California State University offers segregated housing to shield black students from ‘micr

[NesuD]

The idea of black only housing so black students can feel safe seems strange considering the statistics on black on black violence in this country.

 

[agent00f]

The part of the story I'm curious about is what kind of threats / political power any group of college students can realistically exercise if their demands are not met? It must be some non-zero amount, as evidenced by the fact the university didn't just toss the letter in the trash. Why does university administration feel compelled to even respond to special interest student groups? Last I checked school administrators are not elected by the students.

It's in the school's interests to maintain amicable relations with students given that they're the customer, esp when acceptable accommodation costs approx nothing.

Nah, it's spot on.

Maybe most dorms reflect white culture and white values, meaning that different spaces are needed for rewarding social and cultural interactions that would otherwise not happen.

Or the black students just prefer a housing situation where they're the 96%.

Who are we kidding really, these threads are mostly just anger that the blacks got something they wanted.

 

[agent00f]

The idea of black only housing so black students can feel safe seems strange considering the statistics on black on black violence in this country.

Ah yes, there it is. The proverbial "they're gangsters because they're black", which might be what they're understandably trying to get away from.

 

[fskimospy]

The idea of black only housing so black students can feel safe seems strange considering the statistics on black on black violence in this country.

Why does that seem strange to you? Are you saying that you believe those dorms will be more violent because they are comprised of black students? If not, then what are you saying?

 

[realibrad]

Why does that seem strange to you? Are you saying that you believe those dorms will be more violent because they are comprised of black students? If not, then what are you saying?

Well statistically that logic would follow. Even if you say that the reason blacks commit crimes to other blacks out of proximity, there is also the fact that they commit more violent crime per capita. It would be reasonable to argue that being a student on a college campus might have some variables that would change the outcomes, but there is some logic behind it. I would bet that being a college student would have a filtering effect on what seems like the biggest factor which is poverty, but I dont know of any studies done on this type of thing.

 

[fskimospy]

Well statistically that logic would follow. Even if you say that the reason blacks commit crimes to other blacks out of proximity, there is also the fact that they commit more violent crime per capita. It would be reasonable to argue that being a student on a college campus might have some variables that would change the outcomes, but there is some logic behind it. I would bet that being a college student would have a filtering effect on what seems like the biggest factor which is poverty, but I dont know of any studies done on this type of thing.

Statistically that looks like a good way to mislead people with statistics, actually, haha.

Seems like that logic would be bad as I'm not aware of research that shows African-Americans are more likely to engage in violent crime after controlling for everything else.

 

[Mandres]

It's in the school's interests to maintain amicable relations with students given that they're the customer, esp when acceptable accommodation costs approx nothing.



Or the black students just prefer a housing situation where they're the 96%.

Who are we kidding really, these threads are mostly just anger that the blacks got something they wanted.

Entertaining lists of demands seems to go way beyond maintaining amicable relations to me. I'm genuinely curious what the implied threat is - capitulate to our demands or else ... what?


Sent from my HUAWEI Y536A1 using Tapatalk

 

[woolfe9998]

I agree that meeting new people outside your experience is a good thing, but surely you can acknowledge that you came from a different place. Do you think the gay people in your dorm found it equally rewarding to finally meet a straight person?

African Americans often come from communities which are principally African American. In that sense, yes, absolutely, it is a benefit to them to directly interact with whites and other non-blacks while in college. Blacks are just as capable of stereotyping whites as whites are of blacks. For example, a common stereotype of whites is simply that they tend to be --- racist. Might be helpful for some blacks raised to believe this to learn that lots of white people aren't racist.

I would distinguish gays here only in the sense that they tend to be integrated with straights during childhood and adolescence in a way that black people aren't necessarily integrated with whites. But in the case of gays, it's still a benefit for straight people, because it lessens their tendency to adhere to unflattering stereotypes, which, in turn, benefits gays.

Separation isn't good for either group, whether we're talking about black and white, or gay and straight.

I would say that if you have ever been to a CSU campus you would see that the idea of black people being around only people who look like them is an absolutely absurd idea. The student population is about 4% black. Hell, in my experience even that seems generous.

If I thought this was actually a situation where the black students of these universities were actually able to avoid most outside social and cultural influences I would entirely agree with you. That's just not even close to a thing though.

