are white, but, on the other hand, the term "white" in the U.S. can only refer to racial ancestry and not to a cultural identity. Therefore, whites are constantly seeking nonracial ways by which to define/identify themselves, not just people of mixed racial ancestry (the only difference being that people of mixed racial ancestry often are obsessed with race and try to cope with their confusion by defining their racial identity, whereas whites typically don’t think in very ethnocentric, racial, or ethnic terms). And this brings up another point. Why aren't monoracial blacks or Hispanics required to engage in nonracial culture like whites are?

      “In a world where blacks constitute 13% of drug users, but 35% of those arrested for drug possession, 55% of persons convicted, and 74% of those sent to prison, I cannot imagine your burden.”

      I’m really curious to know the source of the 13% statistic that you quote. I mean, that percentage is highly suspect in my mind, because, unlike arrest, conviction, and prison reports, which are highly objective and hard to make up, it seems that determining illegal drug usage in the absence of arrest, conviction, and prison reports is hard. Also, the black community suffers from more criminality than the white community, so to say that the percentage of drug users who are black is equal to the percentage of the population which is black (which is, interestingly enough, around 13%) is highly suspect as well. Perhaps you can edify me?

      And whether you like it or not, some people in this country have religious beliefs that say that homosexuality is wrong. Sorry if you think that's "oppression." They view quoting the Bible as essentially a spiritual work of mercy–"admonishing the sinner." And, by the way, I highly doubt UNC students would give two guys kissing in public even just a dirty look. Funny, though, I only saw two dudes acting thus once in the four years during which I was a student. If they're so happy to be out of the closet, and if UNC's such a "tolerant" place, then why didn't I see it more often? Maybe the gays need to nut up or shut up.

      Seriously, this white, heterosexual guilt has got to stop. It has gotten so ridiculous that I'm sure that no other majority group in the history of humankind has ever been so submissive to whiny minority groups. Stop caring what other people think of you. If you've got an immutable difference that you're uncomfortable with, then it's incumbent upon YOU (not anyone else) to get over your discomfort. I don’t need to develop a soft spot for your sensitivities—you need to develop a thicker skin.

      1. There are quite a few arguments made here, so in the interest of time, I'll just respond to the easiest one 🙂

        The question of quoting bible verses or preaching in open squares about the "sin" of homosexuality amounts to what's appropriate in public space. What's appropriate in a public space? Free speech, regardless of one's religious (or lack of religious) views, political views, etc shouldn't be infringed upon…until of course it intrudes upon the rights of another. We already have "commonsense" policies regarding what's appropriate in a public space. (Alert: this is not to draw a parallel from homo-bash-preaching to the following); there are a few readily available examples, public urination, public sex, "lude" behavior. What makes these actions/behaviors inappropriate is that you're taking a public space and coercing those who decide to use that public space to engage your behavior, which is as simple as looking or hearing, something not necessarily easy to restrain oneself from, when that type of engagement was never the intention of the individual simply wishing to use that public space. The same can be said individuals who "feel" it necessary to "admonish" homosexuals. The public space belongs to the public, not just to the religious who believe homosexuality to be wrong. Of course, I would argue the same of a white supremacist or (less likely, I think) a black supremacist. If many of these people need to fulfill their "spiritual duties," they should do it in their own personal private spaces, be it their homes, their churches, or their websites.

      2. Well, I really do see where you're coming from. And I agree that we have to have laws regarding what is acceptable and what's not in public spaces. I just disagree with your view on what is not acceptable (and perhaps on what is acceptable).

    1. I can't really speak to the illegal immigration and genocide parallel, but I can speak to the idea of equating name-calling (with respect to homosexuals) to genocide. Genocide, as obvious as this will sound, doesn't just happen in one foul swoop. Historically, there's been a build-up preceding genocide. Now before I proceed, let me note that I do think it's a bit rash to draw parallels between genocide in other countries to much of the oppression homosexuals have faced and do face in this country, however, I assure you that name-calling was a part of the build-up preceding both the Rwandan genocide and that of the Holocaust. In fact, if you take a visit to the Holocaust museum, it becomes very clear that the sort of atmosphere, from which the Holocaust emerged, borrowed much from demeaning Jews. I see demeaning homosexuals to be an awful thing and being sensitive to what could be understood as warning signs is not paranoia.

