comment: >
  
  My opinion: In an ideal world, many of the concepts presented in a "critical race theory" or "whiteness studies" course should be introduced to most folks globally prior to participating in the workforce, particularly for those who plan to lead people at some point during their career. I also this this course would be beneficial for folks planning to enter healthcare, social work, and nonprofit related industries with understaning their patient and client populations. And I think it is important to approach the material through a rigorous academic framework such as whiteness studies.
  But at the same time-
  1.) I think selection bias causes folks who already understand and agree with the course material to opt in to the course, whilst those whom I assume are the intended audience (e.g. folks who either aren't aware of or are skeptical of the accuracy of the concepts presented in the course material) opt out of the course. So what's the point? You could learn the material in your free time easily enough just by talking to POC if you're so inclined. So I wouldn't necessarily wanna pay for this course if I were still in undergrad (unless I were in one of the majors called out above.) But at the end of the day: That's just how some elective  GenEd courses are. Maybe it's just an easy A for some people, and I don't have a problem with it.
  2.) Clearly there is a branding problem based on the fact that so many people are upset about the names of the courses. I wonder if it would be beneficial for schools and universities to organize a more general course that allows you to cover the same topics. Something like "Social Constructionism vs. Systematic Observation in the 21st Century." I think this would allow for more customization based on geographic area, plus you could learn to apply the principles learned to other social constructs such as gender that way.
  So I am not sure if this response is really going to change your view. But basically I am saying it may be helpful in the workplace for some people, and some of the principles learned I think could be valuable to others (though the material may need to be approached differently or rebranded to achieve this goal, assuming the goal of the course is to get a broad audience to enroll.)
context: /u/i_havent_read_it (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  I don't think terms like white and black are very productive. Skin color is simply an adaptation to varying degrees of UV exposure in different parts of the world. A person from India, Africa, and South America may have the same skin tone, but are they all "black?" No, only the African is considered black. Ok, then why not just call that person a Ugandan or Moroccan or wherever else they originate from? We should be grouping people based on ethnic and cultural decent.
  The thing is, there are inherent morphologic differences between humans depending on which region of the world they originate from, and skin color is just one of those features. We don't really talk about all the other ways that human beings differ in terms of appearance. Why? Because skin color is easiest to identify and describe. But thats about it...its purely out of convenience. At the end of the day skin tone is a crude and fairly useless way to categorize people.
  Black and white are terms that stem from racist ideology and should be rooted out. >
  
  As I understand it, the notion of whiteness as a point of study is understanding how societies have conceptualized race, what constituted being white over time, and whatever status/privileges went along with it - namely in the United States. 
  And American society hasn't actually been shy on the topic either for quite some time. Statehouses and courts have proven to be happy to weigh in on the matter. Its been not only a matter of social and cultural importance, but even legal. If the topic wasn't taboo for legislatures and courts for centuries, universities should be fine. 
  Anyway, the problematic parts you're talking about aren't all that different than any other student being obnoxious after learning something in school. Psych students think they've got the human condition figured out, guy reads Das Kapital and suddenly knows more than modern economists. That doesn't mean its a net negative to try and understand these topics more. 
  Where these people are going wrong is they're taking a field of study meant to explore cultural phenomena over decades and pointing fingers at individuals. Not good. 
  Anyway as far as social constructs go, it's been pretty damn influential throughout history.  I think it's fair to at least explore the concept as a matter or inquiry. >
  
  It's only problematic because it's demonized. Otherwise, we'd treat whiteness like any other sort of culture/ethnicity mass and acknowledge the pros and cons, instead of just cons. Like bruh the way I see people talking about white people these days makes me think of how people used to talk about jews, based on my knowledge that casual antisemitism was super common world-wide back in the day. I don't wanna hear this whole "racism is prejudice plus power" bullshit either. Power can change hands in less than a generation. We've already seen that in how redneck this country was in the 90s to how yuppie-ish it is today. Like bruh there's people who think lifting weights is racist. >
  
  I think any cultural studies class where they talk only about the negative or positive of said race would be harmful for that race and all others.
  I can not definitively say if that is the case but in the political climate we live in in the US I find it unlikely they are talking about any good things accomplished from "whiteness" in whiteness studies or any bad things accomplished from blackness in blackness studies. It breeds division, helplessness, and guilt- none of which is useful for the purposes claimed. This is the reason so many parents- of all races- have a problem with CRT being taught to children.
  Teaching a huge swath of society that they have no identity other than "oppressor" and another that their identity has always been that of the "oppressed" is just psychologically smarter Jim Crow. How do we continue keeping people down? We teach them they have always been down and they have no chance of rising up unless another group, in this case whites, feel like putting in "the work" or accepting their lumps and moving aside for others to rise up. Regardless of what side they fall on the message is the same - you can't get ahead because of whites and you can't get ahead without whites. A very gross and dangerous message. >
  
  Well spoken, I agree