Support NeoGAF

[CrocMother]

Hey Byakuya do you support black only proms organized by black people.

 

[Gannd]

The whole idea of privilege is a social studies term that is used to shut down debate and discussion by intellectual cowards. I give that belief no quarter.

 

[captmorgan]

I don't think it did that at all.

It basically asked white people to come up with their own ways to fight racism among themselves.

How would that work? Send everyone on staff an email, saying only white people are invited to Fridays meeting of "white makes right" Topics of discussion will include "Minorities-what are we going to do about them?"

 

[KefkaPalazzo]

Giving them a space to discuss problem with inclusion and racism with a lessoned worry of it getting back to people in positions of authority? Yes. Ensuring that people feel comfortable expressing their experiences without worry of being seen as a troublemaker, misanthrope or race baiter? Yes.

Your privilege clearly makes it impossible for you to accept this frame. You'd throw a fit about not being invited to a seminar on ending male perpetrated sexual violence and making the school safer towards women too, wouldn't you?

Then don't call it a diversity meeting. That's the problem. It's perfectly reasonable to have a meeting central for minorities to discuss issues hurting their communities and ways to work on them, but you can't have a racial diversity meeting and exclude people based on race. That's a clear oxymoron.

You articulated your point so well, you have to be able to understand that.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

The whole idea of privilege is a social studies term that is used to shut down debate and discussion by inlellticual cowards. I give that belief no quarter.

How inlellticual of you

Then don't call it a diversity meeting. That's the problem.

You articulated your point so well, you have to be able to understand that.

Someone didn't actually read the link

 

[Gannd]

Karama Blackhorn, co-author of the note:

She and the absurd administration costs (which she is booked under) that colleges to have are the biggest driver of tuition increases.

 

[Slayven]

The whole idea of privilege is a social studies term that is used to shut down debate and discussion by inlellticual cowards. I give that belief no quarter.

Lets not bother will all those studies and statistics and what not.

 

[Gannd]

Lets not bother will all those studies and statistics and what not.

Social studies aren't really worth much in my mind. The eye field is easy to study and prove whatever you want. It itsn't a science.

 

[Dude Abides]

The whole idea of privilege is a social studies term that is used to shut down debate and discussion by intellectual cowards. I give that belief no quarter.

Were you playing with a mock broadsword when you typed that? Is it +2 against sociology majors?

 

[KefkaPalazzo]

How inlellticual of you



Someone didn't actually read the link

Way to jump to an inaccurate assumption.

Mrs. Blackhorn is the program coordinator for the school's Diversity and Equity Center. Very easy to assume that any official college meeting held by her group to discuss racial sensitivity issues would be related to diversity.

The whole idea of privilege is a social studies term that is used to shut down debate and discussion by inlellticual cowards. I give that belief no quarter.

That isn't true. The use of the term itself can be used inarticulately at times (Though not in this case) but there is definitely a clear privilege that certain groups have that others do not.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Way to jump to an inaccurate assumption.

Mrs. Blackhorn is the program coordinator for the school's Diversity and Equity Center. Very easy to assume that any official college meeting held by her group to discuss racial sensitivity issues would be related to diversity.

If you'd read the link you'd know the only one calling it a diversity meeting is the OP

 

[Skiptastic]

I know we tend to do "required reading" for threads, but seriously: everyone (including myself) should have and should go watch the video that goes along with this article before getting too deep into the discussion.

This was not a "diversity meeting", it was a "Staff of Color Happy Hour". That kind of changes the mindset of whether or not to exclude folks. I wouldn't say that a "Female Victims of Sexual Abuse Support Group" should be required to allow men to attend. But if you categorized it as "sexuality on campus" and said "no men", it would come off as completely stupid.

Byakuya and the video have definitely changed my thinking on this. I think it's fair for creating that kind of "safe space" to discuss issues related to racism or incidents involving race on campus. But, as everyone involved has said, they really should have worded the whole thing very differently and they would have gotten a different outcome.

