The discussion wandered to include safe spaces as a whole.
That federal law does not apply to private clubs.
If a group of black men forms a private club that excludes whites, to commiserate over being discriminated against, then at worst I would cut them some slack.
If a group of white men forms a private club that excludes blacks, regardless of how sorry they feel for themselves, then at best I would think they are assholes.
[QUOTE=iiandyiiii]
Do you have a cite for this? I know some liberals are loons, but I’d like to see the exact lunacy you’re talking about.
[/QUOTE]
Not to answer for HurricaneDitka, but easy enough to find.
“All Whites are racist” and must destroy themselves says self hating(?) white lady.
“Liberal” professor: All white people are racist no matter what
“Loons” covers it nicely for me.
Different treatment and different standards based on race seems awfully racist.
If you’re talking about things like affirmative action (which probably deserve another thread), they’re meant to correct for differing treatment and standards that exist without such policies. I understand some folks don’t think such differing treatment and standards exists, or don’t think affirmative action is the way to correct for their existence.
Here is one recent example.
Sorry, seems I inadvertently linked to a right wing criticism of the liberal professor.
Here is the NYT piece where he calls all whites racist (and all men sexist I think):
It is actually a very sympathetic piece. It does not offend me (white, male) in the least. Most of those things I have thought of myself already. I agree fully with his outrage over injustices still experienced by victimized groups in the world.
Maybe I am a Loony Liberal myself.
Wait a second. You say that the “all whites are racist” folks are deciding who can speak on campus; you’re asked for a cite; you cite a high school teacher?
I don’t think anyone disputes that there’s a small cadre of people with totally weird ideas about racism. I don’t think anyone disputes that there’s a larger cadre of people with reasonable ideas about racism who express those ideas poorly. The question is whether, again, the people who say “all whites are racist” are deciding who can speak on campus.
Do you have a cite for this?
Edit: WHY THIS MATTERS: My contention is that the people who get press on Daily Caller and Breitbart and allies are overwhelmingly people with very little power, like undergrads. The occasional high school teacher might fit into this mix. Claiming that anti-white bigots have power, e.g., the power to decide who speaks on campus, is in direct contention with what I’m saying. If that’s your claim, I’d like to see your evidence.
Against your high school teacher, I’ll throw my own high school teacher who maintained that slavery was the best thing that ever happened to black people, since it brought them to Christianity.
I’m a straight white guy, so I may be totally off base here, but hearing the issue of racially based safe spaces makes me think of the issue of racially based distiricting in elections. If you have a population that is 90% white and 10% black, and you evenly distribute them across districts you will have effectively disenfranchised all blacks, in order to correct efforts should be made to create districts that are majority black, so that legislators can be elected that represent the views of the blacks.
Similarly if you have a University that is 90% white, and anytime a student opens his mouth to present the black perspective there are 9 whites lined up to discount his perspective, then the black student will feel disenfranchised. So having situations which can be majority minority, in which students can share the black perspective with an audience that understands where he is coming from is helpful.
Similarly I would use this same argument to support white safe spaces in majority black universities. So it isn’t that I’m against whites, I’m just in favor of places where minorities views are in the majority.
The problem with such a piece is that the following two definitions have been mixed:
-
Racism is the belief that one “race”, however defined, is superior to another, and so deserve greater rights and privileges. If you believe that Blacks are objectively inferior to Whites, and so ought to have inferior rights, you are “racist”.
-
Racism is the structure of society in which, for historic reasons, persons of certain identity (“race” however defined) have been deprived of rights in the past and present; even if there is no express or explicit removal of rights, the deprivations have perpetuated themselves, either overtly in the form of stereotyping, discrimination or inequality of treatment, or covertly in the form of systems which tend to favor one “race” over another, whether or not anyone actually believes in or expresses the first type of racism.
There is nothing “loony” about believing these are both true.
What is “loony” is believing that these two types of “racism” ought to elicit the same reaction from the favored “race”.