  6. As usual the far right is going to extensive lengths to tear down any effort that people on this campus make to suggest that we aren't in fact living in the Garden of Eden. Mr. Seelinger, I will have you know that I am a white, male, privileged, American, middle-class, moderate (but sorry Your Holiness, I'm Lutheran). What's more, I'm from the South, so I can speak to how things go down around here a bit better than you can. In fact, but assuming that these were Southern stereotypes, you yourself are stereotyping Southerners. Believe me, I attended at high school that was 95% white and I saw in the behavior of my classmates much of the discrimination that was presented against hispanics, blacks, and homosexuals. Believe it or not, much of this sort of oppression is found in the South because, guess what, that's where the political and social culture is most set against it. The sort of things you saw presented in the Tunnel are in fact reality, and to deride these presentations as a "liberal haunted house" amounts to nothing short of arrogance on your part. How can we have an open discussion of the issues if you and others like yourself are determined to belittle them? Sharing much of your privileged background, I at no point felt as though I was the primary target of accusation for oppressing these people (consider the relationship violence story involving a homosexual relationship). Nor was that the intent. Perhaps next time you visit one of these events, you'll consider approaching it with an open mind rather than crafting your derogatory diction before you ever enter the room.

    Oh, and one more thing: have your opinions, but do not insult the various student groups and leaders who poured hours and hours of to their time into a project meant to engage the very debate you so desperately seek.

    1. If the exhibit was so focused on presenting real events, why didn't it show racism against white people in the African-American community, or negative and bigoted views of conservative Christians by liberals, or bigoted perceptions and stereotypes of southerners by people from the north, or the sexual harassment of heterosexuals by homosexuals.

      I've had to deal with all of these things, so you can't tell me they don't exist. And since your tunnel apparently didn't cover them, you can't tell me the event was unbiased and balanced.

      1. I'd like to request that we examine this comment from a sociological perspective:
        Racism is a system that privileges one group and disadvantages another based on race. It's important to keep in mind that it's a system. It's funny that you say white people are victims of racism because, really, there's no way a white person can suffer from the oppression that is racism. Why not? because racism is systematic. White people can experience discrimination based on race, but they do not endure on going oppression because of their skin color. If they did, the statistics about black people in prison would be about white people instead. However, because racism is more complex and prevalent than just a few isolated instances of discrimination, you cannot be oppressed by someone who does not have the privilege to do so. And so you cannot be oppressed based on race if you are white and whites are privileged in society.

      2. I'm not sure where you are getting this definition of racism. Dictionary.com defines racism as:

        1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
        2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
        3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

        Discrimination is an action, racism is a way of thinking. Discrimination is a way that people express racism. Racism is not a "system", it is a way of thinking. Anyone can be a racist, no matter how much power they have in a society.

      3. I love how the definition of the word "racism" is constantly being updated. Of course, this is to be expected. Why? Because the word was invented by leftists, for leftists. I read "Up From Slavery" by Booker T. Washington, and the word is not mentioned once. Instead, he uses the words "race prejudice," which is much more logical and is more easily defined.

        "If they did, the statistics about black people in prison would be about white people instead."

