Fundraiser For "White Male" Illness Dropped

gubachwa writes "The student association at Carleton University in Canada recently voted that Cystic Fibrosis was a charity unworthy of receiving money raised during orientation week fund-raising activities. The reason behind the decision, as given in the motion on which the student association voted, is that Cystic Fibrosis 'has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men.'" I'm speechless.

Comments

Speechless?

[Anonymous Coward]

If only you were keyboardless.

Update

[thox_rendar]

This was a decision reached several days ago, and it has since been brought to the attention of the students that they were misinformed. They have already made a public apology for the negative press to the school and will repeal their decision at the next council meeting of the student association.

Re:Update

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they repeal their racist and sexist attitude or is that still okay?

Re:Update

[girlintraining]

Which is the least they can do. Seriously though -- they were "misinformed" that the disease that only affects white males but that doesn't excuse the fact that a disease is still a disease and they were being racist douchebags by locking it out in the first place.

Re:Update

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the charity money should be used to send the people responsible for this decision to racial and sexual discrimination therapy. It would go a long way towards improving the world's situation.

Re:Update

[MindlessAutomata]

Maybe they were misinformed, but so what? The fact that they would vote based on that criteria, affecting only "white men", is just as disgusting as voting against a fundraiser for sickle-cell anemia because a great proportion of those suffering from it are black.

Some of the politics universities are associated with is downright disgusting. University students, I've seen, are often anti-freedom of speech (for political correctness) in the LEFT-WING direction because "people just shouldn't say that" and yes, rightly or wrongly there is a huge stigma against being conservative in any sense--I don't mean against gays or whatever, I mean small-government, fiscal conservatives, not the Republican "conservative". Throw in some of the weirdo racial ideas where "race is just a social construct it doesn't really exist we shouldn't judge based on race!" along with the "affirmative action is necessary to protect racial groups that I just said didn't really exist!" in the next breath and it's hard not to roll your eyes or become disgusted.

Then there was my black studies class I took to see if it was everything I thought it would be. Oh was it ever! The text book was written by ex-felon Maulana Karenga, Black Panther and inventor of Kwanzaa; the book was full of Afrocentrism, anti-capitalist bullshit, had whooping factual errors (even claimed that blacks were the first to the Americas leaving behind the Olmec statues!) and went so far as to capitalize "Black" and kept "white" lowercase. The premise of the class was really attacking everything that was "European-American" and exalting everything "African", of course everything "bad" like capitalism, competition, the patriarchy, empirical science was associated with the "European-American worldview" and everything "good" like "holism, caring and sharing, matrilineal descent, and intuition" were part of the "African worldview". Do note that the same type of distinction is made by loony feminists as well.

University racial politics are really disgusting and I think a lot of it stems from stupid, naive kids entering college without the ability to think critically; they mean well but are easily led.

Those are my observations, YMMV.

Re:Update

[MindlessAutomata]

What the students did is disgusting but NO ONE should be brought before some sort of sham court like the one you describe. Even if they had did this they didn't hurt anything, they just refused help based on bigoted criteria.

Re:Update

[Ed Avis]

Cystic fibrosis only affects people who have cystic fibrosis, which is a tiny minority of the population (a much smaller minority than white men). So if they must choose a charity that represents the entire student body, it's clearly not suitable, since most of the students do not have CF and never will.

If that is their criterion, the only choice open to them is just to give the money back to the students. Any other use would be favouring one minority or another.

Re:Update

[xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D]

I don't see the logic at all. Regardless of whether CF only effects white men or not, CF only effects people with CF. I.e., they're alienating the entire student population which doesn't have CF (which I'm guessing would be quite a lot).

If they were truly looking for "diversity", they would only fund research into disease which every student has. But they're not interested in "diversity". They're interesting in "diversity" only with respect to race and sex. I.e., they're racists and sexists.

Re:Update

[Anonymous Coward]

How about herpes then?

Re:Update

[Anonymous Coward]

Cystic Fibrosis affects women, it's just that women tend to die faster than men who have it. Thus, more men appear to have it.

Someone must have looked up a bunch of statistics, and drew their own conclusions without actually putting them into context.

Yay for critical thinking.

Re:Update

[Nutria]

and given that their students are not all white men

Well duh. What's wrong with supporting CF and Sickle Cell Anemia?

The rank idiocy in academia makes me glad I'm long graduated college...

Re:Update

[delong]

I'm sorry, but do the students not belong to the community called "Canada", to which CF sufferers also belong?

But this isn't about "communities" is it? No, it is "race" and "sex" counting. It is the most obscene consequence of multi-culti racism and sexism. Dividing the citizenry into camps defined by their race and sex, whose merit is contingent upon race and sex. It is racism and sexism, by definition.

Re:Update

[Rary]

The point isn't to benefit the students directly. The point is to benefit the communities to which they belong.

An example: Slashdot decides to have a fund raising event. They want to benefit the nerd community, so they decide to give to research into Asperger's Syndrome -- not because every Slashdotter has Asperger's, but because it's quite common in the nerd community.

This is sort of what they were aiming for.

Re:Update

[Sique]

They could give the money to a charity which helps people with the Common Cold. ;)

Re:Update

[Erioll]

Exactly. The true definition of eliminating racism is when we can't really tell that there are any races. Not through having everybody inter-racial in heritage (which will likely happen anyways), but through people not caring beyond how we see hair color today (blonde jokes aside).

Re:Update

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

The point isn't to benefit either the students OR their communities. Otherwise it would be called "investment", not "charity". "Charity" means helping people AGAINST your own intrest.

If they're mere investment bankers, a sort of insurance salesmen, then they should call themselves such.

Re:Update

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you noticed how tolerant "diversity" advocates are of different viewpoints ? They're about as interested in helping others as the muslim terrorists. They merely want power, to push their view on society. Their cause is long dead.

America beats Europe by ten miles when it comes to being less racist. And compared to muslims, well they're still massacring blacks for being black in Sudan, and massacring their own for not having the correct "religious" (political in reality, there is not a single religious thought in the cesspool that goes by the name of "islam") inclination.

But diversity advocates have moved on. Instead of diversity they seek to create "thought crime". The very thing they accuse republicans of doing, but when looking at actual laws they always have distinctly lefty signatures beneath them. And you find nearly all totalitarian lefties in a single party.

Re:Update

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

That would make things like headscarves for women racist. Actually since they're meant as a mark of separation, a mark that they want nothing to do with infidel men, they kinda are, aren't they ?

Re:Update

[MightyMartian]

Translation: They were being unintentional racists.

Re:Update

[Anonymous Coward]

Very true, but made entirely more amusing by your user name.

Re:Update

[sjames]

So if I claim it's wrong to fund sickle cell research because it only affects black people that's OK? Somehow it sounds like I could get tarred and feathered if I actually said that!