The appropriate reaction to having expressed “racism” of type 1 is: shame and guilt. Believing in such a thing is objectively wrong, and acting on it is morally reprehensible (as there is no justification whatsoever for believing in it, and acting on it is objectively harmful to others).
The appropriate reaction to the existence of “racism” of type 2 is not shame and guilt; it is to attempt to determine how best to eliminate its impact.
The professor who wrote the piece simply doesn’t understand that. He writes about “racism”, which is clearly of the second variety, as if it was the secular version of Original Sin: he suggests that the appropriate response to the situation is shame and guilt. The fact that people of the favored race are doing ‘good works’, to extend the analogy, doesn’t matter to him any more than they mattered to a Calvinist.
This is not helped by his peculiar passive-aggressive writing style, to paraphrase: ‘I bring you a gift of love, even though I know you will just spit in my face’.
Hm. Don’t know if we’re getting away from the OP, but I think the piece is not that bad.
Yes, it’s clear he talks about racism “of the second kind”. Yes, you might uncharitably describe his argument as favoring the “shame and guilt” trip.
It seems highly unlikely that the professor would believe that good works “doesn’t matter to him”, even though this piece is not about that. I would rather assume he’d argue that some appropriate level of “shame and guilt” would help percieve injustices and focus good works. (I also think it is an oversimplification that good works “don’t matter” to a Calvinist.)
His style doesn’t bother me, either, although I can imagine it’s not everyone’s cup of tea.
Again, the problem is that he conflates being a racist of the first variety, with simply living in a society that has racism of the second variety.
To quote:
To which most White people could reasonably reply: ‘WTF? I don’t have “racist poison inside of me”, and if I did, it would not be an inevitable result of my ‘white self’. That is straight up bullshit’.
The problem, of course, is that he’s doing a bait-and-switch; he’s talking about racism of the ‘second variety’ (just because you aren’t personally racist doesn’t mean you don’t live in a society with systemic racism), but he evidently wishes to elicit the response appropriate to those guilty of racism of the ‘first variety’. He’s eliding the difference between the two, so that, in his rhetoric at least, living in a society in which systemic racism exists becomes in effect the same thing as being a racist.
It is also essentialist: that your “white self” is something to “enter into battle with”, and so one gets from the point ‘systemic racism exists’ to the point ‘the essence of being white is racism’. Think on how objectionable asking Blacks generally to “enter into battle with your black self” would be seen!
You may find such rhetoric acceptable, all in a good cause as it were; because systemic racism is a thing, so why not draw attention to it?
I find it objectionable, both in tone and in content: it does more harm than good. It leads with a lie (basically, that the two types of racism are the same); it is essentiallist in a way that treads awfully closely, if not over the line, to being racist in turn; and it takes a nasty passive-aggressive tone with this “I’m bringing you a gift” silliness (the message is the usual one of trolls everywhere: if you reject my attack, it is because I’ve made you uncomfortable; your discomfort proves my point).
On what planet are you living on that it’s acceptable to deny someone access due to their race? This is nothing but KKK bullshit.
Why? Do blacks and whites each belong to separate hive minds?
Sorry; decided “Eh, nevermind”
“Eh, nevermind” X2
Depends on if you think it’s segregationaist for parent’s to want their children to develop freely from the negative consequences posed by stereotypes. If I knew that my daughter would be more comfortable studying math amongst females classmates rather than male classmates, wouldn’t it be a prudent parenting decision to place her in the all-female classroom? You can call it segregation… sure… that’s great that you’re able to see it that way, since it is segregationist. But why not say that male-female changerooms are segregationist, then? Is it because the purpose and intent of the segregation have an essential impact on its ethical valence?
OK, I thought some more and I can see it more clearly now. Clearly the author does this in a number of ways. With the sexism, too. I’m sure he does it on purpose. To rub in the “shame and guilt” good and proper, no doubt.
It’s a good insight, thanks.
Well I suppose that’s the short of it. For the cause perhaps, but mainly because I’m not so easily offended. The guy is passionate. I think people often get offended much too easily. To be sure, it would be a shame if this article does more harm than good.