Segregation is back. By choice.

Cal State LA offers segregated housing for black students

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/28906/

The arrangement comes roughly nine months after the university’s Black Student Union issued a set of demands in response to what its members contend are frequent “racist attacks” on campus, such as “racially insensitive remarks” and “microaggressions” by professors and students. One demand was for a “CSLA housing space delegated for Black students.”

Are things on campus really that bad?

The radicals certainly are both ignorant and racist. "We want racially pure dorms so we do not have to enteract with other people."

Video of a proud black student confronting a racist white attacker over his microaggression.

Are all black students forced to live in these dorms, or do they also have access to mixed dorms?

They have access to all dorms if they want. That's why I said it was by choice.

Does that apply to whites however?

Note that I am thoroughly against this sort of thing. But I think the argument supporting it is based on the idea that some dorms, due to culture/atmosphere, are not actually available to the black students who would select this one. Also, what do people think about religious themed dorms? Many colleges offer specialty housing for Jewish students, as an example. Likewise, there are many that offer women only dorms, but very rarely men's only.

So if that is so, they are actually forced, albeit not by central management, to live in the segregated dorms.

Sounds like a horrific solution to a problem that has to be off the scale horrific to legitimise the solution.

(Then again, I constantly have to remind myself that a US university has students, at least during the first few years, live on campus in the first place, which might place a different value on 'safe spaces'; in Germany, students can always shut a door behind them when they get back home from university in the evenings. I might be underestimating the extent to which US students are exposed to hatred if they don't find established safe spaces.)

I don't know how things are at CSU/LA, but I would be surprised if things were really as bad as they would have to be for such a solution.

Of course not. Blacks-only dorms are a proper response to racist oppressi0n. Whites-only dorms ARE racist oppression. Because as we all know, only white people can be racists.

It's similar to when all-male colleges were made to accept female students to combat sexism, but all-female colleges can't be made to accept male students because that would be sexist.

Lanz, no offense, but you really aren't even trying to understand the issue. As stated above, I'm not in favor of this, but you don't even get why somebody would be. It helps to understand that nuance.

Most of the claims about "microagressions" are B. S. too. Asking someone "So where are you from?" is a normal and reasonable conversation starter. Yes, I know some older people say that to Asians thinking they are from another countey but that was mostly in the 1960's and 1970's when it is true. These days most people are used to multiculturalism and likely really are asking where someone grew up.

Trying to make a mountain out of such a mole hill is just plain dumb. Just like claiming we need racially segregated dorms because it is so frightening and difficult to deal with anyone from a different background is dumb. In the real world you ha e to work with all types so best to start learning how early.

Notice how she was the one who told him he can't have his hair style a certain way because, supposedly, it was "cultural appropriation"? Then she kept vrabbing him and blocking his attempts to leave yet she still cried" don't touch me" when he tried to push her away? Lastly she grabs the camera when she realized someone was filming her being a dumb ass.

Could you imagine how a whites only dorm would go over? It doesn't matter which race is involved the rules should be equal for everyone.

It was like when the usual suspects here said racism is not racism unless it has power behind it. Ergo, only whites can be racist and any other group acting in a racist manner isn' t racism because of "power".

It was nothing but a B. S. excuse to try to define only whites as racist and to excuse racism in all other groups. Fact: Any group can be racist, actual racist where race is the defining feature not left forge's imaginary "racism" because you point out an ideology is flawed beyond repair or inherently evi because of its basic tenants.

This.

I mean, racism exists even in California, but it's still liberal California.

It's pretty obvious that the reasoning behind it is prejudice on the part of the people who want to be segregated. Just as it was when someone hung a "white's only" sign on the front. There's no nuance there that doesn't still involve racial prejudice.

Just send in a white dude who self-identifies as black to blow up the whole scheme. Of course they'll kick his ass, causing a big dust up because they reject trans-racial students, which is bigotry.

The way I see it, it's kinda like in high school where the more marginalized cliques hate on the jocks and cheerleaders and why there are countless movies on nerds getting revenge on those group. Yes, there are some obnoxious twats that deserve wedgies but no one gets that upset by bashing the elites because they hold all the power.

I'm fully aware that there are bigots in the black community (ie, my father's side of the family), but I also realize this shit didn't come outta a bubble, either.

As long as people consider that to be the obvious answer, then we will continue to have these problems.

Ah yes. "Nuance." One of the magical words that turn bullshit into logic and reason.

Here's your nuance, Gul. Giving any group - ANY group - special privilege because of things like skin color is called discrimination and is wrong. Creating a black-only dorm is exactly the same thing as creating a white-only dorm. That you see them as different is a good indicator that your base argument is in favor of bigotry.

Do you consider it possible for a group to informally claim special privilege, without necessarily having the sanction of whatever authority might exist? Think Tailhook as an example.

Are battered women's shelters also a form of sexism?

