To the Editor: Will UT remain silent in the face of white supremacy?

DAVID BARBER Guest Columnist

Over the past two years, our Tennessee state legislature has passed and our Governor Bill Lee has signed two pieces of white supremacist “education” legislation. Last year, Tennessee enacted anti-“Critical Race Theory” (CRT) legislation effectively barring the teaching of Black history in K-12 schools. This year the state has promoted similar “divisive concepts” legislation for higher education. This year’s legislation eff ectively bars our public universities from requiring that their students take classes in Black history or in any other “diversity” requirement.

The largest and most important organization of historians in the United States, the American Historical Association (AHA), has condemned both last year’s and this year’s legislation. In the statement it issued last year, the AHA, joined by over 150 other academic associations, named the “clear goal” of this anti-CRT legislation: “to suppress teaching and learning about the role of racism in the history of the United States.”

“To suppress teaching and learning about the role of racism” in American history is to defend racism, is to defend America’s system of white supremacy. This is inarguable.

Our UT System Administration did nothing to oppose last year’s K-12 law and it has done nothing this year to oppose the “divisive concepts” legislation. Worse still, in an unsigned handout addressing this year’s legislation, UT’s Government Relations Offi ce (GRO) not only fails to condemn this racist legislation, it attempts to reassure us of the law’s benign nature and recognizes “academic freedom and First Amendment rights, particularly freedom of speech.”

Of course, the defi nition that the UT System gives for academic freedom and freedom of speech here is a narrow defi nition: This law will not affect what individual professors say in their classrooms, hence, Academic Freedom. But even this is not clear. The fi rst part of Section 4 of the bill says:

“A student or employee of a public institution of higher education shall not be penalized, discriminated against or receive any adverse treatment due to the student’s or employee’s refusal to support, believe, endorse, embrace, confess, act upon or otherwise assent to one (1) or more divisive concepts.”

In a Senate discussion of the bill on March 21, 2022, Senator Mike Bell, the Senate bill’s principal sponsor, explains that his bill stipulates “that there can’t be any adverse action taken against a student who doesn’t conform or doesn’t believe these divisive concepts ...”

In other words, if a student doesn’t like a grade he gets from me, he can say that he’s gotten the grade because he refused to “conform” to the “divisive concept” I was teaching. But even before we get to that point we have to recognize that this law has already compromised academic freedom – even before it became a law, even before the bill had been written – our Tennessee elected offi cials had already acted decisively to quash any attempts at teaching our public university students anything other than the “unapologetic American exceptionalism” our governor has vowed to provide every Tennessee student.

Academic freedom is more than what is said in the classroom. Academic freedom also involves the ability of teachers and administrators at an institution of higher education to control the school’s curriculum. Last year the University of Memphis (UofM), believing that its students needed more diverse perspectives in their education, off ered $3000 grants to as many as 20 faculty members in return for those faculty reworking their courses to emphasize greater diversity in perspectives and sources.

Both Governor and Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn denounced this UofM program as “wasting taxpayer dollars” on a “divisive, radical agenda,” or, in Blackburn’s words, “a woke social justice agenda.” The University of Memphis folded in the face of this pressure and withdrew its offer to faculty. And our new “divisive concept” law now explicitly bars schools from off ering the kind of incentives to faculty that UofM had off ered. UT Knoxville, too, has already run up against our new law, even before it passed. At the beginning of the spring 2021 semester UTK’s Division of Diversity and Engagement (DDE) projected partnering “with the campus Critical Race Collective to create a (Critical Race) center to ‘enhance research and scholarship capacity in this area of study and identify current racist policies and practices on campus.’”

When a right-wing website, “The College Fix,” got hold of these publicly available plans, Senator Blackburn denounced the eff ort as divisive. UT President Randy Boyd responded, saying, “We will review the ideas compiled in the diversity action plans recently highlighted in the media and work to clarify any areas necessary to ensure we are delivering on our commitment to our students, employees and the state.” A few weeks later, at the same moment that Governor Lee was announcing the creation of an American Civics Institute on the UTK campus, an institute that Lee promised would combat “anti-American thought” a UTK spokeswoman was announcing that the DDE plan for a Critical Race Center “is no longer happening.”

At UT Martin (UTM) we’ve also had our fi rst run-in with this law. Although we don’t have a great deal of transparency in this matter, here is the story I have been able to piece together: In spring 2021 a small group of faculty managed to land a proposal for a general education “diversity” requirement in front of the Faculty Senate’s Committee on Instruction (COI). For technical reasons discussion of the proposal in front of the COI, originally slated for the end of spring semester, was delayed until fall 2021.

