Thanks, you have proved my point. And yes, it could happen at any school.
Specifically, I wrote this: “The double standard of this diversity at all costs ideology is nauseating…” I never said anything about Pitzer’s diversity policies (I have no clue what they are); I clearly stated that there is a pervasive “diversity at all costs” ideology that, unfortunately, happens to infect all schools, and this ideology makes non-white students think they are free to discriminate openly re white students because these students know the bar is set lower for them in terms of discriminatory behavior against others.
EDIT: For example, there is really no other way to explain that black students at Princeton had no issue openly protesting for black-only housing. “Something in the air” let them know that was OK to do. Just as “something in the air” makes it clear white students asking for white-only housing would be expelled, and the white student know this too.
I surmise the “something in the air” is a backwards diversity at all costs ideology and the acceptance of intolerant behavior by some, all in the name of tolerance. It goes something like this, such as in Animal Farm lingo - all tolerance is equal, but some tolerance is more equal than others.
I wonder if Chinese, Russian or Urdu-speaking students (just to name a few with different ways of writing) are also discriminating when they post signs seeking roommates in their native languages? It happens all of the time. I read one of those languages and I see signs advertising for roommates all the time posted about campuses.
We only are able to get concerned because the notice is written in English.
For the record, racism in my definition does not include the historic power component. Anyone who judges or treats another person differently on the basis of their race is racist.
With the historic power component, then forever in history will POCs punish innocent non-POCS–or are you also saying that it’s not possible for their to be innocent non-POCs?? Because if you are, that’s racist.
Power shifts quickly. As it has in this case.
The three existing roommates have the asset. They therefore have the power. They chose to use that power to deny access to anyone not POC even if that person is desperate for housing. Maybe that non-POC was born in poverty and had to work three jobs to get where s/he is? Maybe s/he grew up adopted in a household of color? None of that is taken into consideration. All that counts is the color of that rejected person’s skin. That’s textbook racism. Will they next deny a job to anyone not POC, once they use their privileged position as graduates of the Claremont Consortium? One effort logically follows from the first. It’s a slippery slope. I don’t feel comfortable living with white person. I hire only non-white people.
As URMs did they not already benefit from the many programs to help rectify historic wrongs? Affirmative action, scholarships, special recruiting, lower scores accepted etc. The first chance they have to use their new power . . . . they judge others on their skin tone.
^I think as far as language is concerned, it can make sense to want a roommate that speaks your language, but mostly only if you struggle to speak whatever the majority language is. I mean, communication is important if you’re going to live with someone. (Now I might be happy to live with someone even if we can’t communicate at all to begin with, but that’s because I love learning languages.) It could be discriminatory to want same-language, but I don’t think that an advertisement including a language preference would immediately strike me as such. Who knows, maybe it is, and I’m just not used to thinking of it in those terms.
Claremont president says the right thing, but this may also inadvertently expose the existing double standard, if the College stops at just this statement.
Here is the issue - it sounds good, but if the student is just allowed to come back to school like nothing happened, then it shows the tolerance of intolerance in the name of diversity I mentioned earlier.
A white student would either be suspended for a semester (might even be thrown out), would definitely be called up to sone tribunal to explain his actions and a mark placed in his/her file, and would probably be forced to take some sort of sensitivity training or a stupid multicultural class.
Waiting to see what this black student will have to do. I suspect nothing, and the student knows this too because the article also states:
Anyone want to venture to guess what would happen to a white student who did this same thing and then had the gall to defend it and double down on it?
However, it is good her name is published and future employers know who she is.
“Claremont president” is not Pitzer president. There are five different colleges in the Claremont consortium, each with their own president. There is no “Claremont president” unless you mean the president of Claremont McKenna, which is one of the consortium colleges. Just saying…
@whenhen Clearly my knowledge of the law is out of date! It certainly seems to me that the Roommates case makes the Fair Housing Act non-applicable to people selecting roommates, which is as I think it should be.
But the issue remains open as the the appropriateness of students at a liberal, private college engaging in this legal behavior. The girls could have described themselves and their interests and most whites probably wouldn’t have responded. They could have turned those whites who responded away. Or perhaps, just maybe, they might have taken a liking to one of them. The same is true if the races are reversed.
@ucbalumnus I think there’s been a lot of anecdotal evidence supporting the fact that White students who’ve made racist comments or took pictures in blackface, etc. have been punished in at least one of the ways @awcntdb stated. I mean, didn’t a girl recently get suspended and ordered to take a diversity training course for writing, “#ForgetBlackLivesMatter, more like AllLivesMatter” on social media?
There’s no way that a White student that overtly tried to exclude POC would be able to justify it, since he/she couldn’t use the typical “I need this to have a safe space from the trauma of being a minority attending a PWI (primarily White institution)” excuse. Anything else would sound racist (“I don’t feel comfortable around Black people,” etc.).
Although I think it would be interesting if a White student tried to make the case that he/she felt uncomfortable rooming with POC. Specifically at a very liberal institution, I think it’s reasonable that some people would fear feeling alienated or being harassed, either because of their Whiteness or because of their political beliefs. Bringing up feelings is the only way to communicate within the PC framework. But the retaliation would probably be something like: “Minorities have been alienated and harassed–and much worse–for centuries. For you to even say that we should consider your feelings is offensive. #WhiteTears”
It’s crazy how anything that White people do other than what POC want them to do can be twisted into a manifestation of “White supremacy.”
Okay, I’ll be the first one to say it; what or whom…do these women define as a person of color? Would a Vietnamese, Dominican, Indian or Saudi roommate be acceptable to them? If so, why do members of those particular groups get a pass, despite their historic racism and hostility toward black Africans and their progeny?
“Person of color” typically means any non-white person.
Somehow, it may be too much to expect someone with racist preferences to consider those nuances. (Not to mention that the whole idea of a racially-exclusive “safe space” is probably just a cover for racist preferences.)
I really believe that admins are so deep in the academic BS of this stuff that they cannot even see that they are also teaching students that the request made for only people of color is acceptable to do. Colleges are speaking out of both sides of their mouths, and saying one thing, yet doing another in practice, and it sure seems they are clueless they are doing as much.
As I stated in my Post #85, the president of Pitzer said the right thing:
But then, he turns arounds and says and acknowledges that the same behavior he condemns is in practice on campus, with his approval no less:
My initial response was to wonder what philosophy class he took to make him think this is a logical statement? No class I can think of. He is so steeped in this stuff he cannot see the forest for the trees in his own words.
Specifically, if the college is actively “establishing intracultural safe spaces for marginalized groups,” then why does he not get it that this young lady was attempting to recreate in her personal space and life what the college is doing on campus? Her post and her argument indicate that she wants her own “intracultural safe [space]” just like the college creates on campus.
I do not get how the college can create such spaces, but then also say for a student to do this is “inconsistent with [the college’s] mission and values.” The young lady’s request seems very consistent to me with the college’s safe space edict, and it also seems that the colleges are teaching students that if they (students) do not want to deal with others on campus, it is OK and there will be a segregated safe space for them to go.
In 2016, are you seriously doubting that a white student could place an ad on an official school bulletin board for “white people only” and not be punished by a college?
Not sure how that fits in with all the things we see on campus today regarding actions far less a egregious. With groups getting punished for silly things called micro-aggressions (many which are made up on the spot and are unknown to others), you actually think an overt act/request for “white people only” would go unpunished? Interesting viewpoint on your part, as it is not consistent with the hypersensitivity of colleges today to protect people from others who hold a different view.