Re:Update

[Kral_Blbec]

nah, its still alive and well when its white males who are being segregated. Really thats the only form of discrimination that is still around in anything more than pockets of extremists. Unfortunately, its also pretty much the only one that isnt recognized by the state.

Re:Update

[JustOK]

CF also affects the family/friends/loved ones/caregivers of those with CF.

Re:Update

[Lulfas]

Didn't you know? Racist and sexist opinions against white males are encouraged. Feeling different is considered racist and sexist.

Re:Update

[bhtooefr]

I'll just nitpick, and say that it's impossible to violate Godwin's law, as it's not a law in the legal sense, but in the scientific sense.

All Godwin's law says is this: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Re:Update

[Nick Ives]

Well, you violated Godwin and you're wrong. Germans in the 1930s put Hilter in power, you really cant stereotype or generalise about things like that. The situation in Germany then is different to the situation in the USA now and I don't think you can really compare any of the political or social trends groups found in Germany then with the USA today.

Also, you've done the classic communism = Russia mistake. The Stalinists in Russia claimed they were socialist but then again, politicians in the USA claim they are free market capitalist. It serves politicians in capitalist democracies to paint a picture of Marxism leading inevitably to stalinism and other forms of totalitarianism but that argument just doesn't hold water. Stalinism was opposed within the USSR by people like Trotsky. He was persecuted for arguing that the party should just stick to classical marxism and not abandon democracy and was eventually assassinated after fleeing to Mexico. Any countries that had a revolution and then tried to introduce these "trotskyist" ideas were isolated leading to more assassinations and exclusion of their opposing ideas.

I'm saying Trotsky was a saint mind you, I'm just trying to show that communism is complicated with a history of real disagreement and also psychopaths just using revolutions to gain absolute power.

Still, I basically agree with you about progressives and racism. My view on it is that because these progressives have essentially made peace with Capitalism they can't come up with a sensible answer to these problems. Instead their only option is for the results of the game that is Capitalism to be changed after the fact in the form of "positive discrimination". Capitalism will never produce fair results, certain groups always rise to the top and exclude other groups for particular social and economic reasons. This is inevitable because the economy is controlled by small groups of private individuals who, like any human being in their position would, try to plan and manipulate the economy to their own advantage.

The only solution is for working people to organise together and try to find common ground. It requires a mass political movement amongst actual real people trying to solve our common problems, not this vacuous "Yes, we can!" rubbish that's just about some personality trying to get power in the current system so that they can be the man grinding the organ for us monkeys. That's the only solution I can see for racism.

Re:Update

[Hognoxious]

No man is an ilsnad, entire of itself...

Re:Update

[Hognoxious]

just another way to confuse the ignorant and stupid away from what actually matters.

Which is what, exactly? It's supposed to be here, along with news for nerds, but I've nver seen it.

Re:Update

[tomhudson]

It's the same thing with breast cancer. Most people think breast cancer is the #1 killer of women, but in fact, its' heart disease - 6x worse. The real war should be on ignorance, but this is Carlton U we're talking about here ...

Re:Update

[sumdumass]

I have to wonder, if we applied the same logic to government funding, would it then be ok to deny aids research funding because it primarily effects blacks and queers? Breast cancer seems to mostely effect women, is it still bad to not want to support research in that?

I follow the logic you put forth in their defense, I'm just wondering why it wasn't universally applied. In 2007, the students held their annual charity ball to support Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind / Hopewell Eating Disorders Centre. In 2008, the students held their annual charity ball to support the Rideau Valley Wildlife Sanctuary / Rideau Street Youth Enterprises

Blind people and people with eating disorders can't represent the entire school or community. A youth organization or wild life preserve in one tiny area can't either and yet we are fed this story in hopes that no one notices the racists tones. No, we can't help the evil white man- can we.

And your comparison about Asperger's Syndrome is way off the mark. It's would be closer to having the charity drive for Asperger's Syndrome and then canceling it because it only effected black people or gays while not holding enough common sense between the lot of them to figure out that was a flat out lie. It isn't that they didn't want to support the disease, they already decided they did until someone convinced them that race and gender mattered and they couldn't think critically enough to question them or the information presented to them. Seriously, are we all the same under the skin if a disease or illness is selective enough to only effect one gender of one race? It goes country to the entire "they no different then you" argument passed down to get people to think twice about racial biases because of visible differences. This is where logic left the table and raq racist emotion came in. You can accept their excuses, it doesn't matter much, but don't fault someone for not falling for it..

Re:Update

[Czarf]

They should only fund a disease that the Carleton student association members have. I'm sure the world could use a cure for ignorance and stupidity. Obviously the university isn't doing that job.

Re:Update

[Muad'Dave]

No, they were being intentional racists; ones that thought their 'higher' moral position justified it. They were also stunningly hypocritical in making a stand against perceived racism in medical funding my making a racist decision of their own.

Those of us in the US should expect at least 4 years of this sort of doublespeak.

Re:Update

[gubachwa]

Such an ignorantly worded motion should have never passed in the first place. It also took quite sometime for a real apology to be forthcoming, and it was not until after the Carleton president got involved. The initial reaction by CUSA to the backlash was that students and the rest of the country just "didn't get it". Brittany Smyth, the CUSA president, kept trying to explain away the decision as having nothing to do with the clause that said CF was a white male illness. You can hear her here, on CFRA (Ottawa) radio. After a couple of days of public outrage, and a petition to have her impeached, Brittany did finally issue a somewhat mediocre apology.

The real star of this debacle is Donnie Northrup, the 4th year science student who authored the original motion. He made some interesting comments to a reporter of the Ottawa Citizen. Essentially, he regrets that we misunderstood the intent of his motion, and that he should have worded the motion more carefully. He claimed that he slipped up because he had a lot of homework due at the time. And to make himself look like a bigger ass than he's already made himself out to be, he adds that "writing is not something he's focusing his degree on."

So yeah, the decision is being revisited, but the idiots who made it are still idiots, and bringing attention to this stupidity is still worthwhile.

Re:Update

[retchdog]

It's not a scientific law either. It cannot be falsified, since it would require an infinitely long thread which does not mention Nazis as a comparison.

Re:Update

[mrmeval]

Not good enough.

Re:Update

[kandela]

For some reason this post makes me think of celebrities. You know the ones I mean. The ones who get a disease and then become champions of raising awareness about that disease. This doesn't strike me as charity so much as self interest.

I do wonder though, if there are a whole slew of charities desperately hoping that a prominent enough celebrity gets the disease they are campaigning for a cure for.

Re:Update

[Pandora's Vox]

It's appropriate and entertaining that in calling Carleton a pit of mediocrity, you misspelled the name of the institution :)

Re:Update

[kandela]

That's probably true. However many people will be offended by that notion. White men are amongst the groups most likely to give to charities that don't directly affect them. For instance, in Australia we regularly see male celebrities wearing pink in support of the breast cancer foundation. A large portion of the population (including men) have been encouraged to give as a result of this campaign.