But, over the summer, the UT Government Relations Offi ce reached out to UTM Chancellor Keith Carver, cautioning him that this diversity requirement might run afoul of legislation that had been pre-fi led in Nashville – legislation that would ultimately produce this year’s “divisive concepts” law. While the diversity proposal likely would have failed in our Faculty Senate, in the wake of this warning, the proposal was pulled from Faculty Senate consideration. In short, while the UT Government Relations Offi ce comforts us with reassurances on the new law’s protections for academic freedom and freedom of speech, our UT System evidently has concluded that the best “defense of freedom of speech” is that we say nothing that might question the wisdom of our elected offi cials, no matter how vile or racist the laws they make, sign or advocate for are.

Our UT System faculties have largely failed to rise to this present educational crisis in which we fi nd ourselves. A handful of UT faculty have spoken out, true ... beyond that, however, we have heard very little. Not one single Faculty Senate within the UT System has spoken up in protest against these white supremacist laws. Neither has the faculty of a single history, sociology, political science, English or philosophy department on any of our UT campuses condemned these laws.

From what I have seen on my own campus, most of our faculty do not seem terribly concerned about the enacting of these white supremacist educational laws. In fact, I get the impression that most faculty would rather not think about it. We are, I am sure, fi ne examples of responsible citizenship, a real inspiration to our students.

Our UT System leadership, our UT President Randy Boyd, my UTM Chancellor Keith Carver, UTK’s Chancellor Donde Plowman and the other UT chancellors, none of them have raised their voices in opposition to the white supremacist agenda being promulgated in our public education system in Tennessee. Not one of them. STORY CONTINUED ONLINE

Read more at utdailybeacon.com

David Barber is a professor of history at the University of Tennessee at Martin. He can be reached at dbarber@utm.edu.

Columns and letters of The Daily

Beacon are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Beacon or the Beacon’s editorial staff.

THE DAILY BEACON WORSHIP GUIDE

2022

JOIN US FOR DINNER AND WORSHIP EACH WEDNESDAY AT 7PM

UKIRKISANOPENAND AFFIRMINGCAMPUSMINISTRY, WELCOMETOALL.

1831 MELROSE AVENUE

WALKER KINSLER Columnist

On Jan. 6, 2021, supporters of then-President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol Building. They beat police offi cers, attempted to harm duly elected offi cials and threatened to overturn a fair and democratic election.

If Trump was a more capable autocrat, they may have succeeded.

But, all of these actions are supposedly antithetical to Trump’s preaching of defending the U.S. and staying loyal to its democracy. So why then do people in East Tennessee still support a man who wanted to uproot nearly 250 years of American ideals just to stay in power?

The answer is populism, the political approach of appealing to common people and uniting them against elites or other threats.

Donald Trump is a brand. He has mastered a vague but highly targeted message and misinformation campaign appealing to nationalism, nostalgia for a mythical near-perfect past and Evangelicalism. He uses broad terms that resonate with conservative beliefs, such as freedom and family values while vilifying an establishment that supposedly wants to take these principles away.

East Tennessee has been a stable republican region since its loyalty to the Union during the Civil War, but this does not explain its attraction towards the modern-day GOP.

Trump has constantly spoken about Christian values, playing on the disgust of Evangelicals towards abortion and LGBTQ rights to create rocksolid support in rural communities where church is very important. East Tennessee, being a rural region in the Bible Belt, has routinely cited these theological reasons for being staunchly Trump.

Yet, Trump has consistently shown a lack of real interest towards religion, famously using the Bible as a prop in a photo-op at St. John’s Church during the George Floyd protests. This act was denounced by numerous religious leaders, including the bishop who oversaw the church. Trump’s messaging is so eff ective, however, that many still see him as the defender of Christian values in Washington.

Trump also encourages ultra-patriotic displays, leading his supporters to create fl ags, car decorations and clothes adorned with images of guns, male bravado and even icons of Trump with a Schwarzenegger-like body. His use of the American fl ag and phrases like “Make America Great Again” reinforces nationalistic tendencies in everyday people who have grown up in conservative regions, such as East Tennessee, that teach near-total American exceptionalism.

This leads to their support of vague policies such as the isolationist America First movement, viewing other countries as untrustworthy, if not below the U.S.

Trump also utilizes the fears and angers of ordinary people to create a fanatical devotion to himself. He purposefully uses vague messaging and misinformation depicting the loss of modern American values because of vague evil enemies. This fear of loss and potential struggles and anger towards those who are supposedly responsible allows Trump to vilify his opponents.

