White Privilege at MU

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

That is what we are having here, an open discussion. I agree and Marquette having "safe spaces"  and a one-sided meeting is not going to bring folks together. In fact it will only further divide and alienate students who genuinely have a different voice and silence them for fear of being called racists.

See above post about safe spaces.

And you are assuming that this is a "one sided meeting." You have alienated folks before the meeting even started!

[GooooMarquette]

Safe space is an often misunderstood term. Safe space refers to a meeting, group, office, event, etc where people from different backgrounds can come together to discuss difficult topics without fear of being personally attacked or retaliated against for their opinions/beliefs. The idea behind them is that people from "both sides" can come together to have dialogue and make progress towards a common understanding.

Unfortunately, people on the extremes of both sides have corrupted the term with people on the left sometimes using it as a weapon to shut people down and people on the right making it out to be kumbaya orgy circles where no dissenting opinions are allowed. Some people have tried rebranding them to "brave spaces" or "challenge spaces" and some other terms but none have caught on.

IMHO, the VPSA made a mistake by using the term since it is so often misunderstood and is often a lightening rod for criticism. Something like "opportunities for dialogue" or something would have been better. The word choice wasn't the best but the idea is sound.

Interesting. That was most definitely NOT how they used the term when they had the well-publicized racial incidents at Mizzou a few years ago. My daughter was a student there at the time, and it was made very clear that the "safe spaces" they asked for would be off-limits to non-minorities.

Totally agree that the term should be abandoned.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

2019 meme watch

kumbaya orgy circles

[warriorchick]

2019 meme watch

kumbaya orgy circles

Speaking of which, I highly recommend "Wild Wild Country" on Netflix.

[rocket surgeon]

  "That minorities shouldn't be told to "just assimilate and deal with it."

  i knew this one would be an easy target...all by itself.  please don't twist and misinterpret and take my comment out of context.  i used those 2 words in reference to our conversation regarding how ms halsey or whatever her name brought it up.  something about "white persons shampoo or something.  if the business doesn't offer you what you want or need, go somewhere else or open a business that is all inclusive.  what i have trouble understanding is why anyone would go to a business demanding certain "wants" not needs, and then complain and protest and demand that one's "wants" are met.  read certain bakeries

[rocket surgeon]

I saw brain surgeon's remarks in your post and can't say that I am surprised by him saying it is up to minorities to "become more white" or "acclimated" to sound more PC.

I agree with your posts completely. I don't think it is any racist attempt by hotels with their choice of shampoos. Simply catering to the vast majority of customers. Hopefully, and I don't know the answer to this, at least the better hotels have other shampoos that minorities can request.

come on jockstrap-you were frothing at the mouth to pounce on rocket the racist, right?  pretty shallow and simplistic interpretation of what i said, but not really, considering the source. 

 

[theBabyDavid]

theBabyDavid is a child of nature, friend of man

[muwarrior69]

See above post about safe spaces.

And you are assuming that this is a "one sided meeting." You have alienated folks before the meeting even started!

The meeting took place on May 2, 2018.

The school’s Division of Student Affairs and Office of Mission and Ministry co-hosted a “Do Better Marquette” event at which a guest lecturer from the Young Women's Christian Association, Martha Barry, stated that students must recognize “white skin privilege.”

In an interview after the event, Barry explained to Campus Reform that “privilege to many people means monetary privilege,” and that the goal of the event was to make people aware that “there is a privilege that comes with being white skinned,” adding that

“We are biased in the direction of white skin color,” she elaborated. “So, even if you were talking to people of color...there’s ‘colorism’ that, like, the lightest-skinned one are the most acceptable ones.”

Of course I was not at the meeting so there may have been an opposing view, but there certainly was no guest lecturer to counter Ms. Barry's view. If the University were genuinely interested in creating a place where all view points would be respected and feel safe in presenting that view they should have at the very least had a guest lecturer present an alternative view so the two could at least debate the topic. From all appearances that did not happen.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

I've always thought that most hotel shampoo sucks across the board, white hair or black hair.  And WTF, shampoo but no conditioner?  Who does that beside some greasy headed MFer?

Their lotion is worse.  Towels suck too.

If you ain't staying at a high end joint, what do you expect?

Hell, PTM brings his own sheets to the hourly joint in Johnsburg.

[Dr. Blackheart]

I've always thought that most hotel shampoo sucks across the board, white hair or black hair.  And WTF, shampoo but no conditioner?  Who does that beside some greasy headed MFer?

Their lotion is worse.  Towels suck too.

If you ain't staying at a high end joint, what do you expect?

Hell, PTM brings his own sheets to the hourly joint in Johnsburg.

That says it all.  Crappy hotel shampoo is like a dry hump:  All friction, no <cleaning> action.

Now, Double Tree cookies with a free drink ticket are another thing. That is privilege.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The meeting took place on May 2, 2018.

The school’s Division of Student Affairs and Office of Mission and Ministry co-hosted a “Do Better Marquette” event at which a guest lecturer from the Young Women's Christian Association, Martha Barry, stated that students must recognize “white skin privilege.”

