No. History does not matter. My grandpa was hurt by Mexicans. They always harassed him. He carried some hatred to his dying day. But it was still racism and was still wrong.
It can be understandable racism, but it’s still racism, and it’s still wrong. It’s something you need to get over, just like my grandfather tried his best to get over his, going to Mexican restaurants all the time and treating Latinos as nicely as he could, fighting his instincts that his history gave him.
They are discriminating by race. They can discriminate by other factors, even those that might de facto predispose them to find a roommate for a certain race.
And their reasoning is just blatant racism. It is blaming all white people for the actions of some. Even though a particular white person might be the least racist person ever, that person’s skin color is enough to vilify them.
Ugh. This is why racism persists. People making excuses.
Definitely not, and I think the same thing should apply for people who want a white or a black roommate, etc… That’s because I see those as personal transactions more than commercial ones (same as with racially discriminatory social clubs).
So, just to be clear, you are moving the goal post since a private club is clearly a “private entity”. And you’re new goal post of “commerce” is suspect, too. What’s the difference between a Private Dinner Club and a Restaurant? Both are selling me a meal.
Speaking only for myself, I’m not OK with “private clubs” discriminating on the basis of race. They should be subject to the same laws as any other establishment.
[QUOTE=BigT]
Why the fuck would it be any different? It is racial discrimination. The student cannot purchase their lodging because of their race. The tenant is the one putting out the commercial offering.
It’s amazing how much twisting people will do to accommodate racism, and wonder why it’s not been eradicated. There is a perfect legal way to deal with this racism, and you guys want to make excuses rather than use it. You want the system to accommodate racism in a place where it currently doesn’t.
I mean, I fully understand that there are certain legal rights that are good to have that make it difficult to eradicate racism. I support freedom of speech, even if it has the side effect of enabling racism. I know that we cannot in any way arrest people for thought crimes. But there is no such right here. The tenant is subletting a room. This is a commercial interaction.
If you can apply the law to stop racism, you should apply the law to stop racism. You don’t try to weaken the law to let the racist get away with it.
Why does this board have people suddenly start leaning libertarian out of nowhere? It’s the professed conservative who has the most liberal position. That’s insane!
And for those saying the girls aren’t getting money–yeah, she they are. They are subletting. They get the money and then pay it to the landlord. If they don’t get this fourth person, they would each have to pay more to the landlord. They thus are getting more money.
[/QUOTE]
For all the moralizing contained in the above, there doesn’t seem to be much displayed in the way of educated awareness of the issue. You’re trying to score points by politicizing the debate, while seemingly unaware that your perspective is directly from the modern conservative John Roberts playbook, viz who gives a fuck how or why racism is actually harmful, let’s just find things we can call racist and lose our shit over it.
This notion that racism persists because people are applying critical thought to observing distinctions between two things that are different from each other is childlike, ignorant and dangerous. Racism persists for much worse and more intractable reasons than people like iiandyiiii wanting historical context to matter. In fact, a lack of understanding of the historical context is probably the number one factor (other than racism, of course) which causes people to object to the historical context mattering.
The inevitable result of adopting the policy you seem to favor – which is that individual private interactions between people should be regulated in the same way that government/individual interactions are, and that all of them should be subject to a context-blind analysis that operates on the level of reading from a notecard a list of things that are Bad, and striking them down whereseover they might be found, would be: the end of civil rights legislation. That would be it. The backlash to such an approach would be so fucking immense we would probably literally have the civil war again.
A woman wants a female roommate? Nope. Let that guy live with you. Orthodox Jew who doesn’t think the kitchen situation is going to work super well with the avid hunter/home butcherer? Fuck you, buddy. White supremacists think they ought to be able to sign up for any organization they like, including the black & brown workers’ union? Sure thing, bros! And just you wait until we get around to, oh, I dunno, the “commercial” benefits of marriage, and start prohibiting discrimination in that selection process, too. Oh, but those things are different? Who cares! It’s discrimination! We’re against it!
I’m glad you’re angry racism is still around. In the real world, though, not everything that has one thing in common with Jim Crow is Jim Crow, and it’s very dangerous to tell ourselves it is. The truth is, a black person wanting black roommates, or a white person not wanting to share a cab with a black person, or a Mexican kid who doesn’t want a Puerto Rican kid in his band, these things aren’t that bad for the world compared to the kind of racism that also exists and actually systemically destroys lives. Getting all worked up about something in the first category and throwing around rhetoric that belongs in the second is awful policy – and not because of some notion of inappropriate scale or hypersensitivity, but because in fact they are categorically different. It is actually wrong to conflate the two.
Want black people and white people to get along? Want something like actual gender equality to exist? Work on the stuff that actually prevent those things from happening. It takes 5 seconds to realize that an individual person is going to use highly personal and individualized preferences in a transaction like choosing a roommate. Trying to actually wield the power of the state to prevent that is something out of the most fevered nightmares of the right wing.
