Safe Zones and Political Correctness

[Irysa]

What's the point of assigning white privilege by country then?

Edited December 2, 2015 by Irysa

[blah the Prussian]

That's actually quite interesting. But the point is, race doesn't matter, as long as you're an immigrant you'll be looked down upon, right?

[I.M. Gei]

While I agree, it serves no purpose to bring it up as a way to attempt to shut up, blame or shame people who would otherwise share an opinion, which is generally in the context that it is used online, at least from my personal experience. Can't stand that, closed minds mean we learn nothing. Other times, though, it is used in ways that are true; an example is racial profiling (in the US, again).

a bunch of mentally ill (or trolling) tumblrati shitting up the term's academic construct (and this also applies with many academic social justice terms, which predate the internet by decades, writ large) don't detract from its original purpose: to get people to acknowledge and be mindful of how their white skin may advantage them over others. a call for self-reflection, in essence. here in the states, this extends into more subtle manners, such as how a white felon is still more than twice as likely to get hired as a black man with a similar resume and a clean slate, or how redlining and black folks getting largely shut out of the g.i. bill's benefits helped create the postwar white middle class while leaving african-americans largely impoverished

like, when i use the term "white privilege", i'm not saying that you're less of a person because you have it; what i mean is that plenty of folks don't have it as good as you, and this isn't purely because they're lazy bums and we live in a perfect meritocracy

I was thinking specifically about that incident where the Feminist Critic of Fundamentalist Islam was barred from speaking, things like that. I do suppose I agree with having some say in how the money is spent, so long as they don't have too much power. I do support managed democracy.

i'll note here that when conservatives try to censor something or someone on campus, they're able to do so through official channels of power: faculty members suspended for tweeting something negative about the NRA, being released for saying something negative about israel, being harassed for writing an op/ed against scott walker's policies, or when the good ol' boys felt the previous head of william and mary's college was too liberal and a threat to their alma mater's good ol' boy network and forced him out. i don't think student protests, which almost always lack official power, are as big of a problem.

Edited December 2, 2015 by I.M. Gei

[Alazen]

I do agree that there have been and still are differences in the treatment and stereotypes of separate ''races'' or ethnic groups within the the Americas. However, I would say a noticeable amount of what you could call ''racial issues'' are largely linked to socioeconomic situations or the views of such. I certainly reject any tumblrish claim of it being down to a great war between The White Man VS The Non-White Man.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Alazen

[Rapier]

it really doesn't even need to go that deep. if i'm paying you 40k a year for something, and i'm signing a contract (which you do in a statement of intent to register, and in many other instances), aspects about the thing i'm buying should be negotiable.

who decides if sports will be important? if student-handled money should go towards one thing or another? some aspects of university are better handled by the student body rather than administrative body.

the student body doesn't get a say in how ethical/judicial processes are carried out (cheating, committing crimes, etc.), but they do get a say in how some of their money is allocated.

Regarding public universities, I have no objections to this. But private universities are private proprieties, and thus the owners have complete autonomy over what they own, period. Your signing of a contract limits your obligations to what is in that contract, not to outside matters that may be related, so this is not a good argument either. I'm not against student unions pressing for what they find interesting or useful, I'm against students possessing enough power to force those who own private universities to do as they wish, as this is an absurd abuse of private law. Democracy is limited to public affairs only, private law guarantees a decent degree of autonomy and individuality.

I disagree that the student body knows better than the administrative body. The former see things from their limited perspective, concerning their own needs and wishes, while the latter see the big picture of the university and know how to allocate resources to the areas of need most efficiently. Actually, I am beginning to think this is a false dilemma - why not let both sort this out in a dialogue but leave the final word, on what will be done and how it will be done, to the administrative body, which actually knows how to work with this kind of stuff?

And that's the problem. Student bodies will want their money to be allocated to their interests and miss the bigger picture of the university, missing other important issues that the administrative body can see through their planified vision. And let's not forget the kind of people that are in universities - check dondon's article and you'll see how (un)qualified they are for decision making and critical thinking.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Rapier

[blah the Prussian]

a bunch of mentally ill (or trolling) tumblrati shitting up the term's academic construct (and this also applies with many academic social justice terms, which predate the internet by decades, writ large) don't detract from its original purpose: to get people to acknowledge and be mindful of how their white skin may advantage them over others. a call for self-reflection, in essence. here in the states, this extends into more subtle manners, such as how a white felon is still more than twice as likely to get hired as a black man with a similar resume and a clean slate, or how redlining and black folks getting largely shut out of the g.i. bill's benefits helped create the postwar white middle class while leaving african-americans largely impoverished

like, when i use the term "white privilege", i'm not saying that you're less of a person because you have it; what i mean is that plenty of folks don't have it as good as you, and this isn't purely because they're lazy bums and we live in a perfect meritocracy

i'll note here that when conservatives try to censor something or someone on campus, they're able to do so through official channels of power: faculty members suspended for tweeting something negative about the NRA, being released for saying something negative about israel, being harassed for writing an op/ed against scott walker's policies, or when the good ol' boys felt the previous head of william and mary's college was too liberal and a threat to their alma mater's good ol' boy network and forced him out. i don't think student protests, which almost always lack official power, are as big of a problem.

