Should White Students be Allowed to Establish Student Groups Based on Race?

Nice try, but failed again.

 

I've no problem with segregated groups. White power.

 

I have no idea why anyone would be offended by someone trying to create a White Law Association at a school that was originally created, specifically, as an attempt to avoid having to admit black students to the University of Texas School of Law.

 

It's a double standard, yes, whether its fair or not can be up for debate but the point is the first 2 groups are minorities and don't have nearly the amount of people of their group to speak for them in all other aspects of life or relate to. And I still stand by my question of whether people would want a whites law student group because they actually believe in one or only because other people have them. It's the equivalent of someone wanting a cheeseburger not because you're hungry but because you saw someone else with a cheeseburger.

 

Yes, and such use was found.... wait for it... wait for it.... un (*)(*)(*)(*)ing constitutional. And the school was desegregated long since. By your "logic" I should be offended to GO to "the black school". And yet I am not. Indeed ALL THOSE GROUPS should be REPUGNANT, likewise under your logic because they are racial groups. And yet no one finds THEM repugnant, only the mere suggestion that whites operate the same sort of group under the same sort of rules.

I'm still flabbergasted that people at a formerly segregated school that was indeed purpose built to comply with the Heeman sweatt case (for separate to be equal there must actually BE a separate institution IE build a black law school) would WANT to participate in groups divided by race, much less rush to defend groups for one race but not the other.

 

Here's an interesting strategy employed by the left. Support "black" student clubs, "Hispanic" student clubs, but when whites want one? "What do you mean, whites are all different! They are Scottish, Irish, German, French, Finnish". Keep whites separated and not viewing themselves as a group, while pushing blacks from Nigeria, Congo, Eritrea, Kenya to all group together and increase their collective power.

 

1) The first group I mentioned was whites. So you mean the latter 2 groups mentioned. Right?
2) Here at thurgood marshall school of law white students, specifically straight white male students, ARE the minority. Law school graduates get jobs mainly through alumni. The clubs generally form to help with alumni connections and resume padding. So a) all those "minorities" aren't actually minorities at all in the environment we're talking about and b) again minority status is NOT the impetus for social club formation, or a prerequisite or a reason to prevent one group from forming based solely upon their race.

3) It might have something to do with the fact that clubs get SCHOOL FUNDING ie STATE FUNDING to do what they do which is travel to conventions to meet with other like groups, attend other events, put on events, etc.

Its the equivalent of seeing other groups that fit your description get state funding to hang out and play grab ass with each other and when you try to apply being told that the simple desire to have such a group means you're a bad person who hates others and that yes the others may both have their cake and eat it too but not YOU because YOU are bad because of your skin color and actions of people of the same skin color.

 

Yeah. My fault.

Are white male students the minority at every other school? Are whites in general the minority? Furthermore, listing an interest group on a resume always does some good.

Nothing wrong with that.

Honestly, having the desire to form said group on its own isn't bad nor would it make you bad. But again, I have to ask is the desire for said group based on pure beliefs or on just envy? Because almost every discussion involving "why do black people get this group" or "why do blacks a month to themselves?" always ends up with someone hypothetically wanting one too. Worse considering that up until the discussion no one even cared that those things existed.

 

`
`
The image below is just food for thought. I side with those who want to eliminate all exclusive race based groups and designations. The same applies to those panty waist 'safe zones.'
`
`
`

​

 

Can I ask as I have no idea, do these organizations ban people from joining if they are not the "correct" race?

 

No they are not but see 2)b). Also see the fact that yes resume padding IS nice, is it not? Too bad certain groups of students are estopped from the same type of padding because they can't form a group that others can form, based solely on race.

I find quite a bit wrong with it. Tuition is so damn high for a reason. Leaving that aside if you're going to give it to the goose you must also give it to the gander. I'd prefer you didn't give it out at all or allow groups to be barely motivated by race or gender issues unless they were to be concerned with racial issues as a whole (rather than a specific type) or gender issues as a whole etc.

And again: That's not what is quite literally SCREAMED in our faces. Perhaps its motivated by the idea that I find double standards repugnant doubly so when they involve money triply so when they involve my money quadrupely so when my complaints about it are attributed to being a racist sexist xenophobe bigot or to bare envy.
What you fail to grasp is that often the "why can't I have my own month if they get their own" is an argument from absurdity intended to illustrate to you that the concept of 1 group having their own month, when the suggestion of another group which only differs by phenotype having the same is met with cries of racism, is absurd/self-contradictory/a double standard which should not be CONTINUED or EXPANDED but DONE AWAY with entirely. If blacks having their own month is acceptable, even to be celebrated, but whites having their own month is not, and whites having their own month isn't acceptable because they are white, then blacks having their own month cannot be acceptable.