In theory the market would penalize discrimination sufficiently that discriminatory behavior would be inefficient and fail. But not all markets are that competitive and discrimination in business should be sanctioned if there is overwhelming evidence.
What I really don’t like is the left wing hypocrisy with regards to apparent racism and definitive bigotry. That some blacks are being oppressed by some whites doesn’t excuse other blacks oppressing other whites.
Do you have some examples? I won’t deny that I think they’re different (though they’re both bad) due to the incredibly different history of anti-black racism vs anti-white racism.
Yeah, I’d like to see some examples, too. “Oppressing” is a word that conjures up a long standing action-- something institutionalized. I wouldn’t classify race-based crime* as “oppression”.
*Blacks targeting white people with criminal acts because “honkey deserves it”.
That’s a pretty arbitrary and misleading standard to hold. Institutional oppression isn’t the key. Local power differentials even on an individual basis and individual crime and oppression matters to the victims just as much.
Collective punishment and collective guilt based solely on gender, color of skin, height, number of fingers etc. are immoral.
Poor choice of wording on your part. There are plenty of instances of Black racism you can cite if you are so inclined. Black “oppression”? Not so much. If I were you, I admit the mistake and move on. What is your point, anyway?
The point is clear and the word is accurate. Oppression can apply in cases of individual on individual behavior. It’s not like I don’t have access to a dictionary.
But in case the point isn’t obvious, the same group that would demonize and call for all manners of “consequences” if a white person posted in essence the same ad excuse said behavior since it’s a non white person. The double standards are harmful.
People have lost millions of dollars expressing bigotry in private. That’s the society we live in. That’s the society millions obviously want. Being a public bigot ought to have consequences as well.
And just to make it explicit what the distinction is here: institutional oppression is the key. The degree of harm involved isn’t something you can just sweep under the rug in favor of an incredibly abstracted, Platonic view of things where this form of “oppression” and that form of oppression ought to be equal because they’re both oppression if you choose the right alternate definition from urban dictionary.
You don’t get to just claim “double standard” and move on if you want your argument to be taken seriously. The degree of harm implicated by white-on-black oppression is so massive that one would be embarrassed to actually ask the question. As a result, the question “what do you mean, black oppression of whites” isn’t just a semantic holdup. It’s essentially a question of whether there’s even anything to talk about here at all.
I disagree with your premise. It’s just like the reparations issue. I care about specific individuals doing specific actions. I don’t care about random people being penalized for belonging to an amorphous group that may have done something to another amorphous group. You seem to care about collective guilt and collective victimhood and collective punishment even if individuals have nothing to be guilty of or if individuals who may derive a benefit from said collective punishment have suffered no harm.
I don’t think you understand reparations. Reparations are not about righting wrongs of the past, but rather righting the wrongs and correcting the inequalities of the present. Those wrongs and inequalities might harken back to earlier and more severe injustices, but the reason for reparations is the harm now, not harm from the past.
What I care about is what’s actually happening in the real world, not some formalist conception of the world where if things were different, then things would be different.
It is in fact, in the actual world, not the same thing when a black person doesn’t want to be roommates with a white person as it is when a white landlord doesn’t respond to inquiries from “black” sounding names. Because they’re different, I look at them differently.
I’d want to know upfront not to waste my time making an appointment to look at a room where I’m not going to be wanted.
That being said, I think the university has a right to say its bulletin boards can’t be a forum for an ad that discriminates.
I once advertised for a Jewish roommate, but I didn’t phrase it that way, because that wasn’t exactly what I wanted. I wanted someone shomer shabbes and shomer kashrut. I actually would have been happy with someone in the conversion process who wasn’t technically Jewish, but was following all Jewish observances.
When the Jewish roommate I had for three years moved out to get married, and found a sublettor, she was a gentile mostly vegetarian, who occasionally got a craving for something, and we had an agreement that she would have a dorm refrigerator and microwave in her room, and her Chinese carryout that might occasionally have meat would live in her room. I did all the cooking, and by way of compensation, she did all the laundry and dishes. I was extremely happy with that arrangement. I purchased all the food to make sure it was kosher, and she wrote me a check once a month to cover her half. It worked out better than I would have expected, and we ended up signing on for another year as roommates when her sublease expired. However, my original Jewish roommate had been extremely selective in finding her. I wouldn’t have been happy with just any gentile. She was an atheist who didn’t observe Christmas or other Christian holidays, and was perfectly happy to join in my Hanukkah or Purim festivities.
I still don’t think I was out of line in seeking a “Jewishly observant” roommate in the first place. My assumption was that it needed to be someone Jewish. Turned out it didn’t, but I think 999 times out of 1,000 it would be.
I have nothing against gentiles as friends or coworkers, but living with someone is different.
Probably this woman needs someone who “knows” Black culture. Someone who grew up with a black stepparent, or in a genuinely mixed neighborhood, or who dated a black person for a significant amount of time would fit in, but she doesn’t know that. There are probably a lot of white people who would, in fact, make her uncomfortable.
It’s hard to blame her, but that doesn’t mean the university has to give her a forum.