What if a university reserved a dorm for blonde nymphomaniacs with drinking problems and didn't let male students live there out of fear of negative interactions?

Meanwhile, here's some BLM bullshit from London.

Why were the Black Lives Matter protesters at London City Airport all WHITE? Group defends stunt which caused chaos for thousands - claiming white people are 'privileged through racism'

• Thousands of passengers were stranded after nine people stormed airport and tied themselves to a tripod

• Group were protesting over 'racist climate crisis' claiming black people are more likely to suffer air pollution

• Leaders hit back at critics saying all-white protest was example of 'white allyship under black leadership'

• Huge security concerns after demonstrators 'sailed 40m in dinghy from a nearby university to get airside'

• Police spent hours 'negotiating' with protesters who were finally removed from the runway after six hours

​

Black people are more likely to suffer air pollution?

So while seven privileged white ass nuggets caused people's flights to be cancelled, the affected airlines overlooked the obvious response to scenes like this:



"Will all passengers of color please go out on the runway and beat the living fucking shit out of the self-absorbed white dick wads who are causing flight cancellations?"

Isn't this exactly what these black students are doing by demanding special accommodation?

I hate to break it to all of you out there in reality-impaired land, but part of life in encountering ideas you don't agree with. Hiding away in a little walled-off fill-in-the-blank-only enclave is not a rational response to that. It's running away as opposed to dealing with the issue.

Depends. If you want to be super technical about it, yes they are if they cater only to abused women and not to abused men (or abused members of any gradation in between).

This isn't a complicated idea. If you are excluding a group based on whatever arbitrary standards you've selected, you're being prejudicial. Or in other words, bigoted. The argument implicit in your question is that all men must be excluded from this shelter because all men are potential abusers. Therefore all men are bad and women must be protected from them.

Are you aware of the central point you are completely ignoring here -- spelled out in the OP and @gul's first post -- and just deciding it doesn't merit attention, or are you literally unable to see it?

The central point is why can't whites have whites only dorms, where they're not reminded of the slaves their families were forced, at gunpoint, to turn loose?

Well, let's see.

Racist attacks - defined here as racially insensitive remarks and microaggressions. Yeah, that sounds pretty serious, all right. But then, given how these things are defined nowadays, "racially insensitive remarks" means pretty much anything said by anyone that is in any way vaguely critical of the Black Student Union's preferred world view. Same for microagressions (interesting that spellcheck doesn't recognize that as a real word . . . probably for racist reasons, I'd wager) so you'll forgive me if I don't take the whining too awfully seriously.

Yes, they are. I want to know whether they might reasonably perceive that there are already de facto white's only facilities.

Nice effort to avoid actually discussing the issue. When you use terms like reality-impaired to disparage the presentation of a different viewpoint, well, you are trying to go through life without encountering ideas you don't agree with. I've already said twice that I don't agree with the solution proposed at CSU/LA. Are you ignoring that just like you are ignoring whether there might be a meaningful point behind the misguided policy?

And here you are completely ignoring that there is an element of safety involved. You can't always have completely neutral circumstances. Only a fool would believe that women's only abuse shelters are a bad idea.

Nope. That's not the argument at all. It's that some women because they were abused by a man cannot currently feel safe around unknown men. The distinction regards protection, not exclusion.

The true test of these things is always to change one or two of the givens and see if you still feel the same way. So . . .

Cal State LA offers segregated housing for white students

The arrangement comes roughly nine months after the university’s White Student Union issued a set of demands in response to what its members contend are frequent “racist attacks” on campus, such as “racially insensitive remarks” and “microaggressions” by professors and students. One demand was for a “CSLA housing space delegated for White students.”

Ooo, I can hear the alarm bells going off already. Okay, let's try 14thDoc's bit as rephrased by you.

And here you are completely ignoring that there is an element of safety involved. You can't always have completely neutral circumstances. Only a fool would believe that men's only abuse shelters are a bad idea.

Nope. That's not the argument at all. It's that some men because they were abused by another person cannot currently feel safe around unknown people . The distinction regards protection, not exclusion.

Hmmm. That almost works. One would want protection from someone who abused them, after all. But wait! There's a microaggression implicit here, in that the abuser represents all other individuals sharing the same <arbitrary characteristics> and therefore you're tarring a whole group with one brush. That's bad, or so I've been informed any number of times. Yeah, that's a sticky one, all right. On the one hand people should be made safe from those who would abuse them, but on the other hand the abuser was either an individual or a small group and you're extrapolating an unsupported likelihood of criminal actions to the whole group based on a few individuals. That would be like building a wall on the southern border because a few illegal immigrants wind up committing crimes, and we can't have that. That's racist.

Look, if you aren't going to accept my three statements against the policy, we are never going to have a meaningful conversation. I tried, but looks like Lanzman continues to be part of the problem, as he refuses to even discuss the alternative points of view he claims to value.