 

[KefkaPalazzo]

If you'd read the link you'd know the only one calling it a diversity meeting is the OP

I just acknowledged that did I not? A potential official college meeting with an invitation written by someone who is charge of a group that seeks to promote diversity, but excludes on the basis of race is going to cause some difficulties. Regardless of the general point of the meeting.

 

[Opiate]

I think there is good reason to be highly suspicious of social sciences. They are extremely soft, and studies are frequently subject to extraneous variables that cannot be controlled for. Conclusions are confidently stated which would be spoken of as highly preliminary in other sciences.

However, the existence of racism in the United States is one of the few sociological conclusions that seems well established. When isolating variables as best possible, the macro effects of racism are apparent. It is particularly apparent for (or rather, against) black people. Saying "I am generally suspicious of sociological conclusions because the science is so soft" is different than saying "I never trust sociology."

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I just acknowledged that did I not? A potential official college meeting with an invitation written by someone who is charge of a group that seeks to promote diversity, but excludes on the basis of race is going to cause some difficulties. Regardless of the general point of the meeting.

*Ahem*

"Very easy to assume that any official college meeting held by her group to discuss racial sensitivity issues would be related to diversity."

This is why we don't assume. It's not difficult to actually get facts or ask questions.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

Just further proof that white people have it just as bad as minorities.

 

[echoshifting]

I know we tend to do "required reading" for threads, but seriously: everyone (including myself) should have and should go watch the video that goes along with this article before getting too deep into the discussion.

This was not a "diversity meeting", it was a "Staff of Color Happy Hour". That kind of changes the mindset of whether or not to exclude folks. I wouldn't say that a "Female Victims of Sexual Abuse Support Group" should be required to allow men to attend. But if you categorized it as "sexuality on campus" and said "no men", it would come off as completely stupid.

Byakuya and the video have definitely changed my thinking on this. I think it's fair for creating that kind of "safe space" to discuss issues related to racism or incidents involving race on campus. But, as everyone involved has said, they really should have worded the whole thing very differently and they would have gotten a different outcome.

I think this is true...there are issues of presentation and context here, but that's it. Blackhorn's point is salient.

 

[nel e nel]

If you can't be honest in front of a different race, diversity will never be achieved.

Unfortunately, psychology research into this exact phenomena show it to be true. White folks tend to not engage at all when the topic of racial profiling/racism comes up.

While the wording of the whole white supremacy statement was totally retarded, the concept of a critical mass is real. Minorities will not feel comfortable bringing up topics of diversity if they feel they are the only one of 'their kind' in the crowd.

 

[GreatMightySymp]

I don't see an issue with excluding people at the meeting after reading the actual article, but the way they worded things caused the issue. There's a difference between asking for only a certain race to talk about specific issues concerning that race that don't really apply to other races and the "buzz off whitey" mentality the message had.

And since it was staff, wouldn't they have records of who was from what race/etc. so they wouldn't have to send out a blind list blast like that (unless there's some sort of laws that forbid grabbing that information or something that I'm unaware of)?

 

[Skiptastic]

Unfortunately, psychology research into this exact phenomena show it to be true. White folks tend to not engage at all when the topic of racial profiling/racism comes up.

While the wording of the whole white supremacy statement was totally retarded, the concept of a critical mass is real. Minorities will not feel comfortable bringing up topics of diversity if they feel they are the only one of 'their kind' in the crowd.

I should just go back and edit my old post, given the discussion in this thread. I've been exposed to thinking that has changed my mind.

I don't see an issue with excluding people at the meeting after reading the actual article, but the way they worded things caused the issue. There's a difference between asking for only a certain race to talk about specific issues concerning that race that don't really apply to other races and the "buzz off whitey" mentality the message had.

And since it was staff, wouldn't they have records of who was from what race/etc. so they wouldn't have to send out a blind list blast like that (unless there's some sort of laws that forbid grabbing that information or something that I'm unaware of)?

Bingo.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Imagine this was your colleague:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=104343861&postcount=74

but, they didn't say this where their name and face were known.

