New Social Justice degree debated
Assorted faculty and staff herded into Library, Room L-109 for a meeting centered on a state proposal which would allow new classes for programs such as Chicano, African-American and LGBT studies to be implemented and would also be re-categorized under the umbrella of Social Justice Studies.
“It made sense to totally go towards this model,” said English and LGBT Studies instructor Jeffrey Mitchell-Matthews before going into a general overview of what they’ve accomplished so far.
New courses have been proposed in order to create African-American and Chicano Studies degrees according to one of several handouts given to participants. “We have enough courses on campus to launch these programs,” said Mitchell-Matthews.
Though there were multiple aspects to be discussed, participants didn’t get further than the topic of ethnic studies. Both English instructor Tess Caldwell and business instructor Theodora Adkins raised questions regarding terminology, each raising concern that putting everthing under one label might erase the identities of marginalized groups.
Several times, Rosa Armendáriz, who helped lead the discussion, tried to shift the conversation in a different direction but everytime, it would go back to whether or not social justice is inclusive of ethnic studies.
LMC Counselor Nina Ghellisi inquired about the implementation of Asian-American courses on campus. In response, Armenderiz said we have to “look at what we have on the books already.” If people want an ethnic studies department, it’s going to be hard work. “It’ll take a few years and by then we will have missed two generations of students.”
“We are so close to some of these pathways. The state is proposing a social justice which would allow these other programs to exist,” said Armendáriz.
Matthews explained the reason they are considering using this pre-approved model “is to have something to funnel students into these programs,” reiterating the point that it’s just an umbrella term for all these different programs.
Adkins retorted, “By calling it social justice, you’re erasing our history.”
English Instructor Dr. James Noel commented on the nature of the discussion saying it speaks more to the discrimination problem than to anything relative to equality or equity. “This conversation is socially unjust,” he said. “This whole coversation is problematic.”
Bearden explained that different areas intersect with others and that ethnic studies isn’t inclusive of LGBT or gender studies.
Matthews explained they’ve decided to go with this route because “it was fast and easy.” He acknowledged that there is a negative stigma attatched to the term social justice, but utimately, this is the best course of action. “We wanted a clear and doable pathway so we don’t have to wait. It’s a compromise that will allow things to happen,” he said, also confirming that the LGBT department is going forth with the state proposed model.
Adkins made her point clear saying she didn’t have a problem with there being a social justice course of study, she just didn’t approve of ethnic studies being considered a sub-category.
Political science instructor Dave Zimny agreed this was the best way to go about things saying “I believe in incrimental change.”
Bearden assured everyone “we’re tryng to create allies, not trying to take anyone’s identity.”
After going a bit over time, Armendáriz said though the discussion was far from over, she was glad everone was omfortable enough to voice their concerns. She said things are more effective when a group of people come together and try to make them happen.
I started writing for this paper in 2013. Since then, I’ve held a variety of positions on this paper. My only goal is help my fellow writers as well...
JS
Apr 23, 2016 at 8:59 pm
So, what exactly is “social justice”?
Social justice is the complete economic equality of all members of society. While this may sound like a lofty objective, what it really means is that wealth should be collected by the government and evenly distributed to everyone. In short, social justice is communism. It is rooted in the Marxist idea that the money people make and the property they own do not rightfully belong to the people who make the money and own the property.
Karl Marx’s ultimate criticism of capitalism is its recognition of private property. The reason private property is so evil, Marx contended, is that it is a function of economic class warfare. In other words, “the rich” use the concept of private property to oppress “the poor.” In order to understand this convoluted thought process, Marx’s view of money must be examined, since money is the means by which private property is acquired.
According to Marx, money is really a “collective product” that belongs to everyone. His reasoning, as described in The Communist Manifesto, is that money can be made only “by the united action of all members of society.” Factory owners, for example, cannot manufacture goods by themselves. Rather, the factory owners need workers to run the machines that produce goods. Consequently, in Marx’s mind, when the manufactured good is sold, the worker has as much right to the proceeds of that sale as the factory owner does.
Marx transposed that idea to the societal level, professing that the aggregate wealth of the rich was actually created by the aggregate work of the poor.
As a result, capitalism is seen by Marxists as a system invented by the rich to ensure that the poor do not get their fair share of money. Instead, the rich keep most of the money for themselves. In turn, the rich use this “stolen” money to selfishly purchase private property in the form of factories, land, houses, and anything else they choose. As such, Marxists see all privately owned property as the fruit of a massive capitalist fraud against the poor.
What about wages? Aren’t workers compensated for the work that they do under a capitalist system? Not according to Marx, who saw wages merely as part of the capitalist scheme.
First of all, Marx believed that capitalists pay workers only the bare minimum to survive — an amount that “merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence.”
Secondly, Marx stated that every cent a worker makes is paid back to the rich in the form of rent, groceries, car payments, and the like. As Marx said, “no sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer … at an end … than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.”
Consequently, Marx held that workers, by design, can never make enough money to acquire private property of their own under the capitalist system.
“Social justice” is intended to remedy this exploitation of workers by capitalists. Marx saw man only in a social context — meaning not as an individual, but as a part of a class. Thus, the word “social” (in “social justice”) refers to classes in a society.
“Justice,” in the Marxist context, means economic equality. This is the Marxist utopian ideal that all members in a society should receive the same amount of compensation, regardless of occupation, skill, or work ethic. The oft-quoted socialist mantra, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” comes from this concept.
Social justice can be accomplished in only one way in a capitalist society — by wealth redistribution. This is done by seizing the wealth of the greedy rich and giving it to the poor, using the government as the agent of redistribution. This is the true aim of the left’s social justice agenda.
Marx’s dim view of capitalism must be put in context, taking into consideration the time and place in which he lived. In 1848, the year of The Communist Manifesto’s publication, the Industrial Revolution was at its height in Europe. In many European towns, the skies were filled with black smoke spewing from massive factories that employed scores of workers in horrible conditions.
However, just as Marx’s understanding of capitalism was limited to factories existing in 1840s Europe, his criticisms of capitalism must be likewise limited. Marx’s philosophy is demonstrably false in the modern-day United States.
To begin with, Marx contemplated only two classes. One was a very small and privileged class of property and business owners; the remainder of the population was grouped into a massive class of impoverished workers. Therefore, Marxism cannot account for the millions of American middle-class property owners, nor can it explain the existence of small businesses, which are the backbone of the American economy.
People who enjoy their job or make more than a subsistence wage are also inexplicable under Marxism, as are “rags to riches” stories and anyone advancing in salary or position. Those people simply don’t exist in the Marxist world.
The truth is that the only “class” in the United States excluded from reaping the benefits of capitalism is the class that chooses not to participate in American society. Fueled by the rhetoric of leftists, this class sits idle, dreaming of perceived wrongs that justify its inactivity. The only exploitation in America is committed by politicians, who use stolen money to subsidize this class in exchange for votes. That is not justice — it is criminal.
Jayme Sellards