The dominant idea surrounding charity is that you give to ease someone else's burden or pain. Here there is a Child Flight charity that runs with the slogan "It might not be your child they save, but it will be somebody's." Charity is about empathy for the sick/disadvantaged. By trying to choose a charity that is more likely to affect the student body, it looks more like self interest. It looks like they are just trying to put money into curing something that they might get, there is no empathy in that and so it looks uncharitable.

Re:Update

[cvd6262]

As a faculty member, I must say that... ... I totally agree.

Some members of our faculty recently read a book on "white privilege" which cited documented falsehoods to justify the author's position.

What's worse is the rise (far more in the social sciences) of "critical" research methodologies. With these, the "researcher" doesn't control for their own bias, but admits to researching in support of their stated biases (usually the empowerment of the disenfranchised).

I told one colleague that when you begin research knowing the answers (rather than the questions), you're a lobbyist, not a researcher. That wasn't well received.

Re:Update

[bhtooefr]

Actually, from Wikipedia... (no, I did not edit the article before going to post this.)

A scientific law is a statement that describes the behavior of some particular thing or set of things within the natural world, with an adequately thorough history of successful scientific replication.

The term "scientific law" is traditionally associated with the natural sciences and hence the term is used interchangeably with the term physical laws. The biological sciences also have scientific laws, such as Mendelian inheritance and the Hardy-Weinberg principle found in genetics. The social sciences also contain scientific laws [1].

Arguably, Godwin's Law is a law of the social sciences.

Re:Update

[sheldon]

Wow, so college is still about arguing stupid unimportant points.

Man you'd think after 20 years they would have changed by now.

Grow up kid, you aren't a victim in this life and you can choose to ignore stuff you don't like.

Re:Update

[ockegheim]

But as the most common genetically transmitted disease (especially given that the majority of the population is of European descent), many of the students may know or know of someone with CF. Even perhaps one of the 50% of sufferers who is female.

I don't give intimate medical details to everyone I meet, but of the people I do tell that I have CF (disclaimer: dammit, I'm a white male), a surprisingly high proportion of them have a niece or cousin or know a friend's child with CF.

I only have a mild form of CF, but still have to do lots of work to keep healthy and cough up all manner of disgusting stuff in revolting quantities. I've got to the stage where poor health is impeding what is (finally) a promising career. Is that charity-worthy? It's hard for me to say, but I wouldn't wish the disease on anyone, especially a more serious form.

It's good to know student politics hasn't lost its passion. The Australian government is as passionate as I am about tax returns yet still makes dumb decisions.

Re:Update

[acooks]

The only problem with giving the money back to the students is that they probably don't deserve that kind of reward for racist, sexist thinking. But they could scrap the whole charity thing altogether....

Re:Update

[tyler_larson]

Translation: They were being unintentional racists.

Almost. Actually they intended to be racist, but due to some unfortunate misinformation, they were simply buffoons.

Re:Update

[Lord Kano]

Sickle cell is also known to occur in people of south american descent.

Something about areas with high levels of malaria.

LK

Re:Update

[calmofthestorm]

When will people realize that any kind of hatred, racism, sexism, or divisiveness can only perpetuate the evil of immoral discrimination. Affirmative action, racialism (black, white, and otherwise), white privilege, and the like are all scourges that must be eliminated for a just future.

Re:Update

[sjames]

That makes sense, sickle cell carriers have a resistance to malaria.

Re:Update

[Capmaster]

If only there were some other charity which they could divert these funds to that would get them out of this hot water... something which would benefit everyone.. perhaps a "Human Fund"?

Re:Update

[SpacePunk]

There's no excuse for racism, and/or sexism. Try again.

Re:Update

[shutdown -p now]

I'm sorry, but do the students not belong to the community called "Canada", to which CF sufferers also belong?

Not to mention another larger community called "humanity". You know, the same root with "humane" and "humanism".

Re:Update

[shutdown -p now]

If CF were, in fact, a white man's disease, and given that their students are not all white men, it follows that funds donated to CF are not benefiting the various communities to which the students belong

The word "community" in the above statement is nothing but doublespeak for "race" and "gender". Try to substitute it, read aloud what you've just wrote, and be ashamed.

Re:Update

[PoeticExplosion]

I think a good argument can be made for the students' actions. White males are disproportionately wealthy and well-connected, and thus more able to care for themselves. In contrast, victims of many other diseases (AIDS for example) are likely to be poor and unable to care for themselves. It makes perfect sense not to support a charity that focuses on helping a group that doesn't need as much help.

Re:Update

[Walking The Walk]

Not sure why you got modded down as a troll. You correctly quoted the Carlton U student association's motion to support a charity that benefitted "their diverse communities." It even made the news sites down here in New Zealand. Here's the text of the motion, directly from the CBC:

Motion to drop Shinerama fundraising campaign from Orientation Week

Whereas Orientation week strives to be inclusive as possible

Whereas all orientees and volunteers should feel like their fundraising efforts will serve their diverse communities

And whereas cystic fibrosis has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men

Be it further resolved that: The CUSA representatives on the incoming Orientation Supervisory Board work to select a new broad reaching charity for orientation week.

Source: CUSA

Re:Update

[RotHorseKid]

Endlösung. If you pull a Godwin, at least get your Umlauts right.

Re:Update

[JosKarith]

CF only affects men huh? Well I guess I'd better go to my friend Steph's grave and tell her it's okay - turns out that it didn't kill her last year after all.

Re:Update

[Ginger Unicorn]

The bilious tone of your post seems to betray a racist motivation of your own for "justice" against the "scourge" of positive discrimination.

For the record, I agree that everyone should be judged on their own merits irrespective of any circumstantial and irrelevant personal attributes, and that positive discrimination is not a constructive solution to negative discrimination, rather that solution is pertinent discrimination, ie, selecting a candidate based on attributes they exhibit that are relevant to the post they are being selected for.

But all this talk of justice and scourges and elimination seems to betray the fact that you hate some minority or other and can't contain your rage when one of them gets a job that someone from your ethnic group also applied for.

Re:Update

[sabs]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Income

do some reading:

Asians have a much higher average household income.
Whites do okay, but certainly 49K a year average does not make them super rich, or able to afford stupidly expensive medicine.

Re:Update

[YttriumOxide]

America beats Europe by ten miles when it comes to being less racist

Sorry... WHAT?!

Citation most definitely needed if you're going to claim that... perhaps compared to some European countries, and POSSIBLY compared to Europe "on average" if you selectively pick which countries you're including, but in my experience most European countries I've visited or lived in have far less in the way of racial problems than the parts of the US I've visited (or Australia, where I lived before I moved here)

Note: Perhaps most of the US is really great with regard to racism and I've only seen/heard about the bad parts, and perhaps most of Europe is really bad about it and I've only seen/heard about the good parts, but somehow that seems unlikely.

