This author states that, although white belligerency is not new, it exists in a ubiquitous low to midlevel state. As nonwhite experiences reveal and the white historical record distinctly shows, there has been an ongoing controversy over a whole host of issues within the academy that involve the Color Line, like a racially separate but unequal education or affirmative action. However, 9-11 has profoundly amplified white belligerency throughout the country and within the academy. Of the former, communities and individuals perceived as subverting, transgressing, or disturbing the all-important pet project, the white war on terrorism, are suspect. Of the latter, most white critics and their supporters have previously presented multiculturalism as a highly liberal project of little to no social or intellectual value. In this essay, Valandra examines how this "9-11 climate" impacts his university. Such a query unleashes a whole host of statements that claim that the university, if not totally immune, is more immune from white belligerence than most others. Understandably a traditional nonwhite response is to support one another or withdraw from the university community, thus limiting one's exposure or risk to white belligerency. But in circumstances like a classroom, a nonwhite faculty member risks such exposure. What strategies, then, mediate this exposure without compromising a nonwhite faculty's ability to teach and a student's ability to learn of a far different world? Since the university's emphasis is teaching, Valandra focuses on three strategies at the course level: (1) a disclosure statement in the syllabus; (2) the use of blind grading; and (3) course evaluations that complement the teacher evaluations. While these strategies will not completely stop post 9-11 white belligerency from occurring, they aid in circumscribing its more reactionary charges. (Contains 4 notes.)