For effective race relations discussion just don't invite Whites???

[prisonchaplain]

I get it.  I really do.  Academics are sometimes so good at what they know--so focused, that they miss the optics they might create for us less enlightened ones.  So...a Washington State community college employee organization, purposed to advance the condition of people of color, decides to have a discussion on improving race relations.  Implicit in the email invite is that Whites are not welcome.  On the upside, there must have been pushback, because an apology was issued the next day, and the event was canceled.  On the downside, one of the key players doubled down, saying that the meeting would have allowed for a more honest and productive discussion than could be had "with a lot of people."   

 

http://www.king5.com/story/local/2014/11/26/13402800/

[Dravin]

Well, I can kinda see it as not pointless if it was part 1 of a series, with the inclusion of others coming in the second part. Picture this:

 

Meeting 1a: X people get together and try to hammer out the issues with race relations from their perspective.

Meeting 1b: Y people get together and try to hammer out the issues with race relations from their perspective.

Meeting 2: X + Y people get together and discuss the issues that came out of the previous meetings.

 

Note, I'm not saying that is indeed what was planned, but I can see it as not completely pointless to discuss race relations among yourself first before including others.

[Backroads]

I find Dravin's idea to be a rather good one.

But that wording in the email was plain mean. It could have been worded better? The authors were trying to be jerks.

[prisonchaplain]

If X = people of color and Y = whites, then the day that Y gets together (i.e. without X) is the day the national media lights up with furious rhetoric about white condescension, superiority, arrogance, etc.  The second part of your solution cannot happen in our society. 

 

Well, I can kinda see it as not pointless if it was part 1 of a series, with the inclusion of others coming in the second part. Picture this:

 

Meeting 1a: X people get together and try to hammer out the issues with race relations from their perspective.

Meeting 1b: Y people get together and try to hammer out the issues with race relations from their perspective.

Meeting 2: X + Y people get together and discuss the issues that came out of the previous meetings.

 

Note, I'm not saying that is indeed what was planned, but I can see it as not completely pointless to discuss race relations among yourself first before including others.

[Windseeker]

Hey PC this was also mentioned in this great Op-ed.

 

George F. Will: Thanks, or something

[prisonchaplain]

Windseeker, if you click the link in that article, it will take you right to the link I posted in the OP.  So, congratulations on finding my launching pad source!  

[Captain Awesome]

Yeah, that email was plain old racist.  Not cool.

[paulsifer42]

I took a race and minority relations class in college and my teacher was a white woman who essentially had this mentality: all white people are terrible racists even if they try not to be, and don't deserve a voice in the discussion. In my opinion, it shows that racism floats both ways.

[mordorbund]

The event hasn't been cancelled. It's only postponed until a coatroom can be found of sufficient size to hold the requisite checked privilege.

[EarlJibbs]

Wow is all I can say. If this was a white staff member this would have turned out a lot different. Instead it can quietly apologized for, everyone keeps their jobs, the school is'nt sued for discrimination, the ACLU doesn't get involved, the media doesn't blow it up...  interesting.