        You're going to have to prove this if you want to be taken seriously. Maybe the statistics about black people in prison are the way they are because blacks commit more crimes on average than whites. Ever thought about that possibility? I mean, that's quite a bold accusation to make. You are pretty much accusing the American government (which is currently headed by a black man) of systematically and habitually arresting, convicting, and imprisoning blacks who don't deserve to be arrested, convicted, and imprisoned. Do you have any idea how much training police officers go through to avoid THAT VERY THING? This is reminiscent of the Sgt. Crowley and Henry Louis Gates controversy. The left thought they had won a big victory in finding a case of real discrimination in which an ignorant, bigoted white cop arrested unjustly a distinguished scholar because, ultimately, of his skin color. I thought it was hilarious when the truth came out. As it turns out, this cop was something of a teacher whose class was on the very topic of avoiding racial profiling. And Gates was acting like an ass, and the cop had every right to arrest him. But–somehow–I guess blacks are just in prison because of "systematic racism" which you are yet to prove or demonstrate. This is your argument: The percentage of blacks in prison is higher than the percentage of whites in prison. Therefore, our system is racist against black people. Looks like UNC has done a bang-up job with your reasoning skills!

      4. Probably because these events are statistically irrelevant. Had they had a few hundred exhibits, then they could have perhaps focused on the sob story of your privileged upbringing, but they didn't. They instead focused on issues that people are much more likely to run into.

        Have you been beaten or killed in the streets after a terrorist attack? Muslims and Sikhs have
        Have you been assassinated for running for office? Gays and lesbians have
        Have you been prosecuted as a rapist for having consensual sex with a white woman? Blacks have

        I can go on, as you know, but you're too blinded by the tiny problems you've faced to have any meaningful discussion.

      5. What makes you think I had a privileged upbringing? Stereotyping a bit are you?

        Issues that people are far more likely to run into? Based on numbers in the USA alone, I'd say you're far more likely to run into black vs white racism or liberal bigotry towards Christians than anti-gay violence.

      6. Based on what numbers? I'll use the CIA's:

        Whites outnumber blacks 6.2 to 1
        Christians outnumber non-Christians 3.7 to 1
        Heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by 32 to 1 (estimate based on psychological studies finding 4% of men and 2% to be homosexual)

        Your entire point seems to be that gays, blacks, and non-Christians aren't killed OFTEN, so it's acceptable, while people ridicule your ideals regularly. The two problems here are that (1) the consequences of each are very different (DEATH versus a bruised ego) and (2) it is your CHOICE to be conservative. The majority of people are not conservative, so you subject YOURSELF to their judgement. Gays, blacks, and people born outside of the US do not choose to do so (If you'd like to dispute the first, try reading any psychology book from any reputable author. Take a look at "twin studies"). All three groups may choose not to act on their desires to make a better life for themselves, but the point remains that they are who they are. You could change your views (if you think that one's views are not changeable, you're a fool for arguing on a website), but you choose not to. Don't compare your struggle to be accepted in a world that doesn't accept bigots to that of a gay or black man.

      7. Your argument seems to boil down to:

        1) discrimination of the type that I talked about does not exist.
        2) If it does, it is minor.
        3) If (1) and (2) are false, they deserve it anyways.

        I think (3) pretty much explains your views (1) and (2).

      8. Yes, I would say that oppression of a majority group by minorities is less common and less serious, and "oppression" in the form of disagreement with one's political views is deserved. Other political groups call that "competition" or "debate," but now that Bush is out of office and Congress is majority Democrat (due to the failings of the Bush administration), Republicans (who generally aren't conservative on MANY issues) are constantly lamenting being a [voluntary] minority group.

        Regarding the seriousness of your "oppression:" Were you suicidal for 2 full years because you'd always been taught that being conservative was wrong? Are you not allowed to visit your significant other in the hospital as a conservative? Did your parents stop speaking to you for 4 months and cut all financial ties in your freshman year of college when they found out you were conservative?

        I'm going to hazard a guess and say that none of these things happened to you, but feel free to continue to sob that "Liberals" disagree with you because your views are outdated and bigoted.