I grew up in a place with pretty much NO racial issues (Southern New Zealand - too far south for the Maori vs Pakeha issues to be noticed) and racism still confuses me to this day. I understand the concept, but not how to actually think that way. I had friends from many different racial backgrounds growing up (I think... there were some with obviously different skin colours and accents anyway, so now that I'm older and more "worldly wise" than I was in my pre-teenage years, I can look back and assume they were different races) and it just never occurred to me that this could be considered a "good thing" or a "bad thing" any more than the colour of someone's hair or whether they prefer peanut butter to Nutella.

Re:Update

[YttriumOxide]

Woah... some of the numbers on that chart are pretty concerning... the median income for full time employed people over 25 who dropped out of high school is $25k. That's DISTURBINGLY low...

My question: Is it because it's really only those that are destined because of other factors to do poorly in life that drop out, or is having a piece of paper THAT important to getting a job in the US?

Just for reference, I'm a "high school drop out" in that I left high school before I finished because I was sick of it and didn't want to put up with it any longer. Now, I'm still under 30 years old and am making the equivalent of around $75k USD. This isn't a fortune and perhaps I could make more, but it's a hell of a lot better than $25k...

Re:Update

[Rary]

No one here is suggesting that CF only affects men. The argument is about whether or not the university's decision was racist/sexist based on the information that they had. The information that they had was, of course, completely inaccurate, which is why they have now reversed their decision.

I'm sorry for your loss.

Re:Update

[Rary]

Not sure why you got modded down as a troll.

Because on Slashdot, a mod of "troll" means "I disagree with you", and as you can tell by the responses, many disagree with me.

I don't normally complain about Slashdot moderation -- maybe because my karma has been capped at "Excellent" for years and I mostly get positive mods -- but this is pretty clearly an example of an abuse of the moderation system. People can disagree if they want, but there is no way that post was a troll.

Re:Update

[somersault]

Seems to me more like he was trying to be ironic with the divisiveness at the end while railing against divisiveness.

Re:Update

[somersault]

No man is an ilsnad, entire of itself...

I wish I knew what an ilsnad is (perhaps a gonad shaped object in an Instrument Landing System?), and how to tell if it is being represented in its entirety..

Re:Update

[Mr. Slippery]

The "progressives", the semi-lefties (communists in denial, who "hate russia") were exactly the people who put you-know-who in power, who filled his ranks, who killed Jews for him.

Um, no, I don't know who. The "who killed Jews for him" brings Hitler to mind, but he was a hard-right anti-communist who put "lefties" into concentration camps. It was right-wing union-busters like Henry Ford who were supporting him here in the US. So clearly "you-know-who" isn't Adolf; who, then?

I like to say that the specific progress "progressives" are after is closing the hole between (obviously involuntary) abortion and (mostly obviously involuntary) euthanasia.

WTF? No progressives are in favor of forcing a woman into involuntary abortion; and except for a few edge cases I don't know anyone who favors involuntary euthanasia. (Edge cases being of the form where someone is obviously in a tremendous amount of pain, is obviously going to die very very shortly, and is incapable of communicating and have left no prior instructions dealing with the situation.)

Re:Update

[sjames]

Other than missing the hypothetical nature of my statement, you proved my point that the statement about CF and white males was essentially racist (as well as incorrect) by finding my statement to be racist (fortunately, it was merely hypothetical).

Re:Update

[Kayden]

How can you say breast cancer doesn't directly affect men? What are we going to play with when they get cut off!? Men donating to breast cancer research are just protecting their sex lives.

Re:Update

[SlowMovingTarget]

Forget men and women, this disease affects children, male or female. Until recently (last 50 years or so), those children would die at a young age.

Re:Update

[Ginger Unicorn]

I don't see how it's possible to tell one way or the other - there are no overt signs that he's being ironic, I certainly didn't detect any and rereading it after your suggestion, i still can't spot any signs of irony. In the absence of such a sign occam's razor favours assuming he's not being ironic.

Perhaps it's an example of Poe's Law.

Re:Update

[somersault]

But he talks of how any kind of hatred or divisiveness against a particular group is wrong, and then goes on to say that a certain group are a scourge and must be 'eliminated'.. it all seems like a joke to me, especially when you look at his signature.

Re:Update

[phoenix321]

Actually, males DO get breast cancer. Just with a rather small percentage compared to women.

The breast anantomy of men and women is not that different, it's only a matter of hormonal activity and, well, size and volume. But there are milks cells in every male breast, they have milk ducts and everything. They're just not functional for 99.99 percent of all humans with chromosomes XY.

But as well as some XY humans develop gynecomastia, i.e. female breasts, some others develop real, deadly, breast cancer. It's a tiny percentage, but still real. And it's usually fatal for the male patient, because they usually have no routine breast screening and their condition is mostly detected only in the terminal stages.

Re:Update

[Ginger Unicorn]

ah i don't have sigs turned on - now it makes sense.

Re:Update

[Kayden]

Wow, I was trying to be funny, way to be all "men are dying." Party pooper.

Re:Update

[Eli Gottlieb]

The university has a Computer Science department, so giving the money to herpes research would be discrimination against them.

Re:Update

[Reziac]

"If they were truly looking for "diversity", they would only fund research into disease which every
student has."

Mononucleosis??

Re:Update

[Hellpop]

Just what is it you have against whatever group he is from?

Gotta laugh at your comment. It is rife with the whole "Us vs. Them" mentality that leads to discrimination.

I happen to think that discrimination is not the real problem at all. Everyone discriminates. PS3 vs XBOX- discrimination
Win vs. NIX - discrimination...

It is irrational, unfounded discrimination that is the problem. The kind of discrimination that goes against the US (or other countries, for that matter) Constitution. To me that includes discrimination founded in maintaining artificial quotas. It should be that you hire the best person for a job, REGARDLESS of race, not "You are the best for the job, but we employ too many people of your race already so I can't hire you."

If you are against racism or discrimination, then no aspect of race, religion, sex or age should be a factor at all.

And no, this has never happened to me. I just believe it to be against the principles I learned growing up.

Re:Update

[retchdog]

I suppose one could model the arrival of a Nazi comparison as some kind of Poisson process and then do various statistical diagnostics for overdispersion; stationarity; explanatory variables; &c. My point is that for Godwin to approach the status of a "law" to me, would require some sort of model beyond "almost surely happens".

I still have trouble calling it a law; similarly with the biological sciences. They're not "laws", they are facts, tendencies and "principles" albeit highly effective ones which you can often generalize when they are not effective.

Re:Update

[robert899]

... Essentially, he regrets that we misunderstood the intent of his motion, and that he should have worded the motion more carefully ...

Sounds like something John Kerry would say.

Re:Update

[cvd6262]

Sorry, I was out yesterday, I hope you get this reply.

