》》 But a gay guy would not be an issue in this respect, right?《《
I reckon not. As long as he doesn’t get any ideas about being bisexual after seeing some part of my uber-hot body (haha.) 8-}
So there’s a question, who do the bisexuals stay with?
Whoever, because just because they like (insert gender here) doesn’t mean they’re automatically attracted to literally anyone of (insert gender here). I have no doubt I wouldn’t be attractive to the majority of potential lesbian, bi, or pan roommates. 
While Pitzer is ramming diversity down everyone’s throat, it is not sanctioning this student for writing such a blatantly rude FB post that is at odds with the school’s objective to promote intercultural understanding.
This is off campus summer housing, right? Not sure blaming Pitzer makes sense.
It was posted on the Pitzer Class of 2018 FB page, not Craig’s List. Therefore, it does reflect on Pitzer since the posters are all acknowledged Pitzer students.
Pitzer not sanctioning this student who made the posting on a Pitzer-named FB page is implicitly condoning it.
What are you asking Pitzer to do? Kick the student out? By the way, I follow the Yik Yak postings for the 5Cs and am not super surprised by this story. There are racist comments (“little r”) posted by black students fairly regularly on the thread. (Maybe it is the same student making a lot of noise? No telling… Yik Yak is anonymous). But it could be students from other 5Cs posting, too, no way to know for sure it is a Pitzerite. Although this particular story happens to be tied to a Pitzer student, my guess it that it could have happened a lot of colleges. Not sure the school is very relevant.
There are a lot of things Pitzer can do to voice its displeasure, between doing nothing and expulsion.
What specifically would you suggest? This student has first amendment rights and this is not illegal. It is off campus housing. Maybe they could wrangle up some kind of honor code violation or something if Pitzer has one? My guess is that this student is going to get an earful from fellow students in the fall about this, though.
Does the 1st amendment right extend to the student posting on a private college’s FB page? I would not think so.
The First Amendment doesn’t apply in this case. Pitzer is a private school, not a governmental organization.
Just about every private school has the right to sanction students that embarass the school. Just because something isn’t illegal doesn’t make it not crass.
Community service or sensitivity training would not be inappropriate.
Re: #70
While there is no First Amendment issue, it is possible that a private school may not want to have political-content-based speech/press limitations (i.e. behave like a public school in this respect), because then it will have to deal with endless politics about what political content should or should not be prohibited. E.g. banning racist speech/press would mean political arguments about the definition of “racism”. Of course, beyond that, actual racists will get around such limitations by using “dog whistle code words”, just like many politicians do when they want to appeal to racists but do not want to do so overtly enough to drive away other voters.
In addition, having political-content-based speech/press limitations creates more of an implicit endorsement by the school for those which are not prohibited. If, for example, a student group marched around with signs promoting a political candidate in an election who is widely seen as making racist comments, how should the school respond in this case?
Of course, the private school need not venture into this minefield if its student conduct code prohibits racial discrimination in housing, including roommate selection. But most students who want to do so will just do it covertly, rather than advertise that.
@ucbalumnus
If a white student had posted on the Pitzer Class of 2018 FB page:
“It’s exclusive [because] I don’t want to live with any colored folks”,
that student would have been expelled so fast that your head would spin. There’d be no debate about about free speech.
Yes, definitely a double standard here.
This post:
is why this next post makes no sense.
In fact, I would bet that if a white Pitzer student did this on a non-Pitzer forum such as Craigslist for summer housing in a different state and town, I put money if Pitzer found out it would try to expel the white student using the argument that the student does not represent the values of Pitzer and should not be there. The student would not be allowed back on campus.
The double standard of this diversity at all costs ideology is nauseating, yet laughable that the adults who implement this nonsense think they are smart. Alas, they cannot even see the damage they are causing. So much for being smart with all those graduate degrees.
Ah… thought this school of thought would enter the thread eventually. Do you really think this couldn’t happen with a CMC student or an Ol’ Miss student? It has nothing to do with Pitzer’s diversity policies. It could happen at any college. You just want to make a political point.
Who cares. People can set whatever criteria they want when looking for a roommate
Gotta admit, it would be one situation where that 'ol white privilege wouldn’t help someone. 8-} =D>
Almost everyone who has commented is of the opinion that it is legal to discriminate on any basis in the selection of a roommate and to advertise as such. One is indeed permitted to discriminate in the selection of a roommate, or in selection of tenants in an owner-occupied complex of up to four units, but it is illegal to advertise such discriminatory intent. Under federal law such ads can’t go in a newspaper or on Craigslist. A Facebook posting might not be illegal if put on one’s personal Facebook page, but when posted on the college page I believe it is clearly illegal. This is under federal law. I’m sure California has far more restrictive fair-housing laws.
Personally, I think anything which is legal should be allowed to be advertised. I had a very nice apartment above a work duplex that I own that went mostly empty for years because I didn’t want to have a kid or a couple upstairs. I only wanted one person. I could hear the tenant walking around, coughing, and such, and a couple makes twice as much noise, while a kid makes 10 times as much noise. I did rent it some through word of mouth, but could never advertise. How sad that some single person in need of a really nice $200-a-month apartment couldn’t get one because of excessive federal regulation.
It should be noted that it is probably unlawful to advertise one’s own race, religion, or family status in an ad seeking a roommate, since that implies that you want a similar roommate.
The behavior these three girls have participated in is not racist or racism. It’s ethnocentrism. While colleges may aim to reduce ethnocentric tendencies, they need to also work to educated people to the difference between ethnocentrism and racism. Racism is the belief that all or virtually all members of one race are genetically superior to all other races. That’s it; it has nothing to do with power or oppression. Ethnocentrism is simply a preference for association with members of one’s own race.
As a matter of social utility, if these three girls are legally allowed to cull out any white responders to their ad, they should be allowed to do so on the front end by stating their preference in their ad. Of course, if they can do that whites seeking roommates should be allowed to do the same thing. Whatever the rule, we need one rule that will apply to everyone.
While I agrees with this and it is is accurate in terms of an academic discussion, it should be noted that this explanation is not the real, practical and social application of the terms used, racism and ethnocentrism.
Without a doubt a white student could not even begin to use the ethnocentrism argument to justify doing something remotely similar to what these black students did, even if subtle, regardless if it is an accurate argument. The white student would be branded a racist.
Blame the media and the ignorant “diversity” ideology reflex to brand anything they do not like that a white person does in relation to a non-white as racist. Nonsensical because many things are not racist, but as you state, a preference that may have nothing to do with anything but a preference, not a rejection for nefarious reasons. But, branding everything racist serves an ulterior purpose of shaming people, even if they are not racist.
However, this “call everything racist” creed has dumbed down the word “racist,” and it essentially masks/has overtaken ethnocentrism in its wake. I learned a few years back that, unless talking about countries and their policies, 95% of students and even adults have not a clue what ethnocentrism is as it relates to everyday people’s behavior. Therefore, I stopped using the term ethnocentrism to describe individuals because no one understood the distinction and others just stated, rather reflexively, using it (ethnocentrism) was a justification for racism.
This is a great example how an ideology that claims good intentions in reality could destroy the intellect over time by conflating and hyperbolizing in an effort to attain some concocted goal. Nothing new here - good intentions have unintentionally done the world “a world of hurt.” History is the proof of that, for sure.