I attended a major California university (UC, not Cal State). Given the number of black fraternities and social clubs, it is more than possible for blacks to socially isolate themselves from non-blacks. And some of them do. Many people do when given the chance. In my dorm, I made friends with a guy who is east Indian. He belonged to the Indian Student Association and almost all his friends from outside the dorm, and previously in high school, were Indian. But he made friends with lots of non-Indians in the dorm. I remember him saying that he would never have had terribly many non-Indian friends had he not lived in the dorms.

College dormitories are an antidote to the ease with which people can socially self-segregate in college. By allowing people of color to live separately from whites, we are passing up one of our best opportunities to improve cross-ethnic understanding. College dormitories are the last place we should be encouraging de facto segregation.

This is an example of the liberals acting at cross-purposes with core goals of liberalism, apparently without even realizing they're doing it.

 

[fskimospy]

African Americans often come from communities which are principally African American. In that sense, yes, absolutely, it is a benefit to them to directly interact with whites and other non-blacks while in college. Blacks are just as capable of stereotyping whites as whites are of blacks. For example, a common stereotype of whites is simply that they tend to be --- racist. Might be helpful for some blacks raised to believe this to learn that lots of white people aren't racist.

Black college students much less so, however. More importantly, when you're on a campus that is 96% whites and other non-blacks, you're directly interacting with them on a daily basis. From my understanding what you viewed as valuable from your dorm experience was exposure to people you wouldn't see otherwise. By going to CSU at all black people are getting that in spades. Why does it have to extend to dorm life?

I would distinguish gays here only in the sense that they tend to be integrated with straights during childhood and adolescence in a way that black people aren't necessarily integrated with whites. But in the case of gays, it's still a benefit for straight people, because it lessens their tendency to adhere to unflattering stereotypes, which, in turn, benefits gays.

Separation isn't good for either group, whether we're talking about black and white, or gay and straight.

Yes but it's not the responsibility of black people to promote other races' cultural understanding, even if you think it would be beneficial for them long term.

I attended a major California university (UC, not Cal State). Given the number of black fraternities and social clubs, it is more than possible for blacks to socially isolate themselves from non-blacks. And some of them do. Many people do when given the chance. In my dorm, I made friends with a guy who is east Indian. He belonged to the Indian Student Association and almost all his friends from outside the dorm, and previously in high school, were Indian. But he made friends with lots of non-Indians in the dorm. I remember him saying that he would never have had terribly many non-Indian friends had he not lived in the dorms. College dormitories are an antidote to the ease with which people can socially self-segregate in college. By allowing people of color to live separately from whites, we are passing up one of our best opportunities to improve cross-ethnic understanding. College dormitories are the last place we should be encouraging de facto segregation.

I went to UC as well (go Tritons!), and the quantity of black students was so small that such social isolation would have been very difficult. I'm sure it would not be impossible, but if someone is that committed to self-segregation then you won't be able to stop them anyway. Even if you did think that someone could elect to segregate themselves that's their business. Finally, even if I do grant your premise that such self-segregation is easy to do I sincerely doubt a 24 room dorm will make an ounce of difference.

This is an example of the liberals acting at cross-purposes with core goals of liberalism, apparently without even realizing they're doing it.

I would emphatically disagree with this statement. Liberalism is not about forcing other people to become more cultured/understanding/whatever, it is about giving people the tools and opportunities to do so if they choose. Saying that it is better to force students to live in a certain way because you think it will promote their absorption of liberal ideals is the opposite of what liberalism stands for.

When students try to actively shut down alternative viewpoints and censor campus speech we are in total agreement that these are 'liberal' people acting in a very illiberal way. Giving people options to live in dorms that have different cultural focus? Not a chance.

 

[woolfe9998]

Black college students much less so, however. More importantly, when you're on a campus that is 96% whites and other non-blacks, you're directly interacting with them on a daily basis. From my understanding what you viewed as valuable from your dorm experience was exposure to people you wouldn't see otherwise. By going to CSU at all black people are getting that in spades. Why does it have to extend to dorm life?

Bah, I hate giving these personal accounts, because I'm wary of limits of personal experiences and anecdotal evidence. The point here is that none of this should be surprising because it is easy to self-segregate in almost any environment and many people, not just blacks, have a strong inclination to do so. Where I went to school, we had at the time about 20K undergrads and a few thousand grad students. There was a black fraternity and a black sorority, and several black student organizations. 4% sounds about right - probably about 1K black students in total. That's plenty for social self-segregation.