These people *do* consider themselves "social scientists," but many use artistic techniques for arriving at their conclusions. Peruse the American Education Research Association's Annual Meeting catalog sometime to get a hint at what these people consider to be science.

http://aera.net/meetings/Default.aspx?menu_id=342&id=4850

Re:Update

[smithmc]

This was a decision reached several days ago, and it has since been brought to the attention of the students that they were misinformed

So? What if it were true that CF were primarily a "white man's" disease? Why the fuck would that make it any less worthy of fundraising?

Re:Update

[calmofthestorm]

You can summarize my statement as "Death to intolerant people and murderers":-) But I do believe that justice can never come out of injustice. So it's an ironic serious comment;)

Re:Update

[calmofthestorm]

(mostly ironic but I had a point as well)

But no, I do believe in merit above all else. I've seen a lot of racism in my life; black people being told "we don't serve your kind" in restaurants, being beaten up after school by the black kids for being white, and minorities and majorities of all kinds being harassed for one thing or another, being intimidated for refusing to sign a petition in favor of affirmative action at a high school assembly. One Muslim friend of mine invited to a minority achievement dinner, then when he got there being angrily thrown out. They'd seen his last name and thought he was black.

I learned that some people (across all lines) just like to hate each other, and race/hair color/eye color/sex is a convenient battle line to draw and throw stones across. Racism and its ilk strike me as excuses, not causes, for violence. Some people like privilege. Some people like to hurt other people.

So I see little difference between a KKK member chanting "White unity, white pride, white power" and a black pride rally with the frighteningly similar slogan "Black unity, black pride, black power" (I use those examples because they're the only two such slogans I've seen). At least the latter is generally less about murdering other people. But not always.

But when I see these battle lines being drawn over stupid, I just want to smile sadly and tell the racists and haters of all types "grow up, while you bicker over who to hate for no good reason, some of us are trying to build a world free of such anger". I feel like if we'd back down from the blame game and the rhetoric we could start to look at the true causes of the injustice, and work together for a better tomorrow.

So the only minority [majority? I'd like to think not] I hate is racists, sexists, etc;) But's more of a sad disapproval than "hate" in the sense these hate groups throw it around.

None of these statements should be taken as reflecting on socioeconomic discrepancies, as those are a whole different problem (and in my opinion a far more serious one).

Re:Update

[Walking The Walk]

I usually catch these abuses when I meta moderate. It just surprised me that a simple restatement of fact got modded down and remained down on such an active story.

Re:Update

[geekoid]

I would change AGAINST to REGARDLESS of.

Re:Update

[ConceptJunkie]

I have no problems treating people completely independent of their race or other accidental characteristics. I do however firmly believe in and practice stupidism, a prejedice that stupid people are inferior. the meaning of "stupid" of course, is debatable, but to me it is roughly summed up as "ignorant without realizing it, but acting as if knowledgeable" or "incapable or unwilling to practice basic logic but continuing to argue anyway".

Re:Update

[HanzoSpam]

Well, here's their contact information if you want to express your displeasure.

Re:Update

[Elektroschock]

So it is just descriptive and the premise is that you don't want to grow usenet discussions?

Re:Update

[PachmanP]

What about a charity who's goal it is to give herpes to CS kids? I think everyone could get behind that.

Re:Update

[Eli Gottlieb]

Nah, they'd just "streamline" to give the CS kids herpes by injection instead of the normal way.

Already reversing that decision

[TheBishop613]

They've already realized what a huge mess they've made and are working at rectifying the situation. Thanks for keeping up on the latest news on the issue.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/11/26/ot-081126-shinerama.html

Re:Already reversing that decision

[multisync]

The fact that the negative publicity has motivated them to back-peddle in no way excuses the original decision.

But thanks for the update.

Re:Already reversing that decision

[multisync]

I think you put far more effort in to that post than the content of your message warranted.

what's sadder here?

[v1]

That they did it, or that anyone cares?

Shouldn't we stop fund raising for prostate cancer because it only affects men!
Discrimination? Someone needs their head adjusted. Maybe raising funds for condition xxx isn't a good idea, but that's a ridiculous reason to stop.

Re:what's sadder here?

[mbstone]

What's sad is male-oriented products, e.g. razor blades, with packaging touting their contribution to womyn's diseases like breast cancer. When is Gillette going to give a piece of my razor-blade money to fighting prostate cancer?

Re:what's sadder here?

[MaineCoon]

Many women use razor blades too. They have a hell of a lot more surface area to shave.

They get better quality/longer lasting blades, too :-(

Re:what's sadder here?

[Kral_Blbec]

What would happen if people in mass started boycotting stuff for breast cancer? I personally avoid products proclaiming to be "pink" or boasting the pink ribbon. Not because I don't think it is a good cause, but rather I think it is a more of a marketing tool than a fund raiser. The same product that is pink and says that for every purchase 1 dollar is donated costs me more than one dollar more retail.

Re:what's sadder here?

[LSD-OBS]

They have a hell of a lot more surface area to shave

Speak for yourself. I have to shave ALL THE WAY up my legs, as well as my face.

Re:what's sadder here?

[v1]

well if you want to look at it strictly from a capitalist point of view, it's costing them a small amount of money to mange their donations. They're also earning a miniscule amount off the interest on your buck until they donate it. There may also be tax writeoffs for them. And then there's the factor of a tiny improvement in market appeal.

In exchange for that assorted mess you get a very convenient way to donate a dollar of your money to a cause you support.

There's also a lot more numbers to crunch to determine who's making what out of that deal. How much is your inconvenience worth for example, or how much does it cost them in additional marketing. I think it's a fair assumption to say they get at least a slight boost from this, (or they wouldn't bother) but probably not a lot. Even factors like "in sales, all other things being equal, more volume is better" play into this. It probably all comes down to fractions of a cent.

Re:what's sadder here?

[qbzzt]

What's sad is male-oriented products, e.g. razor blades, with packaging touting their contribution to womyn's diseases like breast cancer.

My wife handles most of our shopping. They need to convince her which brand to buy, even if I'm the ultimate user.

Re:what's sadder here?

[Kral_Blbec]

I dont think its a tiny improvement in market value, I think its a rather large one. I once saw a lady going through checkout with her entire basket fully of pink items. Everything in it was marked with the pink ribbon, even the pens and printer paper. Easily $150 worth of office supplies and stationary.

One example I saw recently (same occasion as above) after having this exact discussion with my mom. I saw a stapler at the store for 15.99. It's a pretty nifty stapler (not red swingline) that uses compressed springs to staple 25 pages with a minimal force, ie you can use one finger. The same stapler, with a pink motif was around the corner in a display for breast cancer awareness month (seriously, is there anyone that ISNT aware of breast cancer?) for 18.99 and signs about a one dollar donation for every purchase.

Granted that it might take some overhead to work out, but its not 2 dollars worth. If you want to support a specific cause, then make a direct donation. Its the best way by far.

Re:what's sadder here?

[nick_davison]

"

Shouldn't we stop fund raising for prostate cancer because it only affects men!

"

No. We should stop fund raising for it because it kills people. Let's, instead, start fundraising for its cure.