 

[Mumei]

If you'd read the link you'd know the only one calling it a diversity meeting is the OP

Correct. This meeting was about working on support and community for people of color within the college - which is within the purview of achieving diversity, in creating a more welcoming environment for people of color. It is not uncommon for these things to sometimes have meetings that are segregated by race; this is not done out of racism or a desire to be noninclusive, but for purely instrumental reasons that relate to the goals of the meeting. The suggestion that white people interested "meet and work on racism, white supremacy, and white privilege to better our campus community and yourselves," wasn't meant as a rude dismissal. In the case of white people, they can create space for the sort of candor that is rare in racially-mixed groups; the same is possible with black people who might not feel comfortable being completely open about their issues in racially-mixed company.

I think that racially-mixed discussions are absolutely vital, and should happen as well. But racially segregated discussion groups in which people are able to discuss their experiences with racism in a safe space can also be an important part of that, at least when it is just a part of it and not the whole thing.

The whole idea of privilege is a social studies term that is used to shut down debate and discussion by intellectual cowards. I give that belief no quarter.

I don't think you understand the value of privilege as a social construct. Privilege isn't about solving the problem, it is about making people away that their own thought processes are shaped by who they are and so deeply-held internally felt assumptions might shape the way they respond to claims of discrimination, unequal treatment, or lessened opportunity.

For example if a middle class suburbanite makes the argument "I have no idea why so many black urban kids are drawn into gang membership. They should just join a club or play with good kids in their neighborhood", then they are making assumptions about the opportunities available to urban kids that are not correct. It's true that you could refute this by saying "Well, often times whole areas are faced with decay, there's a lack of municipal services--encouraged largely by suburbanites who vote down tax revenues needed to pay for these services--to say nothing of the problem of broken homes and male role models being in jail thanks largely to the war on drugs". And then this goes back and forth "Hey I don't necessarily agree with drug laws but if you do the crime you do the time", which of course is based on an assumption that the laws are being enforced in an even-handed way, that access to legal counsel is comparable for all people if they are caught, that sentencing is fair, that all people are 100% in control of all of their actions and there are no social pressures to perpetuate crime based on the opportunities available to people. "Well sure I know it's tough when you have fewer opportunities but if you work extra hard you'll get ahead and be able to leave that stuff behind, just look at <xyz person who succeeded>. Also I have friends who come from homes with rough parenting situations and they turned out well."

Basically, when the argument someone is making is a series of assumptions about what humans can do apparently divorced from any kind of understanding of how social context shapes them, that is privilege. You can demonstrate the arguments are wrong with evidence and people absolutely do, using evidence. But privilege is also a useful theoretical construct to remind someone that they internalize so many assumptions about how things operate. It's about saying "Instead of just confidently declaring you've got this figured out, maybe stop to listen to claims about inequity in good faith and try to be aware of what assumptions you have that cause you to doubt the claims of inequity because they don't apply to you."

Privilege doesn't "solve" inequality, it's a concept that we hope people learn to apply when they react to claims of inequality so that they themselves are more likely to understand the source of the claim and thus more willing to cooperate to fix them.

That people do sometimes level 'privilege' as an accusation, to shut down discussion, or to dismiss someone without doing the work to explain why they are wrong does not mean that it is useless, or that is all it is.
.

 

[Pollux]

A seminar for victims? I didn't think I needed to spell that out, but ok.

Because men can't be the victims of sexual violence? ok.

 

[nel e nel]

I should just go back and edit my old post, given the discussion in this thread. I've been exposed to thinking that has changed my mind.


Bingo.

For reference: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393339726/?tag=neogaf0e-20

and an interview with the author:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125859207

Also, while one is totally within their rights to be dismissive of social sciences as 'soft' because they make conclusions where the 'hard' sciences only see preliminary results, keep in mind that unethical behavior in the 'hard' sciences is - and has been - common for a long time. The pursuit to get published first and get prestigious grants has been cause for 'hard' scientists to publish preliminary results as conclusive as well.