In my 4th year, I had to move out of an apartment mid year, and was looking for another place. I ran into a black girl who I had known from the dorms. She was living in an apartment with a black male roommate. When I told her I was looking for a place to live, she told me they had a spare room because another roommate had just moved out and she wanted to sublet. So I moved in. Turns out that while she could care less about the skin color of the people she lived with, this was not the case with her roommate, who was not fond of living with a white person, and had only grudgingly agreed to let me live there because they needed the rent money. After a month of me receiving thinly veiled hostility from the male roommate, including a rather condescending lecture about how if I knew anything about "life in the hood" I wouldn't be so foolish as to leave the front door unlocked, the female roommate confided to me that he was not happy living with a white person, and that she was trying to deal with him about it. This guy was a member of the black fraternity. He frequently had lots of friends at the apartment, all of whom were black. I asked her why he wasn't used to living with white people. She told me he never lived in the dorms. Moved into an apartment as a freshman with two of his buddies from south central LA.

This is just an anecdote about two people. Perhaps this guy would still have been intolerant had he lived in the dorms, while the girl would still have been tolerant had she not. However, the point here is, it is very possible to self-segregate in a university environment.

Yes but it's not the responsibility of black people to promote other races' cultural understanding, even if you think it would be beneficial for them long term.

It's their responsibility to promote their own. Just as it is with white people, and everyone else.

I went to UC as well (go Tritons!), and the quantity of black students was so small that such social isolation would have been very difficult. I'm sure it would not be impossible, but if someone is that committed to self-segregation then you won't be able to stop them anyway. Even if you did think that someone could elect to segregate themselves that's their business. Finally, even if I do grant your premise that such self-segregation is easy to do I sincerely doubt a 24 room dorm will make an ounce of difference.

Individually, you're right, if a person wants to self-segregate, that is their business. But on a larger scale, self-segregation is bad for society, and it is not a good idea for institutions to actively encourage it.

Dorm living is certainly not a panacea. There will always be some people who will continue to socially self-segregate if they are maximally determined to do so. But I don't know how you draw the conclusions that integrated living arrangements won't make "one ounce of difference." You're entitled to that opinion, but it flies in the face of common sense.

I would emphatically disagree with this statement. Liberalism is not about forcing other people to become more cultured/understanding/whatever,

It isn't? We forced white people to go to school with blacks, live in apartment buildings with blacks, frequent the same stores as blacks, and work in the same places of employment as blacks. And we did this in part to lessen bigotry by encouraging cross-ethnic interaction. There was plenty of literature written about this at the time and since.

I think I know where you're coming from here. You think because blacks are traditionally oppressed, that they are incapable of being racist and hence nothing on their end needs fixing. You're wrong.

it is about giving people the tools and opportunities to do so if they choose.

Yes, it's about that, but it's also sometimes about forcing people to do certain things. If you want to claim that liberalism is never about forcing anyone to do anything, I'm afraid there are too many examples to disprove that.

Saying that it is better to force students to live in a certain way because you think it will promote their absorption of liberal ideals is the opposite of what liberalism stands for.

For me, if liberalism is about anything, it is about living in a tolerant society. Segregation does not serve that purpose. We cannot prevent all of it, but we should at least avoid encouraging it.

 

[fskimospy]

Bah, I hate giving these personal accounts, because I'm wary of limits of personal experiences and anecdotal evidence. The point here is that none of this should be surprising because it is easy to self-segregate in almost any environment and many people, not just blacks, have a strong inclination to do so. Where I went to school, we had at the time about 20K undergrads and a few thousand grad students. There was a black fraternity and a black sorority, and several black student organizations. 4% sounds about right - probably about 1K black students in total. That's plenty for social self-segregation.

In my 4th year, I had to move out of an apartment mid year, and was looking for another place. I ran into a black girl who I had known from the dorms. She was living in an apartment with a black male roommate. When I told her I was looking for a place to live, she told me they had a spare room because another roommate had just moved out and she wanted to sublet. So I moved in. Turns out that while she could care less about the skin color of the people she lived with, this was not the case with her roommate, who was not fond of living with a white person, and had only grudgingly agreed to let me live there because they needed the rent money. After a month of me receiving thinly veiled hostility from the male roommate, including a rather condescending lecture about how if I knew anything about "life in the hood" I wouldn't be so foolish as to leave the front door unlocked, the female roommate confided to me that he was not happy living with a white person, and that she was trying to deal with him about it. This guy was a member of the black fraternity. He frequently had lots of friends at the apartment, all of whom were black. I asked her why he wasn't used to living with white people. She told me he never lived in the dorms. Moved into an apartment as a freshman with two of his buddies from south central LA.