In an interview after the event, Barry explained to Campus Reform that “privilege to many people means monetary privilege,” and that the goal of the event was to make people aware that “there is a privilege that comes with being white skinned,” adding that

“We are biased in the direction of white skin color,” she elaborated. “So, even if you were talking to people of color...there’s ‘colorism’ that, like, the lightest-skinned one are the most acceptable ones.”

Of course I was not at the meeting so there may have been an opposing view, but there certainly was no guest lecturer to counter Ms. Barry's view. If the University were genuinely interested in creating a place where all view points would be respected and feel safe in presenting that view they should have at the very least had a guest lecturer present an alternative view so the two could at least debate the topic. From all appearances that did not happen.

So every event every hosted at Marquette needs to have two speakers speaking from two different sides of an issue? How is that reasonable?

If someone speaks at Marquette about the importance of pro life, do they need to invite someone who is pro choice? If someone comes to campus to speak about evolution do they also need to invite a creationist? Should they also invite someone to lecture about the flying spaghetti monster?

Why can't students go to an event with one speaker and then ask tough questions and form their own opinions?

Or is it possible that you are just against the views of this particular speaker and want them shut down?

Students who don't agree with this speaker are free to go the event and challenge the speaker's point of view, or to not go in protest. They are also free to host a counter event and invite a speaker who will present an alternative point of view. The reality is though, there are no sides on this issue. White privilege exists, it is a fact. There may be disagreements on its impact, its importance, and what to do with it, but there is no denying its existence.

[MU82]

Crappy hotel shampoo is like a dry hump

That line was made at 12:11 a.m. So everybody else has nearly 24 hours to top it as the line of the day. I don't think it'll happen!

[4everwarriors]

Dry hump? Dat kinda like Rosie Palm and her 5 friends with sand, hey?

[muwarrior69]

So every event every hosted at Marquette needs to have two speakers speaking from two different sides of an issue? How is that reasonable?

If someone speaks at Marquette about the importance of pro life, do they need to invite someone who is pro choice? If someone comes to campus to speak about evolution do they also need to invite a creationist? Should they also invite someone to lecture about the flying spaghetti monster?

Why can't students go to an event with one speaker and then ask tough questions and form their own opinions?

Or is it possible that you are just against the views of this particular speaker and want them shut down?

Students who don't agree with this speaker are free to go the event and challenge the speaker's point of view, or to not go in protest. They are also free to host a counter event and invite a speaker who will present an alternative point of view. The reality is though, there are no sides on this issue. White privilege exists, it is a fact. There may be disagreements on its impact, its importance, and what to do with it, but there is no denying its existence.

That is your perception. I could argue that black privilege exists and I'm sure you will disagree. I thought the purpose of the meeting was to improve race relations and not to be lectured on how being white or whiteness or white culture perpetuates racism which from where I'm sitting only leads to further division.

[GGGG]

That is your perception. I could argue that black privilege exists and I'm sure you will disagree. I thought the purpose of the meeting was to improve race relations and not to be lectured on how being white or whiteness or white culture perpetuates racism which from where I'm sitting only leads to further division.

How do you define "black privilege?" 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

That is your perception. I could argue that black privilege exists and I'm sure you will disagree. I thought the purpose of the meeting was to improve race relations and not to be lectured on how being white or whiteness or white culture perpetuates racism which from where I'm sitting only leads to further division.

Please tell us what black privilege is. I may agree with you but I probably don't call it that.

And again, I think you are making a lot of assumptions about what took place at this program. It's possible that it was a giant guilt trip trying to make white people feel guilty for being white, but knowing it was co-hosted by Campus Ministry I sincerely doubt that was the case. More likely it was a program about what white privilege is, the differences between white privilege and socio-economic privilege, and what students with privilege can do to help those without (or with less might be the more accurate statement).

[mu03eng]

How do you define "black privilege?"

All races, genders, cultures, etc have some form of privilege simply because privilege represents something(s) of "value" you get for being part of that monolithic thing simply because you are that thing.

(Not being flippant, serious point here) I'm tall, I get tall privilege in numerous ways: I can reach high things without assistance, society tends to associate height with leadership, a proclivity to be better at sports, etc. Nothing I did to earn that stuff and people who aren't tall can't gain those advantages.

Now the trick of this is adding up all of the monolithic privilege groups you are part of which grant benefits versus the groups you aren't part of which mean those benefits aren't available to you.....and you get a kind of math formula for how privileged you are through no work of your own simply because society is constructed the way it is.

So I'm white, cis-male, tall, native-born in the US, etc...those things have privileges that are baked into them currently that I have access to and/or don't have things to worry about as a result. A black, trans-woman, short, DACA, etc has privileges as a result of those identifiers but in net are considerably less than I would have.