 

[poppabk]

Giving them a space to discuss problem with inclusion and racism with a lessoned worry of it getting back to people in positions of authority? Yes. Ensuring that people feel comfortable expressing their experiences without worry of being seen as a troublemaker, misanthrope or race baiter? Yes.

Your privilege clearly makes it impossible for you to accept this frame. You'd throw a fit about not being invited to a seminar on ending male perpetrated sexual violence and making the school safer towards women too, wouldn't you?

You are making a lot of assumptions in that opening paragraph? Why would only a white person send information about the meeting to people in authority? Why would only white people label someone as a troublemaker, misanthrope or race baiter? This is why people have a problem with this type of thing, it's not a case of including only certain groups with shared interests and experiences, it's about excluding a specific group based on stereotyping based purely on race.

And why wouldn't you invite men to a seminar about ending male perpetrated sexual violence and making the school safer? I can understand only inviting women to a support group where the presence of a man might make them feel uncomfortable, but a community project to further a cause against sexual violence seems like the exact forum you would want men to attend.

 

[Chumpion]

As an European I wonder if this constant focus on racism in the United States isn't actually furthering racial divisiveness?

Divide and conquer, brah.

 

[cyberheater]

If you'd read the link you'd know the only one calling it a diversity meeting is the OP

Factually incorrect. The OP just quoted the articles headline.

 

[KefkaPalazzo]

*Ahem*

"Very easy to assume that any official college meeting held by her group to discuss racial sensitivity issues would be related to diversity."

This is why we don't assume. It's not difficult to actually get facts or ask questions.

It certainly is.

However, it doesn't change the fact that this could of been handled better. The way it was set up made it bound to fail, and people bound to complain. Which is a shame as a meeting for minorities to safely voice their thoughts has merit and may well be needed on that campus.

 

[Skiptastic]

Correct. This meeting was about working on support and community for people of color within the college - which is within the purview of achieving diversity, in creating a more welcoming environment for people of color. It is not uncommon for these things to sometimes have meetings that are segregated by race; this is not done out of racism or a desire to be noninclusive, but for purely instrumental reasons that relate to the goals of the meeting. The suggestion that white people interested "meet and work on racism, white supremacy, and white privilege to better our campus community and yourselves," wasn't meant as a rude dismissal. In the case of white people, they can create space for the sort of candor that is rare in racially-mixed groups; the same is possible with black people who might not feel comfortable being completely open about their issues in racially-mixed company.

I think that racially-mixed discussions are absolutely vital, and should happen as well. But racially segregated discussion groups in which people are able to discuss their experiences with racism in a safe space can also be an important part of that, at least when it is just a part of it and not the whole thing.

This is what I was not able to see, which is why I'm actually glad Byakuya had such a big reaction to my original post. I didn't think of it in the context of creating a safe environment for discussion, and his post (along with the video at the link) helped me realize that fact. The whole topic of "diversity" was clouding my vision throughout when it is not entirely relevant to the situation.

The line about "white people meet and work...", however, is one of the most poorly written ways of stating that fact. Something as simple as "While we celebrate and encourage our fellow white colleagues efforts to reduce racism, white supremacy and white privilege to better our campus community, this meeting is intended as a safe environment for people of color to meet and discuss these topics in an open and honest way" would have gotten a much different response, in my opinion.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Factually incorrect. The OP just quoted the articles headline.

"College group cancels diversity 'happy hour' after excluding white staffers"

Thanks for playing

 

[Enron]

academia, lol.

 

[Quixzlizx]

A seminar for victims? I didn't think I needed to spell that out, but ok.

Nothing in your post implied this hypothetical seminar was only for victimized women.

I guess it's because of my white male privilege that I didn't immediately assume all women are victims of the patriarchy.

I'm not making light of actual victims of sexual assault, just your post, in case I needed to spell that out.

 

[Kreed]

They have this. It's called prison

You could at least try to be subtle.

