Why do Universities insist Students label themselves culturally?

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=7567291&page=4
'White African-American' Suing N.J. Med School for Discrimination
Paulo Serodio Says He Was Harassed, Assaulted After Defining Himself as African-American

Okay, Serodio's great-grandparents came from Portugal, but his family has lived in Mozambique for 3 generations. Serodio was born in Africa, therefore he's African. He moved to the US and obtained American citizenship, therefore he's African American.

What's the big deal?

Well, the big deal is, why was he made to have to define himself "culturally" at all? Isn't the US supposed to be a melting pot? (No, it's supposed to be a multiculturist country where everyone else's culture has to be catered to, and the "american culture" of self-sufficiency has to be left at the wayside.

Here's two sentences from the article:

Filed Monday in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, the lawsuit traces a series of events that Serodio maintains led to his 2007 suspension, starting with a March 2006 cultural exercise in a clinical skills course taught by Dr. Kathy Ann Duncan, where each student was asked to define themselves for a discussion on culture and medicine.

Serodio labeled himself as a white African-American, another student said she was offended by his comments and that, because of his white skin, was not an African-American.

According to the lawsuit, Serodio was summoned to Duncan's office where he was instructed "never to define himself as an African-American … because it was offensive to others and to people of color for him to do so."

Who are these "others"? Self-hating whites who think *they* deserve to be punished for what the culture of the world was like since time began up until about 40 years ago? (As soon as men figured out how to make weapons, the stronger enslaved the weaker.)

and

Zeff pointed out that Serodio only labeled himself after his instructors asked him to do so and was then penalized for it.

and

The lawsuit claims Serodio began to be harassed by other students who sought disciplinary action against him for his statement in Duncan's class, but was never given a chance to defend his views against the complaints.

What right do students have to seek disciplinary action against him. In a cultural class he defined himself as African American. One class! Big deal!

and

In September 2006, Serodio said he again asked to define himself culturally as part of another course exercise. Again, according to the lawsuit he said he was a "white African-American." And again, he was called to the course instructor's office and told never to define himself that way again.

According to the lawsuit, Serodio then wrote an article for the student newspaper, titled "A More Colorful View Than Black and White," in an attempt to explain his self-identification and to call for tolerance at the school.

But when complaints started pouring into Dr. I. Thomas Cohen, then the dean of student affairs, the lawsuit alleges that Serodio was called in again and told by Cohen that if he "lay low for awhile" Cohen would see that a record of the incident would not be placed in Serodio's transcript.

I ask again...why is a medical school asking students to "define themselves culturally"?

Sure, doctors these days need to know the ins and outs of dozens of cultures, because God forbid they should actually offend someone in the US by not treating their culture right, and God forbid these immigrants learn our culture and figure out that if something is done that offends *their* culture, it's not because it's a deliberate insult but because that's the way we do things, and they need to be tolerant of our ways.

Wanda Sykes comments about Limbaugh

Much is being made, in certain circles, about Wanda Sykes jokes about Rush Limbaugh at the Press Corps dinner last night...or the night before..whenever it was.

Supposedly she made some jokes about Obama as well, I dn't see them on YouTube. Of course, it's okay for blacks to make jokes about Obama. Catch a white perosn doing it - even the same joke - and of course they'll be branded a racist and probably lose their job. (And I'm not blaming the oversensitive idiots who scream racism, but the companies, etc. who cave to their threats.)



Obama's comments:





I have to admit that this is the kind of humor that is all the rage these days. Way back in the 1970s the "Dean Martin Roasts" were all the rage, with a variety of comedians putting down the guest of honor. And of course Don Rickles, the king of insult. I've never understood or cared for that kind of humor.

The Hypocrisy of Beauty Pageants

Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was competing to be Miss America, when a gay judge (why would a male gay be judging a woman's beauty pageant?) decided to politicize the contest by asking her if she supported gay marriage. Citing her faith as a Christian, the girl said, No. Perez Hilton, the gay judge, promptly gave her 0 points, causing her to lose the Miss America crown. He also wrote a profanity laden blog entry about her, apparently (I have not read it) criticizing her for daring to answer his question honestly. (Presumably, if she'd lied, but still been homophobic, he'd have voted for her, but because she refused to give her support on national TV, she must be excoriated.)

And then the deification of Carrie Prejean started, with Christian groups praising her for being so brave as to answer such a controversial question honestly. (Because,let's face it. People are not allowed to not be for gay marriage. At least, not to discuss it. They'll get shouted down by demonstrators if they try, much as those who try to explain why illegal immigration is illegal are shouted down.)

But how long will this deification carry on? It has now been revealed that Carrie Prejean, this Christian woman, posed for nude photos. She says she did it when she was 17. People who have seen them say she looks older than 17. But the pageant judges are all upset. Apparently there's some moral clause. If a beauty queen poses for nude photos, she can be stripped of her crown.

