To my knowledge, one of the few ways that “degree mill” schools that are all about profit and not education get hit back for what they do is through those penalties. Are there alternate mechanisms for holding such schools to account for luring students in with false promises?

I have now updated my blogroll and RSS feed. For those who are not sure, I think the feed is ‘http://theangryblackwoman.com/feed’. It seems to be working on my feed reader.

I don’t *think* so, but maybe. I’ll give everyone a heads up in an actual post if so :)

Naamen wrote in the post:

At the core of this expectation of politeness is the idea that the POC in question should teach the offender what was wrong with their statement. Because in my experience what is meant by “be polite” is “teach me”, teach me why you’re offended by this, teach me how to be racially sensitive and the bottom line is that it is no one’s responsibility to teach anyone else.

And Claire’s first comment included this — I am only quoting the part that aI feel adds a dimension, and am in no way saying Claire will agree with me on any of this:

… [the] demand for politeness (”well, you could have been nicer about it”) is a weak attempt at saving face and gaining back a little control in a confrontation you are losing, or are about to lose.

I actually agree that the core issue when white people demand politeness and teaching is usually control. And I see the push for control as part of the dynamics of the European cultural system that culturally (and incorrectly) locates white people as superior.

The European cultural ego is motivated by a quest for power and control. Interactions are about maintaining dominance/control.

In this cultural context when white people do this (there are other contexts, but am talking about this one) the culturally specific goal of “saving face” is to protect the association of whiteness and goodness.

I see the “expectation of learning” dynamic as serving this push for control over the communication, and also over the image of self that the person seeks to project.

The reason I feel this as important is because if this is correct, then the actual act of teaching or learning is not the point in these interactions in any way at any time.

Stripped down to the core, the demand to be taught is a demand for submission to the white person’s control in the communication, and also a demand for an acceptance of the “good white” image.

To me this has implications for action. For example: let’s say someone chooses to teach in one of these situations. If the underlying dynamic is that the white person wants to be in control and maintain the “good white person” image, then there will be no actual learning beyond what can maintain the control (sometimes pretty subtly) and the good person image. The focus is not on learning at all, it is on control and image.

A learner (including one who expects to be treated as a learner) is a different kind of thing to deal with than a white cultural ego interested in control and image. Control and image focus has interaction dangers that learner does not. There will be more subtle violence flowing in the control/image dynamic — and not by accident but because it is part of the dynamic at its core, because the dynamic itself comes from and perpetuates white supremacy.