On Thursday, April 7, Stephen Isabirye wrote
> Most universities petition the INS to hire [African applicants]
> after they have satisified the immigration authorities that no
> qualified American has been found to take up that post.
Isabirye's statement illustrates my point. If anything is patently
clear from Curtin's article, from my own experiences over the years,
and from the gist of this entire discussion is that white, male
American Africanists are struggling to find jobs in their fields. How
is then possible for some universities claim to INS that there is "no
qualified American" who "has been found to take up that post"? It's
obvious, then, that their objective is to hire only a minority or
female candidate, and failing to find an American among their pool,
they're offering positions to Africans. By doing this and not going
with qualified American candidates, again, they have marginalized
their position in African History and have probably avoided, if not
actually broken, immigration laws. Further, they have perverted
the purpose of AA/EOE. It's also clear that the INS is not doing its
job.
I also take considerable exception to some of the statements in Wole
Ife's note. Some of his statements, as well as those he quotes, seem
to make make blanket assumptions about all w/m Americans that are
patently false. They appear to assume all w/m's are racist and
sexist, thus making us a faceless, undifferentiated mass of morally
and intellectually deficient and marginal human beings. Isn't such a
characterization the very essence of prejudice? Therefore, aside
from suppressing "politically incorrect" discourse and employing
reductionist thinking, those who level wholesale accusations of
racism and sexism against all male "Euroamericans" undermine their
own argument.