There are new calls for fundamental changes in academic disciplines this month to address systemic racism. At Oxford, music department staff is calling for the removal of sheet music from the school’s curriculum as a relic of the “colonial past.” In a leading anthropology journal, two professors have criticized forensic anthropology and the traditional study of skulls to determine ancestry as inherently racist. The calls are indicative of fundamental changes demanded in many of our academic disciplines. Such debates are good for academic institutions, but only if faculty and students feel comfortable in challenging such claims. On many of our campuses, there is a palpable fear about speaking out at the risk of being labelled racist or insensitive on such issues.
According to The Telegraph, the proposal at Oxford would remove sheet music from the curriculum because such music notation has not “shaken off its connection to its colonial past” and shows complicity in “white supremacy.” The staff further argue that such training to read music is a “slap in the face” for students of color. They also argue that any requirements on learning how to conduct orchestras or playing piano serve to “structurally center white European music” and cause “students of color great distress.”
In an article published by the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, professors Elizabeth DiGangi of Binghamton University and Jonathan Bethard of the University of South Florida applied critical race theory to challenge the very premise of forensic anthropology that skull size and shape can help trace ancestry due to the shared traits:
“Conceptualized in response to entrenched racism in the American legal system, CRT attempts to address and redress systemic wrongs by interrogating how racism has become normalized in our legal and social structures and its resultant practical consequences . Reticence by local and state governments and citizens to abolish persistent Confederate symbols in our public spaces is one example of a problem that CRT is uniquely suited to address, because this disinclination is a symptom of structural racism. The body of theory is therefore used as a mechanism to elucidate and dismantle the structures that uphold white supremacy and privilege, and as systemic, pervasive, and embedded in global institutions to include science, anthropology, and the academy.”
In applying CRT, the professors conclude that “the practice of ancestry estimation contributes to white supremacy.” They argue:
“in addition to the discussed scientific problems, the main point is not whether or not we are consciously or purposefully perpetuating the biological race concept, or whether ancestry estimation “works,” or whether researchers have created more sophisticated ways to demonstrate that it works—the point here is that by providing an ancestry estimate grounded in traits of the skull, we are reinforcing law enforcement and the public’s belief in the concept of biological race. “
I do not agree with the challenges to sheet music and forensic anthropology, but I would be interested in listening to such a debate. The problem is that there is little faith anymore about the ability to debate such issues. While many insist that “we need to talk about race,” academics are routinely fired and investigated after engaging in such discussions. Indeed, intent often does not matter in the use of terms challenged as offensive in classes or writings.
In their column on forensic anthropology, Professors DiGangi and Jonathan Bethard note that their challenge is likely to make many uncomfortable but insists that such feelings are just the residue of racism coming forward:
“We anticipate that this discussion may displease some readers and/or make them uncomfortable. The irony is that this reluctance and discomfort are part and parcel of the insidious nature of structural racism, as discussed earlier. Our white privilege allows us to not see it unless it affects us directly and therefore we deny or downplay its existence and/or significance, even though it is hiding in plain sight.”
However, there is also the discomfort of any faculty that they cannot challenge such racism claims without putting their careers and future academic opportunities at risk. The result is a silence that is reinforced by canceling campaigns. Many professors actively target dissenting voices on campuses and, in so doing, intimidate others from speaking out. This statement is an excellent example. While saying that they want to have a debate, DiGangi and Bethard dismiss any expressions of discomfort “as part and parcel of the insidious nature of structural racism.” In other words, feel free to disagree but your objections will be treated as evidence of the hold of structural racism on you and your institution.
I hope Bret Weinstein covers this. As an evolutionary biologist, he would have an interesting perspective.
The only “systemic racism” is that practiced in the universities against white people. Shut down all the universities–they are full of racist communist pigs.
Again with the canceling. When will you Trumpists give it up?
This nonsense is similar to the position that “math” is racist – because there is a correct answer to a problem – and incorrect answer(s). Rather than teach better so that the allegedly unable-to-learn students can find the correct answer, the woke and progressive fools among us say … don’t teach anyone math.
Mr Turley, this story is entirely fictitious, and is being used to promote an anti-intellectual and white supremacist agenda. As you should have known.
Not fictitious.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9410665/University-Oxford-considers-scrapping-sheet-music-colonial.html
You are apparently only a spoiler troll prepared to lie about anything.
Wrong!
I can play a piano and read music. I even understand those cute directives written in Italian that are printed on the compositions. (Improvisation is beyond me). Guess that makes me ethno-European-centric.
Elephant In Room: There are people from all cultures who can do this.
Someone at Oxford must have time on their hands.
Maybe it could all be explained if we measured the skulls of the people making these proposals.
So it’s “racist” to study race. Can’t judge a skull by its color. So schools should ignore blacks, browns, yellows, asians africans, indians, American indians,Cleveland Indians.
Study brains.
These people are nutcases to the core. They are dangerous people.
“[T]raining to read music is a ‘slap in the face’ for students of color.”
Ever notice that race-baiters have a plantation view of blacks?