Never could figure out why people keep trying to raise money for cancer.

Re:what's sadder here?

[kitgerrits]

Well, cancer needs a better marketing team and a better lawyer.
The whole thing is just a side-effect of bit-errors in human DNA.
These may have been caused by radiation, inbreeding,
    sunbathing, chemical imbalance or a dozen other reasons.

BTW, did you know that 1 in 200 cases of breast cancer occurs inside a MAN?

Re:what's sadder here?

[Farmer Tim]

What's sad is male-oriented products, e.g. razor blades, with packaging touting their contribution to womyn's diseases like breast cancer.

My wife handles most of our shopping. They need to convince her which brand to buy, even if I'm the ultimate user.

Ever wondered why she buys the brand that supports research that will let her live much longer than you? It's a subtle message: buy your own damn razor blades or die.

Re:what's sadder here?

[TRS-80]

So boycott Gillette by growing a moustache for Movember which raises money to fight prostate cancer.

Re:what's sadder here?

[famebait]

What's sad is people relying on their razor blade purchases to donate to charity
and complaining when it's the wrong one.

Jeez, it's not like most medical research is funded by Gillette anyway, it's just marketing.
If you really care about prostate cancer research, go and donate to that. If you for some reason
want razor blades without contributing to breast cancer research, buy some different
ones. And a backbone. You are not being discriminated.

Re:what's sadder here?

[mbstone]

Actually, it was the battery powered version that ruined your relationship.

Re:what's sadder here?

[geekoid]

Please let the Women or Oregon know about that, would you?

Re:what's sadder here?

[MaineCoon]

Fusion blades work on Mach 3 razors, and the 'powered' blades work fine on the regular non-powered handles.

Friend of mine went from Mach 3 to Fusion, said it gave him a much better shave. Haven't tried it, I'm happy with Mach 3.

Gilette makes the best 3- and 4-blade razors, in my experience - I can use a single Mach 3 razor for several shaves, and I only shave once every 4 days (though I could probably use a shave every other day). I tried Schick's Quattro, that thing clogs halfway through a single shave and is useless.

Re:what's sadder here?

[jonadab]

My Electric Razor Doesn't Take Those Blades, You Insensitive Clod.

Awwwwww...

[Syrente]

When I first saw the news topic I thought that some smarmy prankster had started a fundraiser to cure the disease of 'being a white male.' I was going to laugh.
Now it's all serious, you jerks.

And thanks to the severity of my condition (whitus maleus) I'm going to die, soon. Way to ruin a dying man's fun.

Re:Awwwwww...

[coren2000]

this is a misconception... it has not yet been proven that everyone dies, as everyone is not yet dead.

Re:Awwwwww...

[Culture20]

But, don't you see, _100%_ of white males die.

Re:Idle, annoying and out of date

[MindlessAutomata]

The fact that it happened in the first place should be very worthy of note.

It's CUSA - business as usual

[CestusGW]

DUHN-DUHN In the Carleton university academic system, there are three groups: the faculty, who try their best to better the school's reputation, the students, who are some kind of horrible hybrid of communist and stupid, and CUSA, whose mandate is to get Carleton into the mainstream press for being stupid at least once every two years. To be clear here - the staff (including the President) of the school don't like CUSA, the students don't like CUSA (the Marxists can't figure out that strikes might hurt the student body), and I'm pretty certain CUSA members must harbour some level of self-loathing over themselves and their bad decisions. So please, don't confound Carleton the school with CUSA the body of idiocy.

Re:It's CUSA - business as usual

[H0p313ss]

and CUSA, whose mandate is to get Carleton into the mainstream press for being stupid at least once every two years

I most venomously object to this underestimation of CUSA... the mandate is to be as stupid as possible as often as possible!

Re:It's CUSA - business as usual

[MindlessAutomata]

It sounds to me like CUSA is pretty spot-on if they're highlighting the stupidity of the Marxist student body.

Re:It's CUSA - business as usual

[Straif]

It's amazing how much money CUSA cost the university in Alumni giving every year. Every Carleton grad I know refuses to give based solely on CUSA; and the fact I can see the main campus from my office window I can tell you I know quite a few grads.

Re:It's CUSA - business as usual

[Shotgun]

No. But in Soviet Russia, Sarah Palin knows you.

Re:It's CUSA - business as usual

[Shotgun]

So, where does CUSA support come from? I can understand the freshman class being wild-eyed and stupid, but I would expect some maturity to set in by the time their senior year starts to roll around. If they are still wild-eyed and stupid during the senior year, I can only blame that on the faculty. Somebody didn't do their job.

Re:It's CUSA - business as usual

[Straif]

I believe most students just tend to ignore them so only the more radical members of the student body bother to run and/or vote; though this was a big enough mess that there is a recall drive in place for the CUSA president and the member who tabled the motion. The silver lining in all this is that the student body may just start to pay attention.

And honestly, not even the faculty likes them since they have at times even taken it upon themselves to interrupt classes during their 'crusade of the day' drives.

If nothing else they do provide a good source of material for all of us to use to poke fun at our Alumni friends.

Re:It's CUSA - business as usual

[irix]

There's another group - the engineering society, which runs its own parallel student government (http://cses.carleton.ca) so they can have as little to do with CUSA and the rest of the idiocy that passes as "student government" at Carleton.

Reverse psychology ???

[moose_hp]

I have the weird feeling that this is a case of a well played advertisement campaing in order to _get_ funds...

1 - Start fundraiser
2 - Stop fundraiser with a controversial topic like white rascism
3 - Start sending apolligies to the mainstream media saying that they are stopping the fundraiser
4 - Watch the cash flow after getting tons of publicity

Do i need to put a (???) and (Proffit)?

Re:Reverse psychology ???

[Straif]

If only. This is just par for the course in the CUSA's attempt to PCifiy the campus.

Their last major controversy was a ban they put in place to prevent any pro-life groups (religous or otherwise) from receiving any of the standard student club funds or access to any meeting facilities on campus, regardless of the number of members or how long they existed on campus. And these weren't militant "storm abortion clinic" type groups, just simply groups that did not share the pro-abortion policies of the CUSA.

Some people just shouldn't be put in positions of power.

Re:Reverse psychology ???

[sheldon]

And these weren't militant "storm abortion clinic" type groups, just simply groups that did not share the pro-abortion policies of the CUSA.

I've never met someone who is pro-abortion. What do they look like?

Re:Reverse psychology ???

[Faylone]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33680?issue=4227&special=1999

Re:Reverse psychology ???

[Shotgun]

I've never met someone who is pro-abortion. What do they look like?

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/dnc08splashnd

Re:Reverse psychology ???

[JeanPaulBob]

I've never met someone who is pro-abortion. What do they look like?

