White Students Kicked From Meeting For Not Being Racialized - Polidicks

[quote=National Post] [B]White students barred from meeting at Ryerson University because they were not ‘racialized’[/B] A round of public furor has centered on Toronto’s Ryerson University after two journalism students were barred from an on-campus meeting because they were not “racialized.” First-year journalism students Julia Knope and Trevor Hewitt were attempting to attend a meeting hosted by the Racialised Students’ Collective when they were asked to leave by a group organizer. “She asked them if they had been marginalized or racialized, and when they both responded ‘no,’ that’s when she said the meeting was only for those who felt they had been,” said Anne McNeilly, an associate professor at the Ryerson School of Journalism. Ms. Knope and Mr. Hewitt, who are both visibly white, had been attempting to attend the gathering as part of a assignment by Ms. McNeilly to sit in on a public meeting. “It seemed really ironic to me that the meeting was about racialization and they were prohibiting certain people from entering,” said Ms. Knope in comments to the Ryersonian. ... Ryerson, like many university campuses, routinely hosts events that are restricted to specific groups in order to create what is often referred to as a [B]“safe space.”[/B] The university’s Recreation and Athletic Centre, for instance, offers women-only gym times. The key difference with the Racialised Student’s Collective meeting, according to Ms. McNeilly, is that the gathering was advertised as being open to the public. ... The high-profile incident also drove a trickle of comments to the Racialised Student’s Collective Facebook page accusing the group of itself being guilty of racism. Speaking to the [I]National Post[/I] on Monday, [B]Mr. Hoilett said the criticism did not apply.[/B] “To be clear, racism is a system of oppression, there aren’t broad examples in our society that speaks to white folks being excluded from spaces … because of their race,” he said.[/quote] Every time I think that UTSU at UofT sets a high bar for weird shit, Ryerson kicks the bar higher.

[quote]“She asked them if they had been marginalized or racialized, and when they both responded ‘no,’ that’s when she said the meeting was only for those who felt they had been,” said Anne McNeilly, an associate professor at the Ryerson School of Journalism.[/quote] "Okay, I feel like I've been marginalized now, I guess I can stay"

[QUOTE=article]“To be clear, racism is a system of oppression, there aren’t broad examples in our society that speaks to white folks being excluded from spaces … because of their race,” he said. [/QUOTE] I still find the North American definition of racism to just be bloody weird.

snip

They should've have said the group was open to the public, then. If it's a focused support group it's understandable that the students who felt they were not part of the group's target population were asked to leave. Is it possible this group had clearly stated the criteria for joining, that these two students ignored?

[QUOTE=wraithcat;47347064]I still find the North American definition of racism to just be bloody weird.[/QUOTE] It's a very new scholarly way of defining it. If not call it racism, a system of oppression based on race would require just some other set of vowels to spit out.

[QUOTE=Take_Opal;47347087]It's a very new scholarly way of defining it. If not call it racism, a system of oppression based on race would require just some other set of vowels to spit out.[/QUOTE] See I've always assumed that the standard definition of being judged based upon your race was always adequate, but hey what the fuck do I know.

[QUOTE=shozamar;47347073]Actually I think that's the crux of the matter, and it's totally understandable. It's not about their race. Presumably they could've stayed if they felt like they had been marginalised at some point and thus knew what the others had been through. The people who go to these want to be surrounded by people they know can empathise with them, hence "safe-space". There's nothing to stop them lying about it of course, but that would be a shitty thing to do. I doubt anybody would see a problem with a group therapy session kicking out a people who admitted they had no issues whatsoever and just wanted to be there so they could write a paper. [/QUOTE] the point that rusty is making is that they were immediately marginalized due to the fact that they hadnt been marginalized previously which seems awfully silly

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47347096]See I've always assumed that the standard definition of being judged based upon your race was always adequate, but hey what the fuck do I know.[/QUOTE] You probably haven't really looked at racism and discrimination and its effects within a system on that kind of level, but it's a pretty reasonable thing to see once you start looking at it with that perspective. The dictionary doesn't teach you everything. Language evolves.

[QUOTE=Take_Opal;47347121]You probably haven't really looked at racism and discrimination and its effects within a system on that kind of level, but it's a pretty reasonable thing to see once you start looking at it with that perspective. The dictionary doesn't teach you everything. Language evolves.[/QUOTE] Yeah but no, if you're being discriminated against based on your race then it's racism, I don't see how there needs to be a more nuanced definition considering that literally covers every form of racism.

It WOULD be the National Post that carried this story. They're a trashy paper that seems to love blowing trivial issues out of proportion.

[QUOTE=Take_Opal;47347087]It's a very new scholarly way of defining it. If not call it racism, a system of oppression based on race would require just some other set of vowels to spit out.[/QUOTE] It is racism, but systematic racism a subclass of what is considered racism. Claiming that only systematic racism is racism seems to me like a huge mistake. Since it would indicate only small groups could commit hate crimes against larger ones. That's the part which is odd to many of us which don't use the NA definition.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;47347064]I still find the North American definition of racism to just be bloody weird.[/QUOTE] I've never heard the term used like that outside of tumblr and I've seen the same done with "sexism". It's just a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals redefining terms so that they can shit on white dudes without being "racist" or "sexist".

[QUOTE=CommunistCookie;47347145]I've never heard the term used like that outside of tumblr and I've seen the same done with "sexism". It's just a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals redefining terms so that they can shit on white dudes without being "racist" or "sexist".[/QUOTE] Actually that's the industry definition. I'm studying in the social work field, and that's what we call it. And no, the objective isn't to 'shit on white dudes'.