Oh, that's awful, as well. I never said I liked the American right; they are after all the reason I became a monarchist. However, with the left I feel more obligated to try to show them the error of their ways because they're my people.

[Shadow Knight]

[Skynstein]

The concept of safe place isn't wrong per se because we all need a safe place, that is, a place where we feel most comfortable in. If we don't have it, we usually build it. I have certainly built many safe places in my life.

The biggest issue, though, is that you can't be too reliant on it, for the world is dark and full of terrors. The people who speak of safety seem to try to expand it beyond what it should be. It's as if these people were made of porcelain and a slight poke of the finger could break them. People who need their safe place for everything aren't able to deal with the world's unpredictability. I speak from experience here.

It's not wrong to have safe place, but you can't live your life always guided by a nanny and shielded from the evils of the world.

[dondon151]

i don't think student protests, which almost always lack official power, are as big of a problem.

i'm not so sure about this. even if student movements have little to no official status, they have more potential than ever to ruin careers. given a choice between saying something potentially controversial and jeopardizing one's job or never ever rocking the boat, a faculty member would prefer to never ever rock the boat.

[Phoenix Wright]

Regarding public universities, I have no objections to this. But private universities are private proprieties, and thus the owners have complete autonomy over what they own, period. Your signing of a contract limits your obligations to what is in that contract, not to outside matters that may be related, so this is not a good argument either. I'm not against student unions pressing for what they find interesting or useful, I'm against students possessing enough power to force those who own private universities to do as they wish, as this is an absurd abuse of private law. Democracy is limited to public affairs only, private law guarantees a decent degree of autonomy and individuality.

I disagree that the student body knows better than the administrative body. The former see things from their limited perspective, concerning their own needs and wishes, while the latter see the big picture of the university and know how to allocate resources to the areas of need most efficiently. Actually, I am beginning to think this is a false dilemma - why not let both sort this out in a dialogue but leave the final word, on what will be done and how it will be done, to the administrative body, which actually knows how to work with this kind of stuff?

And that's the problem. Student bodies will want their money to be allocated to their interests and miss the bigger picture of the university, missing other important issues that the administrative body can see through their planified vision. And let's not forget the kind of people that are in universities - check dondon's article and you'll see how (un)qualified they are for decision making and critical thinking.

i don't see why that is. a private university is made up of a body that pays for its operation similarly to a public university. the only difference is that a public university's administration must adhere to state and federal laws in ways private universities don't (race-based affirmative action, for example).

where did i say the student body knows better?

i'm not sure i follow. do you think i was arguing students should allocate endowments to departments they feel fit? hahahah not at all. money is typically set aside for students and students decide what to use those funds for.

blah stated university students aren't mature enough to make decisions that affect the university (at any arbitrary scale). i think that's false. i'm not saying the student body would be better at anything, only that they're better-suited at handling some aspects of university.

i read it awhile back (around its original publishing date), so i don't recall anything that tried to claim such things. maybe later i'll take a look at it again. it's a somewhat lengthy article though, so i could be wrong.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Rapier]

i don't see why that is. a private university is made up of a body that pays for its operation similarly to a public university. the only difference is that a public university's administration must adhere to state and federal laws in ways private universities don't (race-based affirmative action, for example).

where did i say the student body knows better?

i'm not sure i follow. do you think i was arguing students should allocate endowments to departments they feel fit? hahahah not at all. money is typically set aside for students and students decide what to use those funds for.

blah stated university students aren't mature enough to make decisions that affect the university (at any arbitrary scale). i think that's false. i'm not saying the student body would be better at anything, only that they're better-suited at handling some aspects of university.

i read it awhile back (around its original publishing date), so i don't recall anything that tried to claim such things. maybe later i'll take a look at it again. it's a somewhat lengthy article though, so i could be wrong.

