Very good article, with much to think about. Thanks for sharing it.

I agree with him completely when he says:

A conversation about race in 2015 is not a goal.

It is not a good goal, it is not a reasonable goal, and it is not an equitable goal. In fact, treating the conversation like a goal is offensive to thinking people who have been having these conversations longer than you or your daddy or your grandfather have been alive, let alone the people forced to live as the subjects of your well-meaning conversations.

And I groan when at every catalyst, I hear something along the lines of "maybe this will start the conversation on race we need to have."

And I readily acknowledge that not all conversations are created equal, nor are all conversation entered into honestly. Making conversation the goal is indeed a smokescreen, a way of deflecting and avoiding. The goal is, or should be, a just society for all. In my view, honest dialogue is one of the ways we work towards that goal.

My issue is when the environment at an educational institution stifles that dialogue or dismisses it as unnecessary or inappropriate, or when dissenting views are stifled—not countered, but just shut out entirely.

Shutting out dissenting views in the manner suggested and refusing to have a dialog is itself a form of oppression. Oppression does not justify oppression. And when you have little things like Constitutional Rights dangling in the background, you can either accept that occasionally you will be offended or you can accept that there need to be resources available to help people, on their own, maybe with a little help be decent to each other.

Sure, but I don't read that in the initial email. I don't think you and I are that far apart on this, I just don't think that we can sit around and wait for students to make good choices. It would be really nice if they did, but again and again we have blackface or related incidents, and at some point, the university needs to step up and really do something concrete.

Which is to say, if Christakis heard concerns from students, I think the right path would be to ask the students to reflect on why that email may have been perceived as necessary.

I don't think we are that far apart either. And I didn't necessarily read that in the initial email, but I can see how some could—particularly when we're talking about 18- and 19-year-olds—and I'm not willing to dismiss that inference as simply arising out of privilege, fragility or the like.

I think that could have certainly been a good path. But I don't think it's the only path that could be taken. And frankly, I'm not sure I think it should be limited to one path. I think it could be quite appropriate to raise questions and to invite students to reflect on why those who sent the email might have thought it was necessary to do so.

These stories are just proof that the world is what we make it; people have an equal ability to be both good and/or evil. It is nice to hear of people doing simple things to improve the lives of those around them.

GoodShop/GoodSearch is now offering a $5 referral donation ($5 donated to the new user's charity + $5 donated to the referring user's charity) once a new user has made a $25 purchase through GoodShop.

The donations can add up fast, depending on where you shop. Many of the donations are in the 2-6% range:
Starbucks - 3.5%
Walmart - 2%
Sephora - 5%
Etsy - 2%
Nordstrom - 3%
The Body Shop - 6%
Birchbox - 4%

The next time you make a big vacation purchase, think about these donations:
Hotels.com - 3.5%
Priceline - up to 5%


If you're interested in a referral link to raise $5 for your charity, PM me.

Thanks all!

^^^ What on earth??

I posted this in the GoodShop thread, NOT this thread.

What happened???

Also - I don't have an edit button to that post, so I can't change anything about it.