This is just an anecdote about two people. Perhaps this guy would still have been intolerant had he lived in the dorms, while the girl would still have been tolerant had she not. However, the point here is, it is very possible to self-segregate in a university environment.

This sounds like someone who was quite committed to self-segregation.

It's their responsibility to promote their own. Just as it is with white people, and everyone else.

Well then that's their decision to make, not the university's.

Individually, you're right, if a person wants to self-segregate, that is their business. But on a larger scale, self-segregation is bad for society, and it is not a good idea for institutions to actively encourage it.

Dorm living is certainly not a panacea. There will always be some people who will continue to socially self-segregate if they are maximally determined to do so. But I don't know how you draw the conclusions that integrated living arrangements won't make "one ounce of difference." You're entitled to that opinion, but it flies in the face of common sense.

Its a dorm with 24 rooms, so presumably somewhere around 50 people, not all of which will be black. It's just not a meaningful number.

It isn't? We forced white people to go to school with blacks, live in apartment buildings with blacks, frequent the same stores as blacks, and work in the same places of employment as blacks. And we did this in part to lessen bigotry by encouraging cross-ethnic interaction. There was plenty of literature written about this at the time and since.

Perhaps in part, but in small part. It was passed primarily in response to massively disparate quality of facilities, education, opportunity, etc available to black people. It was not passed for the purpose of creating racial harmony.

I think I know where you're coming from here. You think because blacks are traditionally oppressed, that they are incapable of being racist and hence nothing on their end needs fixing. You're wrong.

I have no idea how you would get that idea, but it's incredibly wrong and it's frankly insulting that you would say something so utterly ridiculous. Anyone can be racist. That in no way means that it is a liberal ideal to force people to live in certain circumstances so that they conform to what you think they should think. That's an attack on the core of liberalism and something we should all be against.

EDIT: To be clear, I think highly of what you write and almost always find it well thought out and interesting. The whole 'you don't think black people can be racist or do anything wrong' is the sort of crap I expect to hear from other people on here.

Yes, it's about that, but it's also sometimes about forcing people to do certain things. If you want to claim that liberalism is never about forcing anyone to do anything, I'm afraid there are too many examples to disprove that.

I never said liberalism was about never forcing anyone to do anything, I said that liberalism was about not forcing people to change their thinking to match yours. This is in fact the polar opposite of what liberalism is about. To say that we're going to force people to live in integrated dorms because it will make them adopt the perspective we want is a profoundly illiberal stance.

Public accommodation laws, for example. Shopkeepers are not free to refuse service to black people, but they are always free to be as racist as they want in their thoughts and ideas. I would never support forcing a racist person (of any color) to open up a shop with someone of another race in order to hopefully change their thinking.

For me, if liberalism is about anything, it is about living in a tolerant society. Segregation does not serve that purpose. We cannot prevent all of it, but we should at least avoid encouraging it.

Tolerance is not in and of itself a virtue. To me, liberalism (in this context) is about the freedom to form your own thoughts and opinions without having someone else try to force you to adopt theirs. You may not see it, but what you're pushing is actually disturbingly similar to the illiberal censorship of unpopular ideas on campus. You're trying to make people think the way you want by controlling their range of experience and expression.

 

[realibrad]

Statistically that looks like a good way to mislead people with statistics, actually, haha.

Seems like that logic would be bad as I'm not aware of research that shows African-Americans are more likely to engage in violent crime after controlling for everything else.

Well sure. Its the same methodology that allows people to say that women earn less and therefore sexism. If you dont control for some things, the stat can be very misleading. Blacks commit far higher rates of crime than do other races. That gap narrows when you look at things like income, education, single mothers ect. Most people dont understand those things, or dont care to. So they take the stats that make sense to them or are easy enough to understand quickly and run with them to fit their wishes.

Its the same principle that allows BLM to push their argument as well.

I hope this thread sticks to the main problem as I see it though. Splitting people along race, even willingly is a bad idea in the long run.

 

[woolfe9998]

This sounds like someone who was quite committed to self-segregation.



Well then that's their decision to make, not the university's.