I take it as if someone was loaning an apartment. Proprietor and Person A make a contract about it and agree with its clauses, being forced to adhere to them and only them by the force of the law. To demand anything else outside the contract is to go beyond your right as a customer. Person A can't take any decisions about the apartment that conflicts with the proprietor's wishes, in the end it is them that decide and the most that Person A can do is become vocal about their issues, demand solely what is in the contract and in the worst case scenario attempt to annul the contract. Private properties lack the democratic characteristics of public properties, therefore one cannot forcefully demand that private properties share these same democratic characteristics - actually, I should've summarized my thought with this single phrase.

However I do value dialogue between students and the authorities behind the university. They are clients, after all.

some aspects of university are better handled by the student body rather than administrative body.

My apologies if I've read it wrong, but what I've understood from this statement is that the student body handles some aspects better than the administrative body (well, as it is clearly literally written). If they handle some aspects better then it means they know better - it'd make no sense for you to defend people who don't know better to actually handle some aspects instead of the administrative body. That was my reasoning about your affirmation.

i'm not sure i follow. do you think i was arguing students should allocate endowments to departments they feel fit? hahahah not at all. money is typically set aside for students and students decide what to use those funds for.

I thought so, because.... well, how are they going to handle aspects without having a say about where their money is invested? And how will they see their money invested without sending it toward a specific department? That is how I thought that handling aspects = allocating endowments to departments they see fit. Did I take a logic leap? :V

blah stated university students aren't mature enough to make decisions that affect the university (at any arbitrary scale). i think that's false. i'm not saying the student body would be better at anything, only that they're better-suited at handling some aspects of university.

Ok, I concede they might not be that much immature (well, the article linked speaks about some students that are immature. Logically, not all of them are). But I still disagree that students bodies should have as much power as syndicates (ok, this is a slight exaggeration, I confess, but they do exerce some significant power) over a private property.

[Anouleth]

Popehat, I think, has said most of what needs to be said about safe zones here.

i'm not so sure about this. even if student movements have little to no official status, they have more potential than ever to ruin careers. given a choice between saying something potentially controversial and jeopardizing one's job or never ever rocking the boat, a faculty member would prefer to never ever rock the boat.

Which is the other problem with "safe zones" and the other demands of student movements; that they are almost hilariously misdirected. Aside from getting some hapless adjuncts fired and installing some "equity advocates" (who will collect their salaries and then do nothing), what are these movements going to achieve?

[Phoenix Wright]

I take it as if someone was loaning an apartment. Proprietor and Person A make a contract about it and agree with its clauses, being forced to adhere to them and only them by the force of the law. To demand anything else outside the contract is to go beyond your right as a customer. Person A can't take any decisions about the apartment that conflicts with the proprietor's wishes, in the end it is them that decide and the most that Person A can do is become vocal about their issues, demand solely what is in the contract and in the worst case scenario attempt to annul the contract. Private properties lack the democratic characteristics of public properties, therefore one cannot forcefully demand that private properties share these same democratic characteristics - actually, I should've summarized my thought with this single phrase.

However I do value dialogue between students and the authorities behind the university. They are clients, after all.

My apologies if I've read it wrong, but what I've understood from this statement is that the student body handles some aspects better than the administrative body (well, as it is clearly literally written). If they handle some aspects better then it means they know better - it'd make no sense for you to defend people who don't know better to actually handle some aspects instead of the administrative body. That was my reasoning about your affirmation.

I thought so, because.... well, how are they going to handle aspects without having a say about where their money is invested? And how will they see their money invested without sending it toward a specific department? That is how I thought that handling aspects = allocating endowments to departments they see fit. Did I take a logic leap? :V

Ok, I concede they might not be that much immature (well, the article linked speaks about some students that are immature. Logically, not all of them are). But I still disagree that students bodies should have as much power as syndicates (ok, this is a slight exaggeration, I confess, but they do exerce some significant power) over a private property.

i think what i'm not getting across is what the students should actually be able to involve themselves with.

1. extracurricular activities. sports, clubs, etc. there are guidelines (set up by the state, organization, etc.) that each should follow, but ultimately it's up to the students what clubs exist, how they should exist, and the presence that a club has a campus. in the beginning, lsu chose to spend millions on its football team not because they wanted to (necessarily), but the student population wanted a football, so the school invested. now it makes them a shit ton of money so it's all good. this is far different uc santa cruz, where generally speaking people don't give a single shit about sports.

my point is that students help set up the priorities of a university, but definitely are not the be-all-end-all. ultimately the decision to create a football team fell upon the shoulders of lsu's administration.