[QUOTE=CommunistCookie;47347145]I've never heard the term used like that outside of tumblr and I've seen the same done with "sexism". It's just a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals redefining terms so that they can shit on white dudes without being "racist" or "sexist".[/QUOTE] They also say "Racism against whites doesn't exist! You can't be racist against whites!"

[QUOTE=CommunistCookie;47347145]I've never heard the term used like that outside of tumblr and I've seen the same done with "sexism". It's just a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals redefining terms so that they can shit on white dudes without being "racist" or "sexist".[/QUOTE] I see it incredibly commonly in publications which come out of the US or even in discourse. We had a hosting US professor on discrimination who actually used that definition and was surprised that we don't or that significant portions of Europe don't either. [QUOTE=archangel125;47347157]Actually that's the industry definition. I'm studying in the social work field, and that's what we call it. And no, the objective isn't to 'shit on white dudes'.[/QUOTE] It's the standard for NA. There's huge regional differences.

[QUOTE=archangel125;47347157]Actually that's the industry definition. I'm studying in the social work field, and that's what we call it. And no, the objective isn't to 'shit on white dudes'.[/QUOTE] Why not just call systematic racism "systematic racism"?

I didn't know what "racialized" even meant. I guess you wouldn't want people hanging around an AA meeting that have never had a drinking problem. Personally, had I been making the decision, I'd see more value in letting them sit and listen to people who actually get discriminated against than in giving some white kids an excuse to run to the local media and cry about reverse racism. But, maybe they just didn't want a couple of journalism students coming in to spectate on them and their problems. How would you feel if somebody showed up at your support group and said "Oh, I don't have any problems, I'm just here to write about you." I might tell them to fuck off, too.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;47347141]It is racism, but systematic racism a subclass of what is considered racism. Claiming that only systematic racism is racism seems to me like a huge mistake. Since it would indicate only small groups could commit hate crimes against larger ones. That's the part which is odd to many of us which don't use the NA definition.[/QUOTE] No one says systematic racism is the [I]only[/I] racism. Discrimination is discrimination.

[QUOTE=archangel125;47347157]Actually that's the industry definition. I'm studying in the social work field, and that's what we call it. And no, the objective isn't to 'shit on white dudes'.[/QUOTE] it's the new in thing with gender and race scholars and its seriously fucked up. It;s just a way for them to justify racism/sexism of their own. "sorry but, according to our new definiton, we're not actually racist until we manage to implement widespread systemic oppression, wait till then to criticize us."

[QUOTE=wraithcat;47347161] It's the standard for NA. There's huge regional differences.[/QUOTE] This is just straight up not true. This isn't even something I would expect ANYBODY I know in the US to just know. Defining racism as systematic oppression is something that indicates some level of knowledge on the subject outside of personal experience.

[QUOTE=Take_Opal;47347238]This is just straight up not true. This isn't even something I would expect ANYBODY I know in the US to just know. Defining racism as systematic oppression is something that indicates some level of knowledge on the subject outside of personal experience.[/QUOTE] What? So you're now saying you can only be aware of systematic oppression if you're a direct victim of it? That's like saying you can only believe in guns if you've been shot. [editline]18th March 2015[/editline] I'm genuinely serious now, why even attempt to redefine racism for your cool new age meaning if that meaning is already encompassed in the current definition?

No, I am saying I don't expect people to refer to racism as this newer definition. I am saying I don't expect people to think much about racism except for what is on the news or what they personally interpret as racism in their day-to-day lives.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47347204]I didn't know what "racialized" even meant. I guess you wouldn't want people hanging around an AA meeting that have never had a drinking problem. Personally, had I been making the decision, I'd see more value in letting them sit and listen to people who actually get discriminated against than in giving some white kids an excuse to run to the local media and cry about reverse racism. But, maybe they just didn't want a couple of journalism students coming in to spectate on them and their problems. How would you feel if somebody showed up at your support group and said "Oh, I don't have any problems, I'm just here to write about you." I might tell them to fuck off, too.[/QUOTE] It's interesting you should mention AA. Everyone is welcome to go to their meetings and anyone with an addiction problem is encouraged to at least sit in even if it's a family member, friend, or spouse with the actual addiction. Similarly, these students probably had a reason for being there and the validity of that reason shouldn't really be questioned.

I'm confused, it was a meeting for people who felt they were victims of racial profiling but only if they were a specific race or races?

Why does all the interesting shit happen on campus when I have a day off? Also this is pretty weird, seeing how everyone always screams "equality and diversity" on pretty much every corner and from every post board with posters for multicultural events. [QUOTE=AtomicWaffle;47346981]Every time I think that UTSU at UofT sets a high bar for weird shit, Ryerson kicks the bar higher.[/QUOTE] Ye, boi. Go Rams!

[QUOTE=archangel125;47347157]Actually that's the industry definition. I'm studying in the social work field, and that's what we call it. And no, the objective isn't to 'shit on white dudes'.[/QUOTE] because the world takes cues from the social work industry, right?

[QUOTE=stupid10er;47347713]because the world takes cues from the social work industry, right?[/QUOTE] Yeah, it actually does.

[QUOTE=Take_Opal;47347729]Yeah, it actually does.[/QUOTE] okay, i'll take your word for it then

To be fair, the article does say that they were barred from entering because they said they didn't feel they were marginalized, not necessarily because they were white. Who knows what would've happened had they answered 'yes'?