I think the issue of "pro-___" terminology is more complex than you realize. Unless you would actually answer "no" to each of the following:

• If I think that guns should be legal--even though I don't like them myself, and would never own one--am I pro-gun?
• If I think that it should be legal to form corporations--even though I never would--am I pro-corporation?
• If I think that it should be legal to form unions--even though I never would--am I pro-union?
• If I think that it should be legal to own slaves--even though I never would--am I pro-slavery?
• If I think that it should be legal to kill in self-defense--even though I never would--am I pro-justifiable-homicide?
• If I think that it should be legal to carry a concealed handgun--even though I never would--am I pro-carry-conceal?
• If I think that it should be legal to get plastic surgery--even though I never would--am I pro-plastic-surgery?

I'm not sure what I think about some of these. But the pro-gun, pro-carry-conceal, and pro-slavery cases seem right. I mean, that seems like accurate terminology.

Re:Reverse psychology ???

[Straif]

Yes, simple student government members who are given control over an $100/student mandatory fee. Carelton currently has about 24,000 students of various types (full time/part time, undergrad, grad, etc..), with most paying that fee. Did your highschool student council have upwards of 2 million in their annual operating budget?

They also run the stores, pubs, and various centres on campus and decide what student groups can receive funding or facility use. So while most students tend to ignore them, as they found out a couple years ago when they decided to have a sympathetic strike to support a university union, when the CUSA decides to do something based on their ideological leanings, instead of whats in the best interest of the population they represent, a lot of people can become affected.

They may have little impact on what's taught in the classroom, but unlike HS, people in University tend to spend a lot more of their free time on campus or doing campus related activites and as soon as you leave the professors class you are being impacted by the decisions CUSA make, in one form or another.

As bad a decision as it gets

[Drakkenmensch]

Anyone who decides to cut off funding to a specific disease's research based on political correctness should have to explain to a 7 year old boy dying from that disease why it's okay for him to die because of his group demographic. Preferably in the presence of his parents, so they can be devastated for a second time.

Re:As bad a decision as it gets

[Kjella]

Preferably in the presence of his parents, so they can be devastated for a second time.

And beat the living shit out of that bastard too. Just claim he fell town a flight of stairs. Twice.

Re:As bad a decision as it gets

[gujo-odori]

Ambrose Bierce said, "There are four kinds of Homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy."

I think dragging those idiots up and down the stairs a few times would qualify you for a Nobel Peace Prize, since it would improve the world so much, especially if they didn't survive.

After all, the generation that fought and WW II understood perfectly well that sometimes the best way to bring about peace is to kill the evildoers and make such an example of them that people are afraid to screw with you after that.

Re:Idle, annoying and out of date

[QuasiEvil]

But hey lets bash for a while anyways as though we don't know that this is already out of date.

Who cares if it has been changed? The mere fact that this sort of assinine stupidity happened in the first place is news enough. Stupidity is defeated on a daily basis - that doesn't make it less stupid or less worthy of discussion.

Re:Niggers

[MaskedSlacker]

Cystic Fibrosis doesn't affect white men. It kills small children, usually before the age of 5.

Sad and Stupid

[jjohnson]

Diseases that affect minorities tend to receive, not just less, but disproportionately less funding than better known, "white" diseases, just because they get crowded out of the awareness space that correlates directly to fundraising dollars. CUSA could have accomplished the same intent of switching to an under-fundraised disease without the absurd act of saying "we don't want to help white males". They could have said "we want to help fight this disease that's been overlooked until now because it's mainly minorities that suffer from it." Their heart was in the right place, from all the stories I've read. They were just shockingly tone-deaf in their do-goodism.

Re:Sad and Stupid

[Kral_Blbec]

Except so many people look for overlooked fundraisers that help minorities that they turn into over-emphasised fundraisers that help minorities. As a white guy on a low income, you get basically squat assistance. Nobody cares about you (see above...). A black guy on the same income has many many resources to help them out. Ever try and look for college scholarships for a normal, white male? Not much around. How about the same GPA and income on a hispanic kid?

Re:Sad and Stupid

[Lobo42]

Do you have any actual data that suggests diseases which primarily affect minorities are "over-emphasised" [sic] in terms of funds? I can't say that I'm an expert, but from what data I've seen, I strongly suspect this is *very much* not the case.

Re:Sad and Stupid

[stdarg]

I don't know if he meant minorities in the literal sense or in the "disadvantaged, underrepresented in power hierarchies" sense (which includes women). If so, I don't think anybody can argue that breast cancer doesn't receive a disproportionately large amount of attention. Maybe just because people like talking about breasts -- you certainly wouldn't buy products with a "prostate cancer" ribbon on them... but go to the grocery story during breast cancer awareness month and you're swamped with little pink ribbons on everything from coffee to Oreos.

I don't know how it stacks up in research funds, but in terms of advertising and bringing attention to the cause, breast cancer beats everything hands down.

Re:Sad and Stupid

[jjohnson]

It's not just that the diseases that afflict the majority get proportionately higher funding. It's that they get disproportionately higher funding because awareness of those diseases, both from ad campaigns and from personal experience, crowds out awareness of minority diseases to the point of starving the latter for any attention at all (and thus, for fundraising dollars).

Re:Sad and Stupid

[jjohnson]

Breast cancer is a huge success from an awareness and fundraising perspective, so much so that it gets accused of stealing money from other diseases (like prostate cancer) with higher incidence rates.

Re:Sad and Stupid

[arkhan_jg]

I don't know about the US, but in the UK a man diagnosed with prostate cancer has only one-quarter of the cash spent on research into his disease compared to the amount devoted to a womanâ(TM)s breast cancer, despite that the two diseases kill about the same number of people. There is also a national breast cancer screening system to catch it early, but no such scheme for prostate cancer. I don't begrudge the funding for breast cancer research, or wish to cut anything, it's a terrible disease - but I wish prostate cancer could also get some of the same media frenzy, big name support and government funding.

That said, as I understand it there's been some criticism of AIDS research that it's primarily concentrating on the varieties that affect westerners the most, as opposed to the strains most prevalent in Africa - where the infection rate utterly dominates that of the west.

Re:Sad and Stupid

[Mr. Beatdown]

They could have said "we want to help fight this disease that's been overlooked until now because it's mainly minorities that suffer from it."

Like AIDS. No one ever does anything about AIDS.

Re:Sad and Stupid

[jjohnson]

I'm not sure what your point is. Because one disease that (in North America) was strongly concentrated in an identifiable demographic minority has received vast funding to fight it, that there are no other minority diseases that are underfunded?

A single counterexample to a non-categorical claim is irrelevant.

Re:Sad and Stupid

[jjohnson]

*sigh*

Yes, in North American, AIDS is significantly a demographically minority disease. Yes, it receives a hugely disproportionate amount of funding. Yes, it's a valid counterexample to the categorical statement "all minority diseases receive disproportionately less funding." That's not, however, what I said. I said that minority diseases *tend* to receive disproportionately less funding. A single counterexample does not in any way challenge that statement. A long list of counterexamples would *appear* to dispute my statement. One high profile example doesn't.