As a result, the polarization of American politics has grown at an alarming rate. Many Trump supporters in East Tennessee now have a genuine disdain and sometimes hatred towards liberals, immigrants and republicans who Trump deems disloyal. They believe these groups are responsible for the loss of the previous “great America” and will continue to endanger their country, such as the false conspiracy of the stolen 2020 election.

But the great irony is that Trump doesn’t practice what he preaches.

Trump gives big speeches detailing his love for America and his unwavering duty towards defending his country, yet he attacks the free institutions that got him elected and assails the free press.

His attempts to illegally subvert the 2020 election is one of the most traitorous actions any citizen can do. He has willingly eroded the pillars of our democracy, spitting on the Constitution and the graves of all service members who fought for our freedom to vote. When you lose an election in this country, you accept it, move on and try again. STORY CONTINUED ONLINE

Read more at utdailybeacon.com

Walker Kinsler is a freshman at UT this year studying political science. He can be reached at wkinsler@vols.utk.edu.

Columns and letters of The Daily Beacon are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Beacon or the Beacon’s editorial staff.

‘The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent’ Review: Breaking out of my Cage

KEENAN THOMAS Senior Staff Writer

Photo courtesy of IMDb

here, as Nicolas Cage continues to prove that he’s still one of the most versatile actors in the game.

This is all about “The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent.” It was written and directed by Tom Gormican, who also worked on the show “Ghosted” and the movie “That Awkward Moment.” Kevin Etten is also credited as a screenwriter.

In a rough spot in his career, Nick Cage struggles to fi nd work and connect to his family. He reluctantly accepts a paid invitation to attend a birthday party for Javi, a billionaire and the biggest fan of Cage. But after he arrives, Cage is contacted by the CIA to infi ltrate Javi’s compound and look for the kidnapped daughter of an anti-crime politician, as they believe that Javi is behind it.

“The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent” is an entertaining, self-aware fi lm that uses its premise to elevate an otherwise competent fi lm. Along with a phenomenal lead performance, the chemistry between the two main actors is electric.

Obviously, the fi lm stars Nicolas Cage as Nick Cage, along with an additional credit for Nicolas Kim Coppola as Nicky. Cage is absolutely incredible within both of these roles, fi lling it with youth, intensity and charisma that only Nicolas Cage can do. It’s enjoyable to watch him act as a heightened version of himself, along with a younger form of himself from “Wild at Heart” that creates some of the funnier moments of the fi lm.

Opposite him, Pedro Pascal plays Javi, matching a lot of the life and energy that Cage exudes. Together, they create one of the best and most believable bromances put to fi lm. They play off of each other so well that if the entire movie was just them hanging out for two hours, it might have been an even better fi lm. This is shown best in a montage of scenes where they cliff jump, talk about their favorite movies and have a bonding moment over the incredible “Paddington 2.”

This is truly the heart of the fi lm, is these two characters and actors performing their hearts out. They appear to be having an incredible time in making this movie, and it shows on screen. It also works to show the importance of having friends who genuinely support and care about you, even when the going gets tough.

It’s also a fi lm about Nicolas Cage coming to terms with his career and family life while fi guring out how to overcome these hurdles and lead a better life. It’s always in Cage’s corner throughout the fi lm, with a myriad of references and praise for his career — which is impressive, no doubt. But it’s nice to see a largerthan-life actor that’s been seen as a meme for so long get some of the recognition that he deserves while recognizing his accomplishments — you’ve also got to remember that he’s won an Oscar before.

Some of the other elements of the fi lm don’t match the same level of care and attention that these two themes have, but it comes close. This is specifi cally in reference to the familial drama portions of the fi lm. It doesn’t go as deep as it probably should get into it, but it does contain a complete narrative arc that carries a surprising emotional through-line that connects throughout the fi lm. The fi lm brings together Cage and his relationship with his family and his bond with Javi in such a way that is way more heartfelt than you would expect from a movie about Nicolas Cage playing himself.

As to the self-referential nature, the fi lm does a great job at being aware of itself, especially in showing the creative process. It’s both a fi lm about Nick Cage and a fi lm about creating this movie, with comments and observations made about the fi lm in service of discussions about the movie that Cage and Javi actively work on. It’s quite funny and it works better than most meta and self-aware fi lms.

However, besides the chemistry, lead performance and self-awareness, this fi lm would just be competent. Most of the other elements of the fi lm are pretty basic, though they are well done. The lighting and shot composition are great, and the editing is well done.