Sunday, May 24, 2015

Human Class X "Deserves" Safe Spaces Without Any Human Class Y?

That's racist ONLY if human Class X is white. If Class X is not white, then they are entitled.
Ethnic Minorities Deserve Safe Spaces Without White People

"Last week The Ryersonian reported on an incident that involved two first-year journalism students who were turned away from an event organized by Racialized Students' Collective because they are white. Since then there has been a lot of commentary on the piece and a lot of debate -- a lot of the criticism is valid.

There are two sides to the story: 1) the media has a right to attend public events and report on matters that are in the public interest. The student media needs to cover initiatives that are happening on campus so that we draw attention to them and in turn create awareness (The Ryersonian reported that one student said he was covering the meeting for an assignment). 2) Marginalized groups have a right to claim spaces in the public realm where they can share stories about the discrimination they have faced without judgment and intrusion from anyone else.

I am a person of colour and a journalist and so there are two conflicting voices inside my head. But in this case one voice, that of a person of colour, is louder and my conscience does not allow me to be impartial. I have to take a side.

The organizers of the event, the Racialized Students' Collective, should have done a better job of labelling this event as a safe space on the Ryerson Students' Union online calendar. They should label safe spaces clearly and maybe even host events that educate the public on what they mean. Doing so will help the public and the media have a better understanding of the purpose and value of these spaces.

However, the point to note is not that two white students were asked to leave the event, but rather that this was a safe space and that we as a newsroom, as a campus and as a society are not as knowledgeable as we should be about what these spaces mean.

It's not just important, but it's essential, for marginalized groups to have safe spaces on campus to engage with people who understand what they go through. Though this group is funded by Ryerson's student union, it works to serve a particular group and a particular purpose. Many students at Ryerson have encountered racism in their life that is impossible to forget and many are exposed to discrimination on a daily basis. This group and these sort of events allow people of colour to lay bare their experiences and to collectively combat this societal ailment. These spaces are rare places in the world not controlled by individuals who have power, who have privilege.

These spaces, which are forums where minority groups are protected from mainstream stereotypes and marginalization, are crucial to resistance of oppression and we, as a school and as a society, need to respect them.

Earlier in the week a newsroom colleague and I went to an ad-hoc committee meeting on sexual assault policy. When we arrived we were told it was a safe space, and that we would not be able to report on anything that would be discussed in the meeting.

We understood the value of these sorts of events, where people can share their common struggles. Our understanding let us attend and contribute to the conversation, even if we couldn't report about it.

We understood the people there had a right to privacy. They had a right to collectively work through the challenges society had imposed on them. They had a right to claim parts of the campus, parts of the world, for a few hours in hopes of creating broader social change.

The two students who tried to enter the RSC meeting said that they were embarrassed when they were asked to leave and that the group was being counterproductive in sectioning themselves off. Similarly, some of the comments on the piece written about these students speaks to the idea that excluding certain people from these events, this dialogue, is encouraging racial tension. Their embarrassment isn't as important as the other issues involved here."
A clear expression of their own "power and privilege" which trumps their Macro-aggression against their enemies, an aggression to which they are entitled.

As Instapundit said, sure; make certain it's "Separate But Equal". But wait! Isn't that exactly what MLK and the marchers fought against? Separate was and is never equal. Forced separation is an aggression against a class of humans. I remember signs saying "No X Allowed", and believe me, it was racist and was done by the self-entitled and privileged class (Democrats). That was four generations ago, as generations are created these days, every 18 years or so.

These children have not experienced Jim Crow, nor slavery, but have had every government benefit from Affirmative Action to welfare of all sorts, much od which is targeted specifically for minorities such as for consideration in government hiring of contractors. A lot of minorities have successfully leveraged this largesse; some just want excuses. Apparently what they can't stand is criticism of their spelling by white professors, and abuses so miniscule that they are called "micro" aggressions - in other words, abuse which only they can see, through their non-white eyes, because the "aggressions" are one-millionth of an actual aggression. Which merely means that they get to make up excuses for themselves and their failures, blaming them on invisible oppression, while indulging in feelsorry for themselves, instead of moving forward with steely vigor. Those who actually have moved forward relentlessly are rejected - people like Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Thomas Sowell come to mind. Those people are not part of the Self-Pity Class.

Needing a Safe Self-Pity Space is not a mentally healthy pursuit, and group feelsorry is irrational. It should be discouraged by minority leaders but it will not be; it is too useful for the conduct of the Class War.

I get the feeling that they want to be "equal" to a false sense of what it is that western culture provides: equal opportunity to compete in a world which doesn't really care about you, but provides you with certain rights, anyway. What is not provided are things like guarantees of outcomes (which must be attained with purposeful actions), perfect safety for your fragile self-esteem, perfect equality of capability with all other humans. The real world is one of "suck it up, move on", which every white person lives in daily. No, they don't want equality in that environment. And not getting their utopia makes them sad.


Rikalonius said...

When you said Class X deserves safe space without any Human Class Y, I immediately thought you were referring to women, Class X, and Men class Y.

I had the unfortunate opportunity to have a discussion with a self-proclaimed social justice warrior. It was not pretty. These people are simply incapable of living in the world as it is. They would die of starvation in other time in human history, but the very culture they incessantly claim to despise, has provided them a safe space to be, not just unproductive, but downright detrimental to that same culture.

Steven Satak said...

Racist is as racist does. One set of rules for the whites, one set for the non-whites.

The pathetic part, the part that tips you off to their absolute ego-driven refusal to employ any kind of reason and instead trot out emotional doublespeak, is that they're practicing the very thing they claim is being done to them.

And they're okay with that.

Robert Coble said...

"I am a person of colour and a journalist and so there are two conflicting voices inside my head."

Perhaps you should see a shrink about those conflicting voices you keep hearing inside your head.