Yes it is, and they can live off campus if they want segregated living. The person who was determined to self-segregate in my anecdote, that's what he did. It obviously didn't help his perspective, but he was entitled to do it and I wouldn't suggest otherwise. I just don't think a university should actively encourage it by designating certain dormitories for specific ethnicities which is an authoritative institution of learning openly suggesting that black people segregate themselves.

Its a dorm with 24 rooms, so presumably somewhere around 50 people, not all of which will be black. It's just not a meaningful number.

Living in the same environment with people of other ethnicities, observing and interacting with them on a daily basis increases the likelihood of cross-ethnic friendships. You're entitled to your opinion that 1-2 years of living in close quarters with people won't make much difference in cross-ethnic understanding. I think common sense dictates otherwise, but then, neither of us has a study to back up our opinion here.

Perhaps in part, but in small part. It was passed primarily in response to massively disparate quality of facilities, education, opportunity, etc available to black people. It was not passed for the purpose of creating racial harmony.

Then we disagree about history. I think it was about quite a lot of all of those things. If you think a self-segregated society works just as well as an integrated one, you're entitled to that opinion.

I have no idea how you would get that idea, but it's incredibly wrong and it's frankly insulting that you would say something so utterly ridiculous. Anyone can be racist. That in no way means that it is a liberal ideal to force people to live in certain circumstances so that they conform to what you think they should think. That's an attack on the core of liberalism and something we should all be against.

If that is not what you believe, fine. That's good,and I apologize for assuming otherwise. But it's not as if the opinion that blacks can't be racist has never been voiced before. It's isn't a new or bizarre idea, that racism is supposedly bound up with "power," and that black people, supposedly lacking any power, are incapable of it. And the reason I assumed it in your case is that you seemed to be OK with forcing whites to integrate with blacks, but think it's OK if black people simply want to opt out of it. While white people wanting to opt out, I doubt you'd have the same opinion.

I never said liberalism was about never forcing anyone to do anything, I said that liberalism was about not forcing people to change their thinking to match yours. This is in fact the polar opposite of what liberalism is about. To say that we're going to force people to live in integrated dorms because it will make them adopt the perspective we want is a profoundly illiberal stance.

Yeah, and I never said anything about forcing people to think anything in particular. I don't know where you even get that from. What liberals have frequently done is advocating changing social conditions so as to encourage people to think in a certain way. That's not thought control. It isn't censorship. But it is what liberals do, and quite often. Your version of liberalism sounds more like libertarianism, where it's totally cool believe whatever you want, and no one and nothing should try to change your mind because that would be "social engineering." What you're describing is not liberalism in America. Liberals use a variety of methods to effect social change, among them, changing laws, rules and regulations which force underlying conditions to change, and hence have a tendency to change people attitudes and beliefs.

Public accommodation laws, for example. Shopkeepers are not free to refuse service to black people, but they are always free to be as racist as they want in their thoughts and ideas. I would never support forcing a racist person (of any color) to open up a shop with someone of another race in order to hopefully change their thinking.

Yes, nor does simply not designating certain dorms as places for specific ethnic groups. It encourages people to physically integrate. It doesn't force them to tolerate each other. They can have the experience of integrated living and still choose intolerance. No one is sending them to jail for how they think. I don't see how you're drawing a real distinction here.

Tolerance is not in and of itself a virtue.

Then we have different ideas of what liberal values are. The freedom to be an intolerant asshole certainly is a virtue of society. But not being one is also a virtue of the individual. To this liberal anyway.

To me, liberalism (in this context) is about the freedom to form your own thoughts and opinions without having someone else try to force you to adopt theirs. You may not see it, but what you're pushing is actually disturbingly similar to the illiberal censorship of unpopular ideas on campus. You're trying to make people think the way you want by controlling their range of experience and expression.

Yeah, I don't think liberalism in this context is only about freedom of thought. Liberals want to effect social change, not just be like libertarians and say, gee, whatever people think is cool with me. That doesn't even remotely square with the liberalism I see now and historically in this country. While most liberals fortunately don't want to achieve this through censorship, many are not content to do so simply and only through verbal persuasion. That's why we take positions on laws, rules and regulations, whether it is affirmative action, housing discrimination, etc. Because we want to change conditions, and we hope that this will change how people think even though we know it isn't a guarantee. We can end discrimination in a legal sense, but if people are still bigoted, the underlying problem remains, and festers.

