No. Reparations are a form of racist collective punishment and reward that don’t take into account accurate individual situations now. I just am confounded that people can’t understand individual culpability.
Yes it is different and is a strawman as nobody in this thread has made that argument. But a white person not wanting to be roommates with a black person and who made that public would be getting a different level of backlash than the black person in this case is receiving now. Different outcomes solely based on the color of skin is a double standard and is hypocrisy.
If your club has dues and formal membership rolls and other institutional hallmarks, then yes. You can, of course, still discriminate based on bridge-playing skill, or on willingness to swing, or on many other criteria. And in some extremely rare cases, you can even discriminate based on race (a drama club putting on a production of Othello, for instance, can reasonably cast the roles based on race). But calling your institution a “private club” shouldn’t change anything.
I don’t think the issue her is so much racism but diversity. Colleges have made a big deal about diversity, so they really should be frowning on students’ attempts to escape the diversity in favor of staying with people who look like them.
It’s also ignorant, because at least in terms of culture in my experience, region matters more than skin color. A black American is going to have a lot more in common with a white American than an African student.
I ask because – depending on how frum you wish to live, a non-Jew can unintentionally create issues. Are you a wine drinker? Your roommate moves your wine bottle enough to shake it shichshuch and it’s forbidden from drinking or any benefit, for example.
It’s not hypocrisy to observe that different things are different. We don’t live in the hyper-abstracted formal world you’re pretending we do. The different levels of backlash would be based on the actual, real-world differences that would actually be present.
You know that this is true; you just don’t care about that.
She hasn’t broken any laws but she’s certainly placed an electronic “'R” on her forehead for all to see. Nothing good will come of this.
Maybe she’ll grow as a person while at school but she has damaged her reputation going forward and it’s tough to erase what she’s done on the internet.
Answer this: is it weird if I coincidentally define bigotry, equality, relevance and consistency in terms of what approach would most inure to my own personal benefit and comfort?
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that you define or weigh these concepts to support a particular outcome. What you propose is a set of arbitrarily and poorly defined double standards. That’s hardly inspiring.
I skimmed the thread, and although I think the attitude of the person who was seeking a roommate is terrible, it should not be illegal. We are not talking about having to work with someone or eat in the same restaurant as someone. This is living with someone.
I think that the freedom to be comfortable in your own home is paramount to any ivory tower decree that racism should end. It should end, but not at such a high cost.
Aren’t you, by saying that, engaging in the behaviour you’re decrying? Collective guilt as an idea requires the actions of one or some to be placed on the responsibility of a whole group. Here, you’re placing the ideas of one or some onto the responsibility of a whole group.
You’re saying that the intentions of some don’t matter, because the whole is guilty of relying on the concept of collective guilt. “It’s irrelevant” what the intentions are, because that whole group is guilty, even though you haven’t shown that whole group believe that way - in fact, you don’t even think it matters what they think.