There goes my head. I find this story incredible. Northeastern and Boston College co-hosted a debate tournament last Fall restricted to students who “do not identify as white.”
Here is the announcement, tracked down by Campus Reform (hence the logo in the background):
Analysis: What the hell?
By what possible logic can college administrators conclude that this segregated activity is legal, ethical, or tolerable? What’s going on here, you ask? What’s going on here is that those in charge of two esteemed institutions of higher learning have dead ethics alarms. “The goal of this tournament is to promote affinity among non-white APDA debaters and cultivate racial diversity on the league” is Authentic Frontier Gibberish: what is “affinity” in that context? How is racial diversity cultivated by racially segregated tournaments?
Never mind: many schools participated, and apparently see nothing wrong with “good” racial discrimination. The All-BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color,) only tournament included the University of Chicago, for example, which “The Chicago Thinker” reported informed its students the BIPOC debate was only open to anyone who “does not identify as white”…whatever that means.
Needless to say, but apparently necessary to point out to the schools involved, a “No Whites” participation violated the various schools’ own stated policies. Boston College’s University Notice on Nondiscrimination prohibits discrimination based on race, stating “federal laws and regulations require the University not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, sex, or age in treatment, employment, admission or access to Boston College and its educational programs and activities.” Northeastern University’s Policy and Procedures is similarly clear, stating “Northeastern University strictly prohibits discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, religious creed, genetic information, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, ancestry, veteran, or disability status.”
Ah, but these policies only apply to bad discrimination.
The University of Chicago’s Chicago Debate Society that participated in the BIPOC debate tournament an explanation of why it felt such apartheid was appropriate:
“The Chicago Debate Society supports our members’ participation in the tournament and the tournament itself for combatting the ongoing legacy of racism in all levels of American competitive debate. We believe in creating spaces for discourse about race and social justice, especially those that actively promote the voices of marginalized debaters.”
Translation: “We believe that racial discrimination is a remedy for racial discrimination.”