Hey I went there

[Atrox666]

I went to Carleton. A.K.A. Hogs Back High( it's on the Hog's back river) A.K.A. Cartoon U. A.K.A. Last chance U. I dropped out in disgust with great marks. I wouldn't waste my money on these useless idiots. They really don't do very much right. Their computer science program is a sick joke as is their highly rated journalism school. If you want to start an interview off with a laugh then just tell someone you have a degree from Carleton. They probably have a little more prestige than a mail order school..but I wouldn't count on it.

As a white man

[Anonymous Coward]

As a white mail I couldn't care if someone makes fun of me for anything whether it's race, sex, or whatever and on first read through I thought big deal.

But then it hit me, if they had chosen not to support a charity for sickle cell anaemia because it only affects black people then my god there'd be an uproar.

So I'm not sure what to think really, whether it's sad that they'd do this or whether it's sad that black people make such a fuss about something that has now also affected me but instead of making me angry, or violent has left me feeling simply apathetic.

Maybe there is some truth in what some have been saying about Obama becoming president- racism is only a deal if you let it be and some minorities simply have been dwelling on it too long and bringing their children up to let it be a problem too.

Human rights complaint.

[Hamster Lover]

If I was a student at Carleton I would file a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, if for nothing but the delicious irony.

As much as I hate human rights commissions, this is a perfect opportunity to throw some of the same destructive invective back at those so eager to label any and all things as racist and sexist.

Re:Human rights complaint.

[Prune]

Hehe, I had the same thought.

Say what?

[RenHoek]

Slavery only affected African-Americans... So if we follow the 'logic' of this student association, there was no need to abolish that at all...

Einstein said.. there are two things that are infinite: the universe and stupidity.. and I'm not too sure about the first...

Re:Idle, annoying and out of date

[MightyMartian]

I think this is a rather good argument for removing any obligation to pay into these idiotic student societies.

Definition of Racism

[Roger W Moore]

...but it wasn't racist. They weren't discriminating against white men, they were being extremist everything-must-be-inclusive-of-everybody PC.

This is racism. They are making their decision based on race. What they were trying to do, who they were discriminating for or against matters not. Their decision was based on no other criteria than race and that is the textbook definition of racism.

Re:Definition of Racism

[dexmachina]

I still believe it's a little subtler than that. My point was that they weren't discriminating against white males because they're white males per se, but instead they were trying not to discriminate against any one, and in trying way too hard, failed miserably. A big part of racism is intent. Though I love I've been modded troll, great to see slashdot's ever the forum for open discussion...

Re:Definition of Racism

[Roger W Moore]

A big part of racism is intent.

Sorry but I strongly disagree. The very definition of racism is discrimination on the grounds of race. I understand that their intent was to be all inclusive but they were still racist because they decided not to support a charity based solely of racial grounds. Intent might matter for the legal definition in some countries but even that varies. For example, at least several years ago, it was illegal to practice "positive discrimination" in the EU because you were making decisions based on race and the anti-racism laws forbade it.

I'm also sorry you got modded a troll. While I disagree with you it was a fair point to make but, since I cannot use my mod points here now, all I can do is hope that the meta-moderators catch it.

Re:Definition of Racism

[dexmachina]

Fair enough, you make good points. I guess in the age of affirmative action and such, we're sort of trained to think that as long as it's not negative discrimination it's alright.

Re:Idle, annoying and out of date

[Roger W Moore]

This decision is already being reviewed and will likely be tossed by the Carleton Student Council.

True but from the article the reason it is being tossed is because CF affects men and women equally as well as some non-white populations. Unless I missed the apology for the racist and sexist attitudes on display?

Cholera

[notjim]

Interesting and ironically in this context CF may be common in populations where cholera and typhoid was once common, it may offer carriers some protection from these diseases, as carrying sycle cell anemia does to malaria. That, for example, may be why it effects Irish people more.

Re:Niggers

[Lars T.]

So? Did I say anything to the opposite?

CF Patients

[Physician]

I've had non-White and non-male patients with cystic fibrosis. Regardless, since when does charity goto the majority of any population? I gave money to a food bank yesterday even though I have no friends or acquaintances who are unable to provide their own food. And should we quit giving money for HIV research? I've never had a friend with HIV and it affects only an extremely small minority of people in the United States. Cystic fibrosis is a devastating disease that keeps kids in the hospital for inordinate amounts of time before they succumb to it in their 20s or 30s. Imagine living your whole life as a kid and teen knowing your life would be cut so short. CF is worthy of our research.

Don't call me 'male'

[4D6963]

And I prefer the term 'darkness-challenged', thank you.

Re:Don't call me 'male'

[jonadab]

How about Melanin Deficient? I like this one because it makes it sound like a disease.

"Yeah, I have AMDS (Advanced Melanin Deficiency Syndrome), so I'm abnormally vulnerable to ultraviolet radiation. I have to stay indoors in the summer time because of this condition, or buy expensive lotions and put them on my skin every few minutes..."

Say, maybe we could get funding for research into AMDS...

What we really need, though, is proper medical records confidentiality so that people like prospective employers don't have access to information about whether we have this condition or not :-)

As for the other matter, just tell people it's really none of their business what kind of genitalia you have. That's personal.

Re:Don't call me 'male'

[4D6963]

What do you guys learn at school? It's not a question of amounts of melanin but types of melanin, as well as their depth. So you're not deficient. Look it up.

CUSA is routinely insane

[Digital_Quartz]

The Carleton University Students Association being stupid is pretty much par for the course.

When I was at Carleton, one of the CUSA VPs was very outspoken when CUSA banned a political magazine which ran an ad featuring a fairly tasteful photo of a woman naked from the waist down (not a terribly sexy photo, and not a photo that showed anything exciting), claiming it was exploitative to use nudity to sell a product. When the next month's issue of said VPs favorite GLBT rag came out with an extremely graphic condom ad which if I recall correctly featured two naked men (which left nothing to the imagination), he said that THIS ad was obviously not exploitative, and was just trying to sell a product.

This is also the student organization which decided last year to ban anti-abortion clubs, which regardless of your thoughts on abortion still reeks of censorship.

I like to this of CUSA as kind of like a senile grandmother. She comes out whenever you have guests, says a bunch of politically incorrect nonsense, embarrasses everyone, and you just try to pretend she isn't there.

Re:Niggers

[Lars T.]

So your argument is that when a disease is already well funded, if it affects white men it should get more money - and I am the racist.

Read "Men as Beasts of Burden", link..

[echtertyp]

Bashing men is the new normal. A good read for any young man (or young woman for that matter) is this one: http://www.martynemko.com/articles/men-as-beasts-burden_id1228

...the weight of the world on their shoulders...

[toiletsalmon]

CF is worth researching, but that is not the point. The purpose of this Slashdot submission was to point out how harsh and unfair the world is for white males. After all, that would seem to be the major demographic here.