      9. People have a right to believe that homosexuality is wrong, and they have a right to express that opinion. It makes no sense to say that homosexuals are literally suicidal because OTHER people think homosexuality is wrong. If they are so convinced of their morality, why do they care what other people think? And if they themselves think that homosexuality is wrong, then that's not my problem or anyone else's. They can either choose not to engage in it, or they can come to terms with their practice of it. Liberals actually damage people with homosexual tendencies by telling them that their orientation is completely genetic. Even if it is partly genetic, it's not entirely genetic by any stretch of the imagination. That's not necessarily to say that every homosexual can overcome homosexual desires, but possibly they can learn to control them if they wish and even develop heterosexual tendencies and develop healthy, traditional relationships with members of the opposite sex. But nowadays, homosexuals are told that they need to "accept themselves for who they are"–in other words, they need to accept their homosexuality. So actually, they are pressured by the left to do something that, in their hearts, they may not actually want to do.

      10. Agreed to some extent…
        People do have a right to believe homosexuality is wrong, sure.
        (1) It is incorrect to suggest or find from "suddenlysufi"'s comment that homosexuals are "literally" suicidal because other people think poorly of them. Case in point, many of the gay teens in middle school who attempt/commit suicide do so not because they're so convinced that their peers think poorly of them, but because they're bullied and harassed by their peers because they are out, so to speak, or more likely because of suspicions concerning their sexuality. This is to say nothing of how they're treated by their families.
        (2) If a homosexual finds his/her desires to be wrong, then it is his/her right to act as he/she wishes; if that means joining those ex-gay ministries or therapies, so be it. If a homosexual finds his/her desires to be fine, then we have a very different situation, which I can address later if anyone's interested.
        (3) As far as damage is concerned, truth is preferable (in this context and hopefully every other as well) and if it so happens that homosexual tendencies are completely genetic, then I disagree that sharing that truth is damaging. It's what is, take it or leave it.
        (4) There is a great volume of data/sociological case studies that suggest homosexuality or the tendencies thereof is natural. Here is where I really have to "take issue" as it were. Please correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation, however, it seems to me that you're criticizing a "movement" in today's society that compels people with homosexual tendencies/possible homosexuals to be themselves, i.e. accept their homosexuality/homosexual tendencies. My question is what would you recommend as opposed to that? I see three options: accept it and live with it, "control it" and act against it, or finally leave the decision entirely to him/her without any attempt to influence him/her. The third might be the most reasonable, I could see a valid argument for that. The second, I would argue is just wrong because it says there's something wrong with that kind of behavior and once we attach to this argument, what tools do we use to prove that there's something wrong with this kind of behavior?

      11. I apologize for my ignorance, but what is Lewis's Tao, I assume this is C.S. Lewis, right? You bring up an interesting point, about how this Tao cannot be regulated by government, it has to be accepted by the people.
        I have a readily available counterexample, but the problem is the Tao we were discussing was in regards to behavior, my counterexample isn't. Think of desegregation. There's plenty of sociological "evidence" that suggests much, not most, but much of society wasn't ready for it, that the people weren't completely ready for it, nonetheless, public schools were desegregated and I would argue that our society's better off for it. Our government is arguably still by the people, for the people, and maybe occasionally the people just need a gentle shove by the people they've elected and appointed.

      12. Our society is not really desegregated. C'mon, you seem too intelligent to believe that it is. The law aside, America is still very segregated.

      13. I would have responded earlier, but I didn't realize you had replied to me. When I mentioned desegregation, I was referring to the desegregation of public schools. I recognize that our society isn't entirely desegregated and that our public schools are still segregated to a point. The difference between our public schools during say the forties and our public schools now is precisely a consequence of government intervention. America, yes, is very segregated, even today, but there's no valid denial that our society is less segregated now than it was just say 50 years ago. Legislation preventing or at least penalizing racial discrimination is to be credited to some extent, we can argue what extent later, for the inability of traditional racism's ability to survive in the mainstream.

      14. I agree, for the most part. One thing you say, however, needs to be considered a little more:

        "The difference between our public schools during say the forties and our public schools now is precisely a consequence of government intervention."