2. policies that directly affect students. ones that typically have to do with where their money is going (so, not like judicial policy or state policy). last year at my school, we voted on several potential policy changes that would affect our "tuition + school costs" (things like the gym, sports clubs, etc.). there's no reason the university should make executive decisions on these when it's we who are affected by these changes. the university could decide school fees should hike by $5000, but we all know that wouldn't turn out well for them.

those are the main two, but there's probably others.

better-suited doesn't necessarily mean better at it. as a silly example, i can grab myself a cup of water...or, i could get my niece to grab me a cup of water. in my mind she's better-suited to do the task because i'm busy doing other things. i'm asserting that the administrative body would probably spend my college's (ucsc has a college system, i don't mean university-wide) money wiser than the governing student body would, but why not just delegate it to the gsb anyway? there's no point in doing the job that the students could do just fine. maybe my wording is unclear, but hopefully i'm getting the overall point across.

students wouldn't be in charge of university budget, but a small subset of the budget to fund things they want for themselves.

go to 2. for this one. a school that enacts policies without a democratic process is a school i wouldn't go to, speaking retroactively. i'm lucky my school allows us to vote on things, as it's definitely not something i thought about as i was applying.

[InsaneNoire]

I need to talk about this. Or more like rant about it.

What the absolute fuck is this shit? Safe zones? Places where "people won't be offended"? Are you fucking kidding me? People are killing others over religion and money (which is no different to 2000 years ago) and you get "offended"?

There are so many issues here that make me want to slap people silly but this one takes the cake.

Students at Yale attempted to equate sexual harassment (which now apparently means staring at a woman for over 15 seconds) with the rape and slavery of Yazidi women.

You mean to tell me that a Yazidi woman who is sold like cattle and treated as a sexual slave can get rescued, brought to the USA because it is a country of "freedom" and decide to get an education only to be told by other students that their plight is no worse than your average college girl who wants to go out and accuse people of sexual harassment because they think that she's pretty and are looking at her?

My best friend had an argument with someone over Facebook who told him that (and this is verbatim) "even though he is Jewish, he is still a white male which therefore gives him more privilege than anyone else". What the fuck are you smoking?

Now you want "safe zones"? No. Just no. You deserve to have your feelings hurt and a lot more if I had a real say in the matter. This is despicable and makes me want to vomit.

To me, there is no such thing as a "safe space". In this world, you are going to get offended and you are going to learn about things that make you uncomfortable. That's part of life. Not everything in the world is sparkling fucking rainbows.

Well, sexual harassment is a very serious issue on college campuses, but I think the whole "stare rape" thing is ridiculous and insulting to any woman who's been sexually assaulted.

And yeah, I really hate when privileged college students think they know what real oppression is. There was this one video where these young white college kids were lecturing a middle-aged black police officer who lived through the civil rights era on racism. They were telling him that he doesn't know anything about racism, despite him growing up drinking from separate water fountains and standing on buses, because he's a police officer and thus is contributing to police brutality. Needless to say, he shut those little harpies down.

And the whole white privilege thing I don't know really where I stand on it. Like, I get that many societies, including the US, view lighter skinned individuals with more respect than those with darker skin. Dark skinned people have been looked down upon for ages and I can't say I know of any society that views those kinds of individuals in a higher light than white people. However, when people start saying every white person in the world has it better than every colored person simply because of their skin color, it's just downright bullshit. I'm pretty sure most homeless white men aren't respected more than Oprah Winfrey.

And I still don't understand the whole Jewish race thing. Like, Jewish people aren't considered white, but there are white Jews and there are also colored Jews.

[I.M. Gei]

if most white homeless men are less privileged than quite possibly the wealthiest black woman in the world, that doesn't really speak to what the idea of privilege actually addresses

like there's no doubt that oprah has it easier than they do, but if you're in the average (assuming such a thing exists) homeless white man's economic nexus, then holy hell is being white the better deal

Edited December 17, 2015 by I.M. Gei

[blah the Prussian]

Alright, so Jews are a race as well as a religion. In general, there are two kinds of Jews, the Ashkenazi and the Sephardic, and both were horrifically oppressed rough out European history, with the climax being of course the Holocaust. That, however, is not the case now, because the Holocaust basically made everyone stop and think about what they were doing and they realized that they didn't want to be like the Nazis. In the USA, Jews probably have white privilege, just not as much as WASPs. Since the concept of privilege doesn't apply to Europe, that is all, basically.