Attitudes on a societal scale do not change for no reason. Underlying conditions must first be changed. This strikes me as a common and core approach of liberalism, but YMMV.

 

[NesuD]

Well sure. Its the same methodology that allows people to say that women earn less and therefore sexism. If you dont control for some things, the stat can be very misleading. Blacks commit far higher rates of crime than do other races. That gap narrows when you look at things like income, education, single mothers ect. Most people dont understand those things, or dont care to. So they take the stats that make sense to them or are easy enough to understand quickly and run with them to fit their wishes.

Its the same principle that allows BLM to push their argument as well.

I hope this thread sticks to the main problem as I see it though. Splitting people along race, even willingly is a bad idea in the long run.

Actually I was going for the ridiculous with the black on black violence statistic reference to illustrate that no reasoning given for it actually holds any more water than that.

Your take that I have bolded in the quote is the only right way to view this.

 

[agent00f]

Zaap and rolfmouth et al need to get on this case where this innocent man is being wrongly maligned. They better check with their friends snvla and chucky2 first though, to make sure

Well statistically that logic would follow. Even if you say that the reason blacks commit crimes to other blacks out of proximity, there is also the fact that they commit more violent crime per capita. It would be reasonable to argue that being a student on a college campus might have some variables that would change the outcomes, but there is some logic behind it. I would bet that being a college student would have a filtering effect on what seems like the biggest factor which is poverty, but I dont know of any studies done on this type of thing.

This isn't so much a matter of statistics as mentality.

Entertaining lists of demands seems to go way beyond maintaining amicable relations to me. I'm genuinely curious what the implied threat is - capitulate to our demands or else ... what?

Sent from my HUAWEI Y536A1 using Tapatalk

Good thing universities employ more competent customer relations. In this case, both parties came away reasonably satisfied at no real cost to the school, whereas that presumably wouldn't be the case if they hired you instead.

 

[Svnla]

Zaap and rolfmouth et al need to get on this case where this innocent man is being wrongly maligned. They better check with their friends snvla and chucky2 first though, to make sure

Oh, look here. I haven't post one single post in this thread and yet you pull me into your pathetic post. Friends? I do not know anyone you mentioned and haven't meet any of them. Then how could they are my friends as you claimed? Oh, because you are a LIAR!!!! <again>

Still no answer to my question about how you guys eat cockroaches? Why not? Just a simple answer will be fine. What is the matter?

 

[agent00f]

Actually I was going for the ridiculous with the black on black violence statistic reference to illustrate that no reasoning given for it actually holds any more water than that.

No, I'm pretty sure plenty of people reason that blacks are criminals who therefore don't deserve anything, an amount in the order of magnitude of a rather popular political party let's say. Their water retention is obviously not tested for at the polls.

Your take that I have bolded in the quote is the only right way to view this.

"Splitting people along race, even willingly is a bad idea in the long run."

Do you fancy your chances at dissuading people with something other than the right view. People such as:

Oh, look here. I haven't post one single post in this thread and yet you pull me into your pathetic post. Friends? I do not know anyone you mentioned and haven't meet any of them.

Nevermind the copy paste error, since you're already here please be informed that Zaap & co was already asked about whether he disavows people like yourself or chucky who support his ideology. We give trump a lot of grief for a rather belated response but in comparison it really wasn't that bad.

Then how could they are my friends as you claimed? Oh, because you are a LIAR!!!! <again>

Still no answer to my question about how you guys eat cockroaches? Why not? Just a simple answer will be fine. What is the matter?

I suspect in the same way that mexicans jump the border with drugs & rape, or muslims all blow themselves up.

 

[Svnla]

Nevermind the copy paste error, since you're already here please be informed that Zaap & co was already asked about whether he disavows people like yourself or chucky who support his ideology. We give trump a lot of grief for a rather belated response but in comparison it really wasn't that bad.



I suspect in the same way that mexicans jump the border with drugs & rape, or muslims all blow themselves up.

Well, the thread topic is about Cal State U and black students so learn how to read and stay on topic. I didn't say anything in this thread until you pulled me in so how could I support anyone ideology? Who said anything BUT you about mexicans and muslims in this thread? Try harder to spin, comrade eunuch.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes it is, and they can live off campus if they want segregated living. The person who was determined to self-segregate in my anecdote, that's what he did. It obviously didn't help his perspective, but he was entitled to do it and I wouldn't suggest otherwise. I just don't think a university should actively encourage it by designating certain dormitories for specific ethnicities which is an authoritative institution of learning openly suggesting that black people segregate themselves.