        That's right. Government intervention that was (and still is: http://mobile.latimes.com/inf/infomo;JSESSIONID=6… ardently opposed by regular folks. The only real reason for the current level of integration is twofold: The government and the cultural elite, which are really two peas in a pod. The government provides the muscle behind the laws (forcing all sorts of pro-diversity and integration laws on the people, such as busing and affirmative action), while the cultural elite shuts down anyone vocally opposed to such integration through intimidation, and manipulates their views on diversity through propaganda. The truth is, the racial dynamics of our society would probably be largely the same today as they were in the 1950s if it weren't for government intervention and the cultural elite. What's remarkable is the extent to which the common person has resisted it. I mean, think about all the resources, money, time, propaganda, and laws that have been used in the past 50-60 years to promote "diversity" and integration. And yet, despite all that, "America…is very segregated," as you yourself say. This fact has bothered many, many leftists, and so you now have leftists arguing that whites have to be constantly vigilant if we are to overcome what they call "white supremacy" and "white privilege": http://www.alternet.org/media/146040/what_white_p… (one telling paragraph is the following: "I observe all this not from some arrogant high ground, but as someone stuck in the same dynamic [of white supremacy/privilege], struggling to get out. I know that for all my writing and political work on racial justice, I still feel most comfortable in settings where my understanding of the world defines the interaction, no matter the racial composition of the group. Rather than pretend otherwise, I start with that reality and search for ways to move forward.").

      15. Very, very good point Riley. I would be very interested in any literature/studies that attempt to theorize why the "common man" has resisted such (seemingly good) drives toward integration. The aforementioned contrast is certainly unsettling to liberals and leftists alike, While many of us appreciate that segregation is no longer systematic, it's distressing to recognize that now there exists a self-segregation. Nonetheless, excellent points Riley and thanks for your thoughts.

      16. Thanks for the commendation. (I'm going to add this discussion to my list of proofs that I do get along with liberals when we both see the same reality.) There are actually lots of studies and literature on why there's still such a shocking level of segregation, despite our efforts to the contrary. Most of this literature, however, is written and published by rightists (actually, "rightist" isn't necessarily the best word to use–some of them are liberal in many respects, but they tend to be very conservative/traditional in their views on race), most of whom are reviled as unapologetic racists, so it's very hard for them to get their opinions disseminated. Some leftists also publish literature on the topic, but I only see it sporadically, and it tends to be very bitter, arrogant, and depressing. In my opinion, it also seems dishonest.

      17. We also haven't pinpointed the specific genes that cause all types of pancreatic cancer or red hair, for instance. Are these a choice, then, too?

        Hell, not all the genes for melanin production have been identified, given the extraordinary size of the human genome. Maybe your melanin production is a choice, and you whites complaining about your miserable lot in life have chosen to become the suffering group that you are, when you could just decide to be black.

      18. Don't know about Muslims and Sikhs.
        As far as gays are concerned, I can give the easiest example, Harvey Milk.

      19. I'm not sure I can cosign with that, given the murderer's history with Milk or for that matter his alleged agenda, the peers he kept, and his motives. It can't be proven, I can admit that, that Harvey Milk was killed because he way gay, but there's not a lack of evidence suggesting it.

      20. I feel like cwjones is right but I think his sexual orientation was tied very deeply into the relationship with the two. I completely agree that it wasn't a directly causal relationship but I feel like it could be argued that it was, at least, somewhat influenced by the aforementioned reason.

      21. 1. http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter1.htm (literally the first link after googling "violence against Muslims after 9 11")
        2. Milk
        3. I'm not talking of miscarriages of justice, I was talking of the systemic persecution of blacks in mixed race couples even after the repeal of Jim Crow laws ended that as official policy. Miscarriages of justice are unacceptable, but they tend to be against non-whites.

        You are wrong on literally every count.