[Phoenix Wright]

Alright, so Jews are a race as well as a religion. In general, there are two kinds of Jews, the Ashkenazi and the Sephardic, and both were horrifically oppressed rough out European history, with the climax being of course the Holocaust. That, however, is not the case now, because the Holocaust basically made everyone stop and think about what they were doing and they realized that they didn't want to be like the Nazis. In the USA, Jews probably have white privilege, just not as much as WASPs. Since the concept of privilege doesn't apply to Europe, that is all, basically.

but it does apply to some countries. just like how w.p. doesn't apply to all of north america, w.p doesn't apply to all of europe.

i emphasize this point because you seem to staunchly oppose this for some reason. out of pride? a defense mechanism (ie, pushing 'white guilt')? i dunno.

europe has pro'lems too mate

[blah the Prussian]

Have you lived in Europe for two years? The fact is that there are different kinds of white people in Europe, so they cannot be a single monolith. A Polish immigrant does not have white privilege within the UK. You can say that British people have Brit privilege in the UK, and you would be right, but the concept of white people does not mean in Europe what it means in the USA. The main reason I oppose it is that it seems to me to be mostly Americans making assumptions about a place that they have never been.

[Life]

Alright, so Jews are a race as well as a religion. In general, there are two kinds of Jews, the Ashkenazi and the Sephardic, and both were horrifically oppressed rough out European history, with the climax being of course the Holocaust. That, however, is not the case now, because the Holocaust basically made everyone stop and think about what they were doing and they realized that they didn't want to be like the Nazis. In the USA, Jews probably have white privilege, just not as much as WASPs. Since the concept of privilege doesn't apply to Europe, that is all, basically.

This only extends to circumstances where said Jew doesn't volunteer the fact that they are Jewish. I'm as white as the driven snow and I personally have been spat on for being Jewish (I was religious and wearing a skullcap at the time). So there is no thing as white privilege for Jews.

[blah the Prussian]

This only extends to circumstances where said Jew doesn't volunteer the fact that they are Jewish. I'm as white as the driven snow and I personally have been spat on for being Jewish (I was religious and wearing a skullcap at the time). So there is no thing as white privilege for Jews.

I suppose it varies from place to place; growing up in New Jersey, being Jewish was never a problem for me, and there certainly are not legalistic biases against Jews to the same degree that there are against Blacks. America used to be just as bad as Europe about Jewish rights, though.

[I.M. Gei]

anti-semitism still being a theme doesn't mean that white privilege (for american jews, anyway) isn't a thing

pretty much everything sans the first panel would still apply to your average jewish teen or young adult in america today

[Life]

anti-semitism still being a theme doesn't mean that white privilege (for american jews, anyway) isn't a thing

pretty much everything sans the first panel would still apply to your average jewish teen or young adult in america today

Then explain why Matisyahu got taken off the Rototom bill even though he is American and is not public about his political beliefs.

[I.M. Gei]

i thought it was pretty obvious that i was talking about white privilege in the american context, e.g. for people in america (and not for events abroad)

even then, it's pretty telling about your understanding of the concept that you bring up two ugly incidents happening to two individuals—your getting spat on once or a jewish-american artist's appearance at a festival in spain getting cancelled—as if that somehow balances out jewish-americans reaping the benefits of the post-WWII g.i. bill, being able to take advantage of federal loans to become homeowners—two critical benefits which black-americans and many nonwhite americans were systematically excluded from—or how a jewish guy doing coke or meth won't get as heavy a sentence as a black guy doing crack, or our post-reconstruction history of targeting upwardly-mobile blacks for lynching (or in the case of the tulsa race riots, an entire district of well-to-do blacks), or a plethora of shit related to this which isn't at the top of my head at the moment

Edited December 17, 2015 by I.M. Gei

[Snowy_One]

anti-semitism still being a theme doesn't mean that white privilege (for american jews, anyway) isn't a thing

pretty much everything sans the first panel would still apply to your average jewish teen or young adult in america today

What baffles me is that this comic is... well...

The first panel doesn't explain what the 'right' sort of person is. The second doesn't explain why the black family didn't get a mortgage. The third is perfectly reasonable since the position was just filled. The fourth doesn't explain what the 'right' sort of person is. The fifth doesn't actually show or hint at what Bob was actually doing WITH the drugs and how much/whatever, and the last is just... weak. It's implied that this is because of racism but without changing anything but the very last word this could become 'I never benefitted from Pro-muslim policies', 'I never benefitted from being heterosexual', 'I never benefitted from being an equestrian', 'I never benefitted from having a foot long ****', or anything really and it would STILL make as much sense. So... Really... This comic is just nonsense and lacks a point.

[blah the Prussian]

Okay, Snowy, now you're just being a contrarian. Agree or disagree with the message, it is obvious what the right sort of person is, it is obvious that the black family didn't get a mortgage because they are black, it is implied that the black guy applied for the job at the same time as Bobs dad, it doesn't matter how much drugs Bob's dad did, and I think you know all of this, Snowy. Seriously, it's kind of annoying.