 

If they do so they cannot exist in a public school. This would equally apply to any white groups ever allowed to be formed.

 

The only racial group that ever systematically oppressed and exploited the other racial groups in this country is the white majority. It happened for generations. It's only been 50 years since the civil rights movement found real success. The school you are going to is deeply connected to that oppression and the fight for equal treatment. The reason white groups are suspect, is because there's no apparent need for them other than to spite minorities who are finally seeing progress in their fight for equal treatment.

 

I personally could care less, and Reality's last point in post #70 expresses my view almost exactly. Most of these 'black', 'brown', and other 'ethnic support' scams are indeed just as racist as any KKK group or any other is, it's just that some people are credulous and buy into the propaganda marketing that they aren't, especially the sociopaths and mentally ill types who run around playing 'Progressives' and 'Anti-racist Social Justice Warriors' in the innernutz. they don't want equality, equal treatment, or equal justice, they want subsidies, privileges, and exemptions from consequences of their own actions and cognitively dissonant self-defeating policies. They have been fooled into believing this makes them 'special' and 'enlightened', and other wonderful fantasies. It's a lot less work to just be some imbecilic ideologue than deal with the kind of work that goes into genuine intellectual examination, you just shop around for the packaged drivel that appeals to you the most and just parrot that stuff over and over, whether 'right wing' or 'left wing'; everything is thus rendered black and white, no effort need be expended, no risk of being ostracized by your chosen peer group for daring to have an original thought or questioning even the most obvious contradictions with your nice little cocoon. For the faux 'progressives' it's even easier and almost no work at all, all you need is ...

"NAMBLA" logic - an extreme absolutist position which demands that for logical consistencies sake that certain gross crimes be allowed, in order that no one might feel restrained.
Stirling S. Newberry

 

We'll go ahead and mark you down for the "Yes its a double standard and no I don't see a problem with the logic of that" column.

The school I'm going to IS deeply connected to the fight for equal treatment which is why such blatant UNEQUAL treatment being allowed and encouraged is something that I find shocking and especially repugnant.
Again: These groups mainly form to provide alumni connections and resume padding. If you think there is not a need for that because of someone's skin color then there is a serious flaw in your reasoning.

 

Wow, people can't form groups because they're not a minority. That is pretty dumb. But you knew that already.

 

Not all black Americans are descendants of slaves. Some know exactly what country they're from.

It's also not true for all white folks. And when it is, such as in your case, often the ancestry is spread out over a number of European countries, such that the terms "English-American" or "Irish-American" are simply not as accurate as "European-American".

 

Of course some do. I know probably ten actual Africans, most of them from Nigeria or Somalia. That's why I said "...decedents of slaves..."

 

I'm asking you, because you are the one who implied that whites should all divide up by nationality (even though most white Americans are descended from more than one European country, making national distinction less relevant than continental distinction). To be clear, my issue is not that black Americans get to organize and identify simply by their continent of origin. My issue is that white Americans are not afforded that same level of solidarity according to their continent of origin.

 

And yet those ten will usually still be referred to as "African-American". And there's nothing wrong with that. But why must Europeans be divided up? Again:

 

Every person I know who is 1st generation American will correct you if you refer to them as African-American. I've been told it's either Nigerian or American. The Somalian guys are the same way.

 

The key words here are CONSISTENTLY and EQUALLY .

 

Is there some reason why you are ignoring the other half of this discussion (i.e. the part about Europeans)? I've already said, I don't mind if black Americans want to identify and organize as African American. I also think it's fine if they choose to go by their particular country of origin. But why is it that Europeans must be divided up, while Africans get to exhibit solidarity?

 

I'm not ignoring it, I just have no idea. I can't think of a single person who referred to themselves as "European" or "European-American" to me. Some will say they are German, Italian, English, Scottish, Irish, Scots-Irish(my family does).

Come to think of it, no one I've known has declared they were French either.

 

That is what I thought, so really I don't see any issues here, if an organization cannot ban entry to any person then there is no reason they cannot exist.