On March 24 2009 Western Voices World News posted a news item called ‘Is Sonoma State University Too White and Too Wealthy?’
by EAU, BOD
Audio Version
Of course when the entry was submitted to us for review the title alone caused us to immediately look further into the content. Well, to say the least we weren’t surprised by what we saw: yet another egghead disguised as a professor (Peter Philips, right) extolling the virtues of fewer white Americans on yet another university campus. In lieu of European Americans United defamation platform, the Board of Directors has issued the following presentation, directed not only to the professor in question but as a public service for that subset of our people who have seen this report and remained silent. To them we say directly: do what you can, wherever you are, with what you have on behalf of your own kind.–BOD, EAU
On behalf of the members and supporters of European Americans United we, the Board of Directors, would like to take this time to express your possible motivations after reviewing, with great dismay, your most recent report “Building a Public Ivy.” We were not surprised to see this report, researched by students who have clearly spent too much time in the care of professors such as yourself, as one of the most blatantly anti-European-American pieces produced outside of Noel Ignatiev or the New Black Panther Party. From the very first sentence in the introduction, your report is filled with half-truths and false assumptions that are calculated in advance to lead to a fore-ordained conclusion completely in keeping with your long-standing personal issues with the head of SSU and your disrespect for the diverse European-American people.Your first false assumption, carried throughout your report, is that European-Americans are not, in and of themselves, diverse. European-Americans come from over a dozen countries, speak at least a dozen different languages, practice a wide array of religions and come from a wide array of different ethno-cultural backgrounds. To lump European-Americans into just a single category and deny their distinctive and enriching ethnic diversity is nothing less than hateful. Are all Africans, ranging from Ghana to Freetown, identical? Are all Asians, ranging from Japan to Tibet identical? Of course not.
Carrying from this false assumption, your definition of “diverse” does not mean “coming from diverse ethno-cultural backgrounds;” rather, your convenient working definition of “diverse” can best be described as “composed of fewer European-Americans.” Let us hope then that, in the very near future, your classes will be composed of fewer and fewer European-Americans — hopefully none. No self-respecting European-American should darken the door of a professor whose views, in their fundamental nature, equate to the result that the European-American shouldn’t even be present. Of course, you Mr. Phillips are one of many “authority figures” not only in the education system but also the news and entertainment industry –and our government– who implicitly and explicitly uphold the vicious lie that European Americans alone are not allowed the corresponding group consciousness and organization enjoyed by any number of unrelated ethnic groups. You see this brand of spite disguised as “tolerance” reveals the speaker’s supremacist attitude; that white Americans not only have no right to name themselves but are also not permitted through politically correct intimidation not to advance their diverse group interests. A “European American Student’s Union” at SSU might convince us otherwise.
Still, as you must know Mr. Philips every other demographic-based organization in America has established similar organizations, often using government (taxpayer) grants and loans, which not only protect their children and grandchildren from unwanted and derogatory names and labels; but to also advance issues specifically helpful to that groups race. Only European Americans have failed to speak out against the kind of hate speech contained in your report, not to mention any number of other destructive trends such as Affirmative Action and Third World immigration. Why? Reports like yours and other presentations in the same vein are a powerful component of peer-pressure (or even perceived peer pressure) to at least shut up an opponent if not force him to change his mind. What would motivate an educator such as you to implicitly nurture an intense moralization that generates an atmosphere of guilt by association; creating ostracism by friends and family — as well as possibly being kicked out of school, job loss, and economic hardship? Self hate? An elevated sense of worth? A lack of sensitivity? Brainwashing? Pick one, Mr. Philips.
At any rate, there is hardly a sentence in your “public ivy” report that does not echo the inflections and lingo of Frankfurt School Marxist inspiration not to mention the deservedly ill-reputed sociological principles obtained directly or indirectly from the Boasian school of sociology/cultural anthropology. In paragraph after ill-informed paragraph, your report endlessly denies the valuable diversity of European-Americans through deliberately imprecise use of language in order to convey imaginary facts that are not supported by the cited data. As but one example, on page four of your report, in referring to the student population over the period studied, you state: “Yet there was almost no change in ethnicity at SSU during the same time period.” Yet, the data used to support this contention does not contain data pertaining to ethnicity, but rather to politically correct terms for the classical races of biological anthropology. While it is true that Chinese and Germans are of a different ethnicity, so are German Protestants and Italian Catholics. As a result you’re using very broad racial data to support an argument in favor of “ethnic diversity” rather than data relating to ethnicity. While “educators” such as you often argue that “race” is a “social construct” with no physical reality, a destructive dogma passed down by radicals in the Sixties, we have no time to argue such matters here because they are not relevant. Nevertheless since you chose to use such language constructs as “racial equity” throughout your report, you implicitly acknowledge the existence of race (because without “race” there can be no such thing as “racial equity”); and you make a case in rather insolent terms that one race, in particular, should be deliberately made present in fewer numbers at SSU.You can’t have it both ways; and if you had made an equivalent argument for decreasing the presence of any other definable group of people, such as African Americans or Jewish Americans, you would be fighting to keep your job right now. In fact within a truly healthy society you would have already been ordered to resign your tenure. Nevertheless, you should also be made aware that in many of today’s Ivy League schools, such as Harvard, European-Americans are a distinct minority, a fact we are certain pleases you.
Likewise most of today’s Ivy League schools are sufficiently populated that a very large percentage of students who attend need not be well-heeled; especially in lieu that these institutions unashamedly promote non-white diversity purely for the sake of hosting fewer European Americans. So your fundamental idea of equating the term “Ivy” with “white” and “rich” is quite flawed. Clearly, one reason that SSU may be too white for a vulnerable personality to endure is that it’s a science-heavy school. Math, physics and engineering majors are plentiful at SSU while “softer sciences” like sociology aren’t as recognized. (In fact we are personally aware of one SSU student who told us his/her physics class has a high number of European American students and one or two Asian students – no blacks, Latinos, etc). Another cause for SSU’s “lack of diversity” is that it’s not located in or near any large cities which tend to be bastions of enforced “mixture.” Set in a calm, suburban area this type of school is going to attract not only locals but motivated intelligent students from across the state; students who actually want to learn something, not party for 4 years and graduate with a “Women Studies” degree.
Overall, we found the scholarship of your report to be questionable, the language and thinking vague, and the sentiments to be objectively flippant, indeed hateful, of European-Americans. You should be ashamed to have published such a report with your name attached; and students interested in gaining clarity of thought should avoid your classes, especially if they belong to a group — European-Americans — that you would rather see decline in numbers.
In closing Mr. Philips we would like to suggest you stop the hate, publicly renounce your report, and be more tolerant toward the gifted and wonderful European American students who pay your salary.
Very truly,
Mr. Drago Rendl
Mr. Frank Roman
Mr. John Young
Board of Directors
European Americans United