 

[Gannd]

Correct. This meeting was about working on support and community for people of color within the college - which is within the purview of achieving diversity, in creating a more welcoming environment for people of color. It is not uncommon for these things to sometimes have meetings that are segregated by race; this is not done out of racism or a desire to be noninclusive, but for purely instrumental reasons that relate to the goals of the meeting. The suggestion that white people interested "meet and work on racism, white supremacy, and white privilege to better our campus community and yourselves," wasn't meant as a rude dismissal. In the case of white people, they can create space for the sort of candor that is rare in racially-mixed groups; the same is possible with black people who might not feel comfortable being completely open about their issues in racially-mixed company.

I think that racially-mixed discussions are absolutely vital, and should happen as well. But racially segregated discussion groups in which people are able to discuss their experiences with racism in a safe space can also be an important part of that, at least when it is just a part of it and not the whole thing.

How do you think the same e-mail, the same invite, would have played out if it said that the meeting was for that exact thing: meet and work on racism, white supremacy, and to better our campus community and yourselves. Would have played out? That invite would have gotten the person fired.

That people do sometimes level 'privilege' as an accusation, to shut down discussion, or to dismiss someone without doing the work to explain why they are wrong does not mean that it is useless, or that is all it is.
.

Privilege is impossible to quantify and isn't testable. It's abstract. It doesn't mean...well anything, to me. It's whatever anyone wants it to mean and can be applied to whatever anyone wants it to be applied to. And, because of those flaws, it is far too often used to shut down debate. I understand that social studies arent' science and it doesn't need to be a quantifable belief to be helpful. Sometimes just looking at patterns and studying them in the abstract can be very helpful.

 

[Dude Abides]

They have this. It's called prison

academia, lol.

I dunno, excluding angry white dudes may have been the right call.

 

[besada]

How is excluding an entire groups viewpoint a good thing? Why just assume that every white person (or every male in the second case) is in cahoots and are working toward hurting non whites/males?

Can whites or men or whoever not learn from others?

Because when minority groups invite the majority group, they get discussions like this thread, where the majority group wants to spend their time talking about how they're oppressed too, and how maybe that insult wasn't really racist, etc. Just like every GAF thread about race, which is the reason so many minority GAFfers don't even comment in these threads any more.

We, as a society, have understood the need for safe spaces for minorities for some time now, starting with safe spaces for women to discuss women's issues. I don't love the exclusions of people based entirely on race/gender/orientation, but I do understand them. They want to be able to discuss the issues they're dealing with, without having the "But is it really sexist/Men get discriminated against too" arguments constantly.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

I dunno, excluding angry white dudes may have been the right call.

Seems that way..lol.

 

[poppabk]

Because when minority groups invite the majority group, they get discussions like this thread, where the majority group wants to spend their time talking about how they're oppressed too, and how maybe that insult wasn't really racist, etc. Just like every GAF thread about race, which is the reason so many minority GAFfers don't even comment in these threads any more.

We, as a society, have understood the need for safe spaces for minorities for some time now, starting with safe spaces for women to discuss women's issues. I don't love the exclusions of people based entirely on race/gender/orientation, but I do understand them. They want to be able to discuss the issues they're dealing with, without having the "But is it really sexist/Men get discriminated against too" arguments constantly.

Why not give the benefit of the doubt and invite everyone and see how it works, instead of assuming how someone will act based purely on their race? Or only invite specific individuals that you believe will benefit from the meeting, based on your knowledge of them as a person rather than their race? It isn't impossible for someone of a non-white race to insist they are not oppressed and to make the exact same comments that you listed above, is it?

 

[Kano on the Phone]

Why not give the benefit of the doubt and invite everyone and see how it works, instead of assuming how someone will act based purely on their race? Or only invite specific individuals that you believe will benefit from the meeting, based on your knowledge of them as a person rather than their race? It isn't impossible for someone of a non-white race to insist they are not oppressed and to make the exact same comments that you listed above, is it?

They didn't want to. They wanted their own place and time. Why don't you invite anyone to go anywhere with you even if you don't want them there?