It doesn't designate any dormitory for specific ethnicities. In fact they explicitly said it was open to everyone. I certainly know people who would be interested to live in such a dorm who are not black.

Living in the same environment with people of other ethnicities, observing and interacting with them on a daily basis increases the likelihood of cross-ethnic friendships. You're entitled to your opinion that 1-2 years of living in close quarters with people won't make much difference in cross-ethnic understanding. I think common sense dictates otherwise, but then, neither of us has a study to back up our opinion here.

I would say that common sense says 50 people isn't going to mean much either way, especially when they are almost certainly not even all black.

Then we disagree about history. I think it was about quite a lot of all of those things. If you think a self-segregated society works just as well as an integrated one, you're entitled to that opinion.

I don't think that a self-segregated society works as well, I just don't see much evidence that social harmony was the primary, or even one of several primary purposes of the Civil Rights Act. Is there some documentation from the time that would indicate this?

If that is not what you believe, fine. That's good,and I apologize for assuming otherwise. But it's not as if the opinion that blacks can't be racist has never been voiced before. It's isn't a new or bizarre idea, that racism is supposedly bound up with "power," and that black people, supposedly lacking any power, are incapable of it. And the reason I assumed it in your case is that you seemed to be OK with forcing whites to integrate with blacks, but think it's OK if black people simply want to opt out of it. While white people wanting to opt out, I doubt you'd have the same opinion.

I think that it's extremely important to realize that the dynamics of minority ethic groups as compared to the dominant ethnic group are in fact very, very different. There's a reason why the NAACP is viewed more positively than even nonviolent white supremacist groups. It's why historically black colleges are not viewed negatively but a historically white one would be. Racism is most certainly bound up with power, as those racist views have a lot larger effect on society depending on who the racist is and these viewpoints come from a history of active oppression as opposed to opposition to that. Similarly, a 'whites culture' dorm would definitely be viewed more negatively for a similar reason. I'm going to take a guess that you are not against historically black colleges, but it's hard to see how to reconcile that opinion with your opinion here.

Yeah, and I never said anything about forcing people to think anything in particular. I don't know where you even get that from. What liberals have frequently done is advocating changing social conditions so as to encourage people to think in a certain way. That's not thought control. It isn't censorship. But it is what liberals do, and quite often. Your version of liberalism sounds more like libertarianism, where it's totally cool believe whatever you want, and no one and nothing should try to change your mind because that would be "social engineering." What you're describing is not liberalism in America. Liberals use a variety of methods to effect social change, among them, changing laws, rules and regulations which force underlying conditions to change, and hence have a tendency to change people attitudes and beliefs.

Libertarianism is centered on freedom of action, not simply freedom of thought. I would say that's its defining characteristic. I don't believe in complete freedom of action, but I strongly believe in complete freedom of thought. While some forms of engineering thought are inevitable and desirable (don't be a serial killer, for example), I fall strongly on the side of letting people work it out for themselves.

Yes, nor does simply not designating certain dorms as places for specific ethnic groups. It encourages people to physically integrate. It doesn't force them to tolerate each other. They can have the experience of integrated living and still choose intolerance. No one is sending them to jail for how they think. I don't see how you're drawing a real distinction here.

You are depriving them of campus living that acknowledges their different take on the world though. I mean what cultural perspective do you think dorms generally take on? Why should they have to live in that if they don't want to?

Then we have different ideas of what liberal values are. The freedom to be an intolerant asshole certainly is a virtue of society. But not being one is also a virtue of the individual. To this liberal anyway.

Of course you view the freedom to be intolerant as a virtue. Everyone does. We are intolerant of rapists, murderers, and thieves, after all. What you're shooting for is that people should be tolerant of the things that YOU think they should be tolerant of, which is sort of my point. I imagine we basically agree on what those things are, but I don't agree that we should try and force people to do that, nor do I think it will be particularly effective. For every person who has become more tolerant and inclusive due to their experience in that dorm life how many felt alienated and repelled because their understanding and way of life is ignored?

