Two of these stories in one week—something’s happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear, however.
I’m sorry, I start channeling old Sixties songs at times like this.
Not one but two colleges have advocated segregation in their policies this week:
- Hampshire College explains on its website that it allows students to reside in “identity-based” housing communities, provided they have a “unique social identity” that has “historically experienced oppression,” arguing that such residences “give support to members of our community with social identities that have been historically marginalized in this country, and strive to counter systemic oppression.” The Massachusetts school’s confident promotion of such living arrangements “arises from our commitment to fostering diverse, socially just, and inclusive communities.” An informational booklet explains that “identity-based housing is an institutional structure designed to assist members of historically oppressed groups in supporting each other,” and “helps to create an added level of psychological comfort and safety for those who choose to live in those spaces, often providing the foundation for those students to be able to engage fully in the greater community.”
Translation: Black students don’t want to live with whites, but prefer “their own kind,” because whites are viewed as potentially dangerous. And that’s okay!
- In Illinois, Moraine Valley Community College has restricted certain sections of a mandatory introductory course to black students only. Jessica Crotty, Moraine’s assistant director of communications, justified the segregation by arguing that the school periodically reserves certain course offerings for various demographics of students, and doing this for black students is no different.
“The focus can be on specific issues they face,” Crotty explained. “Students feel comfortable and are more likely to open up because they’re with other students who are like them.”
Pop quiz: What are whites called who demand that in the interests of safety and their “comfort,” they should not have to be in class with blacks?
I am curious about how this particular ethics alarm—you know, “racism is bad”?— got deadened to such a point that this blatant and destructive double standard is even possible. It is undoubtedly illegal, though I seem to have missed the immediate response of the Obama Administration condemning it. Ethics, as I have written here from the beginning, is evolutionary and dynamic. Through experience, study, reflection and eventually enlightenment, society and civilization tend to move in an ethical direction, constantly learning that what was once thought of as right is wrong, and vice-versa. Laws and cultures absorb these changes.
Sometimes, however, whole societies forget what they have already learned. Like now.
This could have been seen coming the second black student groups on various campuses, egged on by the racist rhetoric of Black Lives Matter and emboldened by enabling white progressives who gave the groups’ grievances respect and legitimacy they did not deserve, began “demanding” increased segregation on campus. You can peruse a list of hundreds of such demands” by black student movements at universities on WeDemand.org. Many of the demands include calls for reductions in white faculty and the establishment ”safe spaces” for black students.
This is straight up racism. Why does it receive anything but scorn and condemnation from the Democratic Party, alleged advocates of diversity, and the news media? My suspicion is that the inherent hypocrisy of affirmative action, obvious racial preferences in high places and the tolerance for the activities and pronouncements of Black Lives Matter and similar racists groups have created a retrograde movement toward segregation, now favored by blacks rather than whites because they perceive it as a route to political and social power.
The development is dangerous and divisive, and the culture needs to speak clearly, first by saying “NO” through its leaders, and second by eliminating policies and institutions that have the effect of eroding the societal consensus that racial segregation, for “safety” or any other reason, is per se unethical. That means killing affirmative action, and eliminating the cynical “disparate impact” justification for finding discrimination where there is none. It also means finally treating black colleges like Howard exactly as “white colleges” would be treated. Organize a wave of white student applicants to those schools, and declare them in violation of the law if the student bodies are disproportionately made up of one race.
Moreover, this has to happen quickly. The presidency of Barack Obama has been the worst disaster for race relations since Woodrow Wilson, and the chasm between the races is widening rapidly.
142 thoughts on “Wait, I’m Confused: I Thought Racial Segregation Was BAD….”
At my last post here, I now see, I chickened out — again. It is something that in my case has clear links to my upbringing. Because I rebelled against an entire religious and cultural heritage, and this sent shock-waves through the whole community, they ‘counter-attack’ against me was always emotional.
I am largely convinced that even when we discuss ideas, or try to, that our relationship to the subject matter is a subject OF our emotions. So, and for example, that I draw into question the multi-ethnic platform of America, and state that it is this in itself which produces the ‘race problem’, and that what is happening within the race-problem will only increase — is increasing — and that there will be a social revolution to deal with it, this statement (which is one of the bases of my argument and my position) causes a huge distress to people who are INVESTED in a particular view.
Though I do write a great deal (my posts are long) the main reason I get opposition is not for that reason. The reason is that I am dealing on very very difficult questions and I am ‘breaking the rules’ by examining them in different ways.
And so when Beth and Wyoming and others attack at an emotional level it does quite a number to me. It brings back to me lived and nightmarish memories of profound attacks leveled against my PERSON for the views and ideas I entertained.
I do not complain for this is exactly what I need. My whole purpose is to define a position (it really has very profoundly to do with ethics and ethics is indeed the main consideration) that takes an independent stance. This is not easy.
However, I thought things through and tried to sort things out and what I came to understand is that my perspective — the people I read, my understanding of the present, the needs and demands of our present, and all this very surely in the context of ethics — is more than anything else non-intelligible to many who write here. It is not because it is obscure or impossible to undertsand but it is because many here can only think in very clearly defined ruts. I would have to say that this is a tremendous problem right now. Vast established viewpoints and viewstructures are on the verge of collapse. Though this posits a restructuring and the emergence of new modes, still this must be quite painful.
There are seismic shifts occurring within political ideas now, certainly this is so in the US, and these shifts are deeply threatening to people who have constructed their identity around certain edifices.
So, I think I will try to keep plodding on here on this Blog. Truthfully, I have no interest in hurting anyone, or upsetting anyone, or disturbing anyone, and certainly not the ‘harmony’ of this Blog or it residents. I will just not longer respond to emotional arguments, but only to ideas.
If you don’t like it, just skip it.
Thanks for the link.
WOW! How can you argue with that kind of “logic”.
And people wonder why my hopes for the future of the United States are so dim.
It does prove racism is still alive in America.