In *their* view, blacks are too intellectually feeble to learn how to read music, too indifferent to get a good education, too slothful to develop employable skills, and too stupid and lazy to get a government ID.
Their motivation is obvious: Portray a person as weak, so that you can control him and demand special favors.
(For the reading challenged: That’s *their* view of blacks, not mine.)
Trump portrayed his followers as low information and forgotten. He played the victim card very successfully!
POLL: Majority of Americans See Cancel Culture as Threat to Freedom
https://news.yahoo.com/poll-majority-americans-see-cancel-213920486.html
“‘The irony is that this reluctance and discomfort are part and parcel of the insidious nature of structural racism . . .'”
Neo-racists always use that Freudian gambit: If you admit your “white privilege,” you’re a racist. If you deny it, you’re repressing your racism.
Hey, it turns out discussion of race is a really touchy subject in a society built on the back of slavery and the theft of resources from indigenous cultures!!!! Who knew??
Does curriculum need to change? Absolutely.
Will there be wildly uncomfortable situations around race that have not often been given oxygen? Yes.
Will there be incredible awkwardness when discussing those situations? Totally.
But do those situations automatically mean, as a white person, one automatically disses their own race by having them? Well, maybe in jail and the comments section of the Turley blog perhaps, but no, these discussions have to be navigated because it’s well past time to navigate them. Maybe a white professor or two loses work because they can’t steer around their own egos enough to not be able to read the room. And dominant white culture has never been one for real self examination, let’s just say that. So…, >> awkward and uncomfortable times ahead. But clearly, the time for reexamination is here.
Okay, take this with the open mind so often exhibited in the Turley blog comment section!
EB
I don’t think the reluctance to self reflect is uniquely white phenomenon.
Didn’t say it was.
EB
“. . . a society built on the back of slavery . . .”
That’s odd. I thought that America’s freedom was built by the likes of Jefferson, Madison, et al. — and by an *idea*: individualism. And that the country’s magnificent wealth was created by the likes of Rockefeller, Carnegie, et al. — and by an *idea*: intelligence.
“. . . theft of resources from indigenous cultures . . .”
That, too, is odd. I did not realize that the Indians created the fossil fuel industry, mass production, electricity, automobiles, refrigeration, computers, et al.
“. . . dominant white culture . . .”
Such a racist perspective of the American culture is to be expected from those who do not grasp the power if *ideas*.
Sam,
You’ve probably seen the Yuri Bezmenov interview regarding the Left’s objective of ideological subversion. Have you seen this paper? It’s lengthy, but well worth the read. EB’s comment, put in context with this paper, is simply part of this ongoing political warfare strategy. We don’t need to play along, we need to wake up and understand what these useful idiots are doing to this country.
The Left’s core message is one of negation framed around various otherisms structured to delegitimize the very idea of America. Hence, America is oppressive, fundamentally flawed, and must be changed in order to be redeemed. But from what, to what, for what? Narratives are integrated throughout the Left’s political warfare scheme and operate across all five political warfare lines of effort as depicted above.
The following discussion of narratives illustrates how archetype narrative forms should be analyzed using political warfare metrics.
https://unconstrainedanalytics.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Unconstrained-Analytics-Left-Strategy-Tactics-231120.pdf
Olly, I hadn’t seen that. Thanks for the heads up.
Wholesale embracing of Nilism will, left unchecked, lead to the distruction of culture in society.
Not much to add here. My only conclusion is EVERYTHING IS RACIST!!!!
It’s as if being the first one to “discover” racism in some aspect of European culture makes you “king/queen for a day.” They get their 24 hours of fame and get to feel a bit of power over their “racist” colleagues. Heady stuff for run-of-the-mill academics who probably would never otherwise be known outside their departments.
Feel better now?
The scapegoating of White American continues. You have to wonder are the students they’re concerned with belong in college? Better yet do these professors belong teaching in college?
Typical conservative cancel culture.
Maybe the Oxford Music “faculty” should actually learn the history of musical notation. Or, is this really all about the fact that no one’s paying attention to the musical scene in Africa ca. 1450?
Classical music racist? Has anyone listened to the lyrics of Brown Sugar or Hey Joe by Jimi Hendrix?
“They also argue that any requirements on learning how to conduct orchestras or playing piano serve to “structurally center white European music” and cause “students of color great distress.””
Isn’t this statement racist by definition? Specifically and cause “students of color great distress.”?
Are they saying every “student of color” will feel “great distress”? I am pretty sure by definition that is a racist statement. Isn’t there at least one student of color that would like to learn how to play piano or conduct an orchestra?
You’re a racist. How dare you attempt to speak for students of color! You’ve caused me great distress by your racist comments!.. And yes, I’m a racist too, I’m white after all! How can I not be?
I appreciate the desire to change. That should lead to improvement.
But when change comes from self loathing – or worse, is only motivated by virtue signaling, then no.
These academics are often motivated by the worst instincts.
But worse, they are teaching the young – who are paying a fortune to be indoctrinated.
Time to exercise the duty of oversight over the academic world.