Bell hooks has an uncanny way of pushing the political buttons of her opposition and collogues by using her politically charged and aggressive approach to sensitive issues. She attacks the old definitions of expertise and authority and suggests new ones.
             Hooks challenges those who claim to be experts in cultural academia and ethnic groups. Scholars in the academy largely use the objective of the term expertise to define it; a competitive stance of mainstream academic argument at the expense of personal knowledge and connective goals (Benlenky 15). Hooks argues in "Feminist Scholarship: Ethical Issues", that in the old and present academic paradigm of the "authoritative voice", the only thing that classifies an expert in his or her field is the recognition of their work by white male and female academics (hooks 131). No one cultural perspective should be established as the definitive voice of academia. In the same respect, other cultural perspectives should not be devalued (hooks 131). By redefining the old paradigm of the authoritative voice hooks tears down the walls of the old school thought process and opens up space for contemporary thinkers to build on.
             Hooks seems to reroute the common paths and trends of today's thinkers and introduces less familiar concepts in regard to cultural issues. In the essay, "Feminist Scholarship: Ethical Issues", she illustrates that scholars should think about the ethics of their actions when writing about the experiences of a group to which he or she does not belong (hooks 130). One should make a solemn effort to write or teach in such away that does not perpetuate white supremacy of any kind (130). Hooks conveys a need to change the collective thought among thinkers but recognizes that the work and studies of white scholars of our past and present is invaluable to the academy and its future. She goes on to say, " ...I do not mean to suggest t...