Yeah, I don't think liberalism in this context is only about freedom of thought. Liberals want to effect social change, not just be like libertarians and say, gee, whatever people think is cool with me. That doesn't even remotely square with the liberalism I see now and historically in this country. While most liberals fortunately don't want to achieve this through censorship, many are not content to do so simply and only through verbal persuasion. That's why we take positions on laws, rules and regulations, whether it is affirmative action, housing discrimination, etc. Because we want to change conditions, and we hope that this will change how people think even though we know it isn't a guarantee. We can end discrimination in a legal sense, but if people are still bigoted, the underlying problem remains, and festers.

Attitudes on a societal scale do not change for no reason. Underlying conditions must first be changed. This strikes me as a common and core approach of liberalism, but YMMV.

I would say housing discrimination law and affirmative action are all explicitly created to right material wrongs, they really aren't intended to promote racial harmony, at least not specifically. I want a country where every person has the chance to reach their full potential and I agree with you that such a change will require a change in attitudes as well as the law, I just don't think that purposefully not providing living space where people feel their culture is emphasized within an overall situation where it's not is a good way to go about it.

 

[agent00f]

Well, the thread topic is about Cal State U and black students so learn how to read and stay on topic. I didn't say anything in this thread until you pulled me in so how could I support anyone ideology? Who said anything BUT you about mexicans and muslims in this thread? Try harder to spin, comrade eunuch.

You'll have to ask Zaap why he wasn't convinced that american conservatism is intimately connected to bigotry & racism. I suspect he simply wasn't aware of the show you've been putting on with chucky in the other thread. I even asked whether he disavows party/ideological association with your lot, but maybe he hasn't had the opportunity to fully consider the right choice here.

Interestingly enough, Trump started using this new "I'm not going to talk about it" tactic a couple days previous when the topic of his birtherism came back up. It's smart that you're adopting the same on similar racial questions that stumped him a bit back.

 

[MrA79]

Lot of positives to this idea, really. Let's see...

Campus police and LLE will have a much smaller area to patrol - they might finally catch that rascal Sum Dood.
Should be a shorter walk to their morning African Studies class (that is, anytime after about 1130am)
The wonderful hipsters at Uber will go out of their way to provide superior service to the newly impoverished, er, culturally enriched area.

How could it be a bad thing?

Buh-Bye for a month for continued racism in your posts. - Admin DrPizza

 

[agent00f]

^ speaking of which

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Nah, it's spot on.

Maybe most dorms reflect white culture and white values, meaning that different spaces are needed for rewarding social and cultural interactions that would otherwise not happen.

What are white values, and how do they differ from black values? What rewards need to be given in the context of dormitory living? Is there evidence that intraracial social and cultural interactions are more helpful than interracial ones, particularly at the college level?

Or the black students just prefer a housing situation where they're the 96%.

Who are we kidding really, these threads are mostly just anger that the blacks got something they wanted.

The 96% isn't just white people (roughly a third are Hispanic and a tenth are Asian as well). If white people want to be around just white people rather than roughly a coin's toss probability of getting someone else, is that alright?

 

[realibrad]

Zaap and rolfmouth et al need to get on this case where this innocent man is being wrongly maligned. They better check with their friends snvla and chucky2 first though, to make sure


This isn't so much a matter of statistics as mentality.



Good thing universities employ more competent customer relations. In this case, both parties came away reasonably satisfied at no real cost to the school, whereas that presumably wouldn't be the case if they hired you instead.

You are splitting hairs. Its a mentality of how people use stats.

 

[Svnla]

You'll have to ask Zaap why he wasn't convinced that american conservatism is intimately connected to bigotry & racism. I suspect he simply wasn't aware of the show you've been putting on with chucky in the other thread. I even asked whether he disavows party/ideological association with your lot, but maybe he hasn't had the opportunity to fully consider the right choice here.

Interestingly enough, Trump started using this new "I'm not going to talk about it" tactic a couple days previous when the topic of his birtherism came back up. It's smart that you're adopting the same on similar racial questions that stumped him a bit back.

I am not going to ask anyone about their posts or this or that. They are on their own, just like I can only speak for me, myself, and I. Unlike in commie china, posters in America have the right to say what in their mind. No one could or should ask them to renounce their belief or idea. Don't like it? Move to china since you love to boast how great commie china is and you could eat cockroaches over there.

Once again, you mentioned Trump in which I never mentioned in this thread or even the other thread. You whined and bitched about everything but you are the one that are so guilty on the very same things you whined and bitched about. Still no answer on my question on the other thread. Nice going comrade eunuch. Talk about being hypocrite and clueless.