saw this story 'bout a week ago and couldn't think o' a good way to respond.
short o' burning books as fuel to prevent hypothermia, am thinking a book burner voluntarily yields moral high ground. burn huckleberry finn. burn bible. burn quran. burn lolita. heck, burn the unabomber's manifesto would bother us on some level. if you are so angered by a writing you cannot respond intelligent, then you should reflect on such anger and consider what the burning says 'bout the act o' destruction, 'cause such destruction doesn't say anything constructive 'bout the work being torched but it does say much 'bout the one indulging in pyrotechnics.
...
that said, we do not like "white privilege" label. if you claim minorities is disadvantaged in the US, am suspecting most college aged kids would agree, including those at georgia-southern. however, "white privilege" implies that white folks, regardless o' their situation, didn't earn what they has worked hard to aquire. protestant work ethic, though diminished in recent decades, is still a thing here in the US. Americans tend to work more hours and with less vacation than a large % o' the western world, but even if they didn't, suggest white americans hasn't earned what they got, or has exploited others to succeed means you start a conversation 'bout race by potential placing +60% o' the population on the defensive. meaningful dialectic regarding race is elusive, so why make more difficult when simple change in definitions and labels avoids conflict?
have heard the arguments from our family who tell us white americans need "wake up" and realize just how unbalanced is US society, and the only way they recognize the depth o' the inequality is to fundamental challenge preconceptions. unfortunate, from our pov, "white privilege" polarizes listeners rather than creating reflection or dialogue opportunities. why start a conversation with a label you know is gonna drive some portion o' moderate listeners to become adversarial?
have watched the baldwin and buckley cambridge debate a few dozen times over the years. much has changed since 1965. sadly, much has remained same. am by nature more inclined to find resonance with baldwin than buckley and am not suggesting "white privilege" is unworthy o' discussion and debate. however, from a practical perspective, those who accuse the 60% o' white privilege is polarizing folks who might ordinarily be open to the notion that unavoidable class handicaps unfair and disproportionate continue to affect large numbers o' Americans, and it polarizes far too many such folks to opposition.
nevertheless, one would hope a college campus would be a place where in 2019 white privilege could be discussed w/o resorting to the kinda action we dismiss as a trapping o' nazis... or florida man.
HA! Good Fun!