And this is just a joke!!!! Prejean has her hands covering her nipples, and is wearing panties. You see those kinds of photos every day in underwear advertisenments.

But more egregious than that is the fact that the beauty pageant people actually paid for this woman to get breast implants!!! Why? Why would they pay for her to get breast implants, and why did she need breast implants any, except for the fact that they wanted her to be more attractive to men, most of whom apparently like big breasted women?

So they want her to be attractive to men, but they don't want her to pose "suggestively." Jeesuz.

Don't get me wrong. I think it is a bit hypocritical for a Christian woman to get breast implants and pose practically nude (if she's got on panties,and is hiding her nipples, she's not really nude).

And I think it's disgusting that any woman will pose like that - for example I believe Kiera Knightly did so, and a few others - and then expect that any man will be able to look at them as other than a sex object again.

It's the same old double standard, though. Take beach volleyball. Guys get to dance around in knee-length bermuda shorts, women have to play in bikinis. Or track and field. If there was any advantage to be gained in wearing bikini bottoms, you know guys would do it. But they don't. The only reason for women to do it, therefore, is so that guys will tune in, or pack the stands, in order to get some eye candy.

What in the world???

I've just turned on Nick - presumably Nickelodian.

The show is a cartoon version of that movie of a few years ago...Barnyard.

So, of course all the animals are walking on their hind legs. Fine.

The male cow, the main character, has udders, just as in the movie. But, ya know, male cows do not have udders! Indeed, it's only the female cattle that are called cows. Male cattle are bulls.

Bulls do not have udders.

Now, the plot of this particular episode, which I came in when it was almost over, was that some cow thought that the main character, a bull (with udders) was her son. So she wants to get married so he'll have a father. But no bulls will marry her, so she chooses a rat. And the bull character, albeit in a fantasy sequence, sees himself having a half-bull half rat sister. Thereby implying that that big ol' cow is going to have sex with that lil bitty rat...and that different animal species must have sex with each other all the time.

Dis-gusting.

Almost as disgusting as what happens in real life, whcih is that guys go around raping cattle and sheep all the time. I don't think it's possible for a woman to get it on with an animal, although legend has it Catherine the Great tried to do so but I seriously doubt it! Anyway, it's obscene. And it should be illegal.

Then again, the next show on Nickelodeon - that's a kid's channel, ya know - was just as obscene. Another one of those children's programs where the girls lust after the boys and are willing to do anything to get a boyfriend, and the boys lust after the girls and eye tehm as sex candy, etc. etc. etc.

No wonder the US is going into the toilet.

Only A Mother

This is the saddest thing I have ever seen in my life.

babyfaithhope.blogspot.com

A pregnant woman had a check of her unborn child done, and it turned out it had encephaly. It did not have a brain. Doctors recommended that she abort the child. She didn't. She gave birth to it.

This was not a child with Down's syndrome, who could lead a happy, productive life once born. This was a child who did not have a brain, period.

So, she gave birth. The child has no brain. It cannot see. It cannot think. It will never be able to do anything except lie on its back and be cared for by the mother. Fed with a spoon. Changed every day, for all her life.

It is just obscene that God would allow such a thing to even happen to a baby. It is just obscene that someone who believed in God would give birth to this poor little thing, rather than euthenize it.

If you read the blog, the woman is clearly extremely religious. At one point apparently she allowed Comments to be made on her blog, and people were reacting to her selfishness with disbelief. Of course, this made no impact. Those people are just "agents of Satan". But that's okay, she forgives us.

I cannot forgive her, however. Her baby has...no...brain. It's a vegetable. And yet she clearly believes God has sent this brainless baby to her as a gift.

How a religious person could believe that God is loving and kind after being visited with this type of child... a child with no brain. She's feeling all noble and brave because she's taking care of this brain-less child....that's the thing, of course. She's feeling noble and brave. Everyone should be impressed with her because of what she must be going through.

Bull-pucky. If she had had an accident and was now in a wheelchair or an iron lung or what have you, and bravely decided that she would not let that handicap stop her, because she still had a brain, and could communicate and create and live, that's one thing. But her child... has.... no.... brain.

I don't know how much clearer to put it. There is no quality of life there. If it itches, it can't tell it's mother where. If it has a pain driving it crazy, it can't tell its mother where. Toothace? You'll just have to suffer, kid. Want to watch TV? Oh, sorry, you're blind. Well,at least you can listen to it.. oops, sorry, you're deaf. Well, at least the plot can be signed into the palm of your hand, the way deaf-blind people communicate with each other. Nope, can't even do that... the baby has... no.... brain.

It is just obscene.