 

[Valhelm]

I can totally understand where Blackhorn was coming from, but an exclusive group like this would probably make white students and faculty even less receptive to any anti-racism action taken by the community college. The best way to end racism is to educate white people and teach them not to hate. That can't happen in an exclusive group.

That said, there's a definite possibility that obnoxious offended racists may have tried to overrun the meeting or thwart any initiatives put forward. This might have happened in the past at this school.

 

[besada]

Why not give the benefit of the doubt and invite everyone and see how it works, instead of assuming how someone will act based purely on their race? Or only invite specific individuals that you believe will benefit from the meeting, based on your knowledge of them as a person rather than their race?

Because they aren't blind to history. People act like minority groups have never tried to interface with the majority. They have. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it produces a useless festival of the majority denying the minorities problems exist. Sometimes, they'd like to discuss the issues without having to fight the majority voice. I don't really have a problem with that.

I imagine if you were a majority person and really felt strongly about the minority position, they'd find a way to include you. I've certainly attended minority groups even though I'm the big daddy of the majority (white, straight, old), because the people there knew me and knew that I was down for the cause. I've also been asked not to attend certain meetings because the people there needed to be in a truly safe space where they didn't want to have to worry about me invalidating their experience, or because not everyone felt comfortable around me. And I'm fine when I get disinvited, because I support them and what they're trying to do.

What I'm mostly seeing here is a bunch of folks who are using this to act aggrieved, who likely have no strong desire to be activist on these issues.

 

[Devolution]

Oppressed people having meetings without me makes me feel oppressed.

 

[Brakke]

My university had white people meetings pretty frequently--they were called faculty meetings of the English Department or Women and Gender Studies Department or Economics Department when Mr Kim was traveling or sick.

People need a support network. Go figure that's harder for minority groups some times. You've probably got things you want to talk about that you can't around dingbats that say "privilege doesn't exist".

 

[andymcc]

I dunno, excluding angry white dudes may have been the right call.

Enron is white?

 

[Kite]

Because when minority groups invite the majority group, they get discussions like this thread, where the majority group wants to spend their time talking about how they're oppressed too, and how maybe that insult wasn't really racist, etc.

That is funny, recently an Asian group on campus ran lecture on the "glass ceiling" we face in the corporate world. Several non-Asians showed up, we didn't kick them out and there were no issues. The situation in the OP just seems like an unhealthy way to deal with racism. Automatically assuming the worst in people.. heh yeah race won't stop being an issue in the US for at least for this generation, lets hope are kids won't be this stupid -__-

 

[Zoe]

You don't need to call out white people to exclude them from events like this (minority-focused happy hours). It happens naturally.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

That is funny, recently an Asian group on campus ran lecture on the "glass ceiling" we face in the corporate world. Several non-Asians showed up, we didn't kick them out and there were no issues. The situation in the OP just seems like an unhealthy way to deal with racism. Automatically assuming the worst in people.. heh yeah race won't stop being an issue in the US for at least for this generation, lets hope are kids won't be this stupid -__-

Obivously not everyone is racist, but you can just as easily imagine the situation at your campus going the other way. Wanting a space to commune with people of color and talk about what you deal with where you can be sure you won't be shouted down isn't about excluding others. Maybe they didn't want to deal with racism. Maybe they just wanted to be comfortable for a while.

 

[Valhelm]

Oppressed people having meetings without me makes me feel oppressed.

I think that traditionally empowered groups (white people, men, cis people, etc) tend to be really outraged by any kind of exclusion because they've never dealt with it before. With very few exceptions, white people have never really been excluded from anything. I doubt many white people would want to go to a diversity meeting, but they're offended that they're not allowed to go. They've never felt that kind of exclusion before.

 

[RiffRaff]

So, basically. Fix racism with more racism?

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I think that traditionally empowered groups (white people, men, cis people, etc) tend to be really outraged by any kind of exclusion because they've never dealt with it before. With very few exceptions, white people have never really been excluded from anything. I doubt many white people would want to go to a diversity meeting, but they're offended that they're not allowed to go. They've never felt that kind of exclusion before.

This is a pretty concise assessment of the issue here.