      22. Crime rates after 9/11 dropped as people experienced a surge or nationalism, while crime rates against people of Arab decent skyrocketed. If you sincerely believe that the assaults and murders of dozens of Arabs in the month following 9/11 (and the firebombing of a couple mosques) is completely unrelated to 9/11, despite what every scholar and even pundit says, that's your prerogative, but the fact of the matter is that they became disproportionately victims of crime. If you think it wasn't prompted by 9/11, so be it, but that only leaves assuming that they are ordinary targets for hate crimes.

        Continue to nitpick every example and statement I make. Fine. But why? Do you sincerely believe that life is harder as a majority than as a minority? If so, stop reading the Carolina Review and meet more people. I figure this will be countered by the stereotypical "I have black friends!" statement, but the fact is if you did you wouldn't dare tell them that you're more oppressed than they are.

      23. The Tunnel was obviously limited, and was therefore approached in a manner to focus on the most prominent forms of discrimination. This should be obvious.

    2. First off, Your Holiness is actually the Pope, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't even know this blog exists, so I just thought I'd clear that up. Next, I've lived in NC for more than 10 years. So, while I'm not necessarily "born and bred," I think I've got a pretty good idea of how this place works. Most of the people I know are pretty nice people. Of course you're going to have a few outliers, but that's true in any society, and I don't people in damning an entire group of people because of a few nuts.

      I'm sorry if you're offended by my calling the place a haunted house. But next time, they might want to consider taking down all of the Harry Potter decorations before they set up. But that's just a suggestion.

      I often felt as if I was the target of accusation. The first room seemed clearly set up to do that, and then I was frequently accosted by the performers. Add that to the content of the monologues, and I started to feel like they were pointing fingers. But then everyone has a unique experience. I'll also add that I crafted my derogatory diction after I'd left the room. But I did take notes, as I didn't want to miss anything.

      So, I can express an opinion, as long as it doesn't offend anyone? I would suggest that you grow some thicker skin and get used to being criticized if you're going to engage in political debate. To be honest, I object to the way that RHA is spending my RHA fee and, I would much rather that these groups and leaders didn't spend so much time putting these things on. I feel like the world would probably be a better place without such projects. There are better and more efficient ways to stimulate debate.

    3. I was born and bred in the South, and I currently live in the Deep South. There are many cultural reasons why the South is more "bigoted" than the North, but what I've found is that there's really not a big difference between the "bigotry" found in the South and that found in the North (half of my family is from Detroit). With the advent of the Internet and with the greater mobility of people, many of the stereotypes of the South are being torn down. "Homophobia," "racism," and "sexism" are all social stigmas everywhere in the U.S., including in the deepest parts of the South. If you haven't noticed that, then you need to open your eyes to the South which you apparently are from.

      Also, maybe the U.S. should become more like Japan, where there are virtually no immigrants, the population is almost completely homogeneous, and where civil rights for minorities are virtually unheard of. Maybe then all the minorities in the U.S. would start to appreciate the extreme benevolence of the American majority, instead of incessantly wining about how oppressed they are, even though they are provided with relatively high-paying jobs, a relatively high level of comfort, and, as if that weren't enough, the ability to bemoan their imagined oppression.

  7. I couldn't finish my tour as an RA because of the incessant liberal brainwashing and mindlessness of the DHRE and RHA.
    I scream to all who might get involved…. GET OUT BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!

      1. I commend, shall we say your curiosity, however, as far the antipathy concerning the event's funding, this should just be considered familiar territory. It wouldn't be a stretch to suggest the greater campus community disagreed with the decision to fund the public abortion exhibits featured on the quad earlier during the academic school year and nonetheless I doubt there should be many problems with its continued funding, seeing as to how they've been funded for the past 4. You win some, you lose some.

  8. I didn't have a choice to fund the giant antt-abortion display in the quad last year. Our money often goes to things we disagree with.

  9. My daughter went thru one ot these today and it really made an impression on her. She has never experienced oppression and was shocked at the ways others have to live that experiences oppression. I was very proud of her that she has such an open heart to put yourself in anothers shoes to see what their life is like. I feel this has made your heart open to loving and caring about other people even more……

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s