[brewcity77]

I think the biggest problem I see with white privilege is that it causes white people to get defensive, like 69 is in this thread. Does white privilege exist? Absolutely, positively, and without any question. All you have to do is look at income disparity, conviction rates by race, and historic precedents like redlining and other Jim Crow laws that were once on the books and are still extant with or without enforcement.

Do I benefit from white privilege? Yes. Absolutely. It's not my fault, it's not my doing, it's not my creation, but it's something that is part of our society. It's baked in. The question isn't whether it's there, it's how we move forward to a better future where others are able to catch up. Similarly, how do we do the same for women? How do we do the same for the LBGTQ communities? How do we do the same for other races that are not given the same advantages that some of us enjoy often without even realizing it?

Having white privilege isn't a bad thing. Ignoring it, pretending it doesn't exist, or steadfastly refusing to engage the topic, that is a bad thing. That reinforces racist policies and practices in this country that predate even slavery. We've come this far because we as a society have had a willingness to engage these things in the past. But the idea that the existence of legislation is the same as the existence of equality is woefully mistaken.

[Mr. Nielsen]

I love this! Too funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwrOIl7hwQA&t=190s

[warriorchick]

Having white privilege isn't a bad thing. Ignoring it, pretending it doesn't exist, or steadfastly refusing to engage the topic, that is a bad thing. That reinforces racist policies and practices in this country that predate even slavery. We've come this far because we as a society have had a willingness to engage these things in the past. But the idea that the existence of legislation is the same as the existence of equality is woefully mistaken.

I think part of the problem is that the term "white privilege" is often used in a negative context, such as "of course you wouldn't understand, with your [sneer] white privilege and everything", as if being white is something that people choose.

[Galway Eagle]

I love this, some of you are killing me with your lefty talk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwrOIl7hwQA&t=190s

Above is an example of why we can't have good things. We're having a conversation or debate and somebody comes on using some idiotic source as if it's authoritative.

Dreadlocks: this one was taken too far. They're not historical to just African culture

Shampoo: if it doesn't make business sense to carry a African American friendly shampoo due to the clientele I hardly blame hotels for not doing it. That being said they should have that option. Just like airlines have gluten free or vegetarian options.

Her being half black: who the hell are you to decide who or what culture a person is. I have a friend who's a quarter Mexican quarter Native American and half Italian. She embraces her Native American roots and identifies with that side of her heritage. Who the hell are you to say "you don't look that way so you aren't" that's no different than the old 1/8 blood rule from slave and him crow days.

Her voice: if it's not your style don't listen. 90% of country stars got record deals because they fit a look and can sing with a fake southern accent but you don't see lefties railing on them for being phony or whatever.

[Mr. Nielsen]

I thought it was great! Sorry, you don't like it. 

[brewcity77]

I think part of the problem is that the term "white privilege" is often used in a negative context, such as "of course you wouldn't understand, with your [sneer] white privilege and everything", as if being white is something that people choose.

Yup. The marketing of the term has been terrible. Fixing white privilege requires the engagement of white people, and when you try to use the term to talk down to white people or infer that they are either perpetuating racism or deliberately racist, they are going to shut down and the conversation will be over.

We didn't choose to be white any more than anyone chooses to be black, brown, male, female, etc. If you're going to engage someone, you have to be able to reach them where they are with the mindset of where you want them to be. Anyone looking down their nose while saying "white privilege" is trying to engage based on history.

Just like contemporary white people are not personally responsible for slavery, they are not personally responsible for white privilege.

[Pakuni]

I think part of the problem is that the term "white privilege" is often used in a negative context, such as "of course you wouldn't understand, with your [sneer] white privilege and everything", as if being white is something that people choose.

Well, you're both right.
Having benefited my whole life from the privileges my skin color affords me, there are experiences/perspectives I can't understand in the same way a person of color experiences them. That's just a fact, and someone stating so ought not be a negative. If I take it as a negative, that's on me.
That said, of course using "white privilege" synonymously with "racism" is stupid and counterproductive.

[mu03eng]

Yup. The marketing of the term has been terrible. Fixing white privilege requires the engagement of white people, and when you try to use the term to talk down to white people or infer that they are either perpetuating racism or deliberately racist, they are going to shut down and the conversation will be over.

We didn't choose to be white any more than anyone chooses to be black, brown, male, female, etc. If you're going to engage someone, you have to be able to reach them where they are with the mindset of where you want them to be. Anyone looking down their nose while saying "white privilege" is trying to engage based on history.

Just like contemporary white people are not personally responsible for slavery, they are not personally responsible for white privilege.

Full throated agreement here. The one word I keep coming back to as I think about this topic is that all people, cultures, groups, etc need to be.....mindful. Just understand that anything we say or do or look like can have a different context for someone else and we need to be mindful of it. It doesn't mean anyone is bad or evil, just means we need to have awareness and being willing to engage to resolve any issues generated. Using things like white privilege as a spear actually perpetuates the privilege not fighting it.

Like it or not, if we are going to limit/eliminate the various privileges people who benefit from that privilege are going to have to be an ally in that effort and confronting them about it isn't a way to win allies.