John Jackson is too moderate in his suggestion for requiring 50% of
university staff to be minoritarian. I suggest that 100% of university staff
should be required to come from minorities by the end of 2009. The majority
fraction of the population should be shown quite clearly that there is no
room for intolerance in our society.
And probably the time suggested for this changeover by John Jackson is too
long. Surely the university authorities can dismiss between 70% and 90% of
current staff and retrain their replacements faster than that!
I suggest that the change-over he has promoted (but I would suggest 100%
minority staff, not just a miserable 50%) be completed by Easter 2009 at the
latest....
To those who think this is too fast, I would point out to Jackson and
moderates like him that there is still time to give everybody
non-minoritarian currently employed before Christmas the requisite and
generous 3 months notice.... and to give those with minority status not yet
employed by the universities the necessary 3 months training that I agree is
necessary to fit them to take up (by Easter) research and teaching roles at
all levels including the highest.
Is there another way to oppose racism in our society?
Happy Christmas (after all Jesus came from a minority)!
-----Original Message-----
From: A forum for critical and radical geographers
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Jackson
Sent: 25 November 2008 02:03
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: BNP membership list posted online by former 'hardliner' |
guardian
Where race relations are concerned the government must be given
unprecedented powers to regulate society. The level of racism in
England is a joke. I visited several universities last year and
minority staff ranged from 10-30%. When one considers the need to
reform society, surely the government should implement reforms that
demand 50% minority staff by end of 2009 or the university is
de-funded. It is no good writing and publishing papers - anti-racist
academics must step aside to ensure minority representation and to
atone.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:09 AM, SHAW R.E. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> As despicable as the polices of the BNP are, surely we don't want to
> encourage a society in which beliefs are illegal? When we start with such
> policies do we not begin to allow and legitimize the controlling polices
of
> a government which seeks to make blaspheming illegal or which reacts to a
> student's research interest in terrorism with a deportation order
> (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/may/24/highereducation.uk).
Groups
> such as the BNP can and should be defeated politically, not through
recourse
> to legal mechanisms.
>
> Sara Ahemd's article on how far right groups invoke notions of 'love' and
> 'hate'
>
(http://muse.jhu.edu.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/journals/social_text/v022/22.2ahmed.p
df)
> is interesting as it deals with the ways in which far right groups create
> powerful discourses in order to invoke fear of the bodies of others. To
> combat the likes of the BNP we need to understand the mechanisms groups
such
> as theirs use to attract voters - those dissatisfied in inner city areas
who
> have been so displaced from the main parties (and who can blame them for
> rejecting the choice between New Labour and Tories?) that the twisted but
> powerful message of the BNP begins to appeal. The BNP is a symptom of
> reactions to disillusionment from neoliberal politics and we need to
combat
> the discourses which send people towards the BNP, not criminalize voters
who
> are already subjected to a punitive government-logic.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A forum for critical and radical geographers on behalf of John
Jackson
> Sent: Mon 24/11/2008 00:40
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: BNP membership list posted online by former 'hardliner' |
> guardian
>
> This is all very well. But what should happen to BNP members? It
> seems ridiculous that in a democratic society such policies which
> promote intolerance, lack of inclusion, and are anti-multiculturalism,
> are legal.
>
> Why not just ban the party and make membership punishable by a few
> years in prison?
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Deb Ranjan Sinha (Gmail)
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> amusing quote.....
>>
>> "The BNP leader admitted the party was relying on the Human Rights Act,
>> based on
>> EU legislation, which it opposes, to try to protect the privacy of its
>> members."
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/nov/19/bnp-list
>>
>
>
|