Can I Get An Irony Ruling Here? Racialized Students Only!

[Boges]

It seems I have a poor understanding of the true definition of irony. I think I've found a perfect example

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/16/two-students-barred-from-meeting-at-ryerson-university-because-they-were-not-racialised/

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.

So wouldn't the correct answer to the question of "have you been marginalized or racialized?" be yes, I'm being racialized now.

I'm not going to go and call this reverse racism or anything. But I will say that these students completely miss the point when they start barring students that aren't of a visual minority.

White people can experience bigotry just like anyone else. Even some racism in certain situations. But if a white student wants to show support for a cause why should their skin colour matter?

I'm unsure if this is a debatable issue, does anyone want to try and defend what these Ryerson students did?

Edited March 18, 2015 by Boges

[Bryan]

I wouldn't defend the actions, but I think I have a probable explanation: It's a student group. Immature people do immature things. They probably don't even see the hypocrisy.

[Big Guy]

Yes, I will defend them. They are young, they are idealistic, they think what they did was correct. They misinterpreted the kind of meeting - it was not "for only selected groups" like many other meetings but was publicized as a "public meeting". They were wrong. I hope they learn something from this experience.

The only reason I have commented here is because I graduated from Ryerson Institute of Technology in 1960's and I am glad to see that it is still open.

My experience is that to read anything from what an undergraduate does or says has little to do with reality.

Look at some of the posts on this board.

[The_Squid]

If there is a women's group that discusses being a rape victim, should they have to allow men?

If there is a men's group that discusses children's custody issues with respect to fathers, should they have to allow women?

Edited March 18, 2015 by The_Squid

[Bryan]

If there is a women's group that discusses being a rape victim, should they have to allow men?

If there is a men's group that discusses children's custody issues with respect to fathers, should they have to allow women?

You're engaging in the the same illogical line of thinking as the students' group.

[The_Squid]

You're engaging in the the same illogical line of thinking as the students' group.

You're working on a complete lack of logic and common sense.

[Boges]

If there is a women's group that discusses being a rape victim, should they have to allow men?

If there is a men's group that discusses children's custody issues with respect to fathers, should they have to allow women?

Those are examples of gender issues. We see enough problems with that and people who don't identify with the gender of their birth.

But in this instance they are excluding all people of a single racial group. Who's to say the racism these students were subjected to came from whites?

Edited March 18, 2015 by Boges

[TimG]

Who's to say the racism these students were subjected to came from whites?

Because in "social justice" bizarro world only whites can be racist, therefore, all "racism" must have come from whites. Looking for a rational basis to "social justice" cult is like looking for a rational basis for "young earth creationism". Both groups are simply following the tenets of their religion as they understand them and are best left alone as long as they leave other people alone. Edited March 18, 2015 by TimG

[Bryan]

You're working on a complete lack of logic and common sense.

Irony, the gift that keeps on giving.

[WestCoastRunner]

What was left out of the op was this:

"The Wednesday event, held in a small meeting room at the Ryerson Student’s Centre, was advertised as “a space to voice concerns and barriers affecting students of colour.”

The meeting is designed to provide a 'safe place' for non-whites to discuss the racism they experience that are most likely not experienced by whites.

I don't have a problem with this meeting. What exactly is the problem of not allowing these two white folks to attend. Seriously, do they experience racism because of their white skin? How on earth would they relate to the participants of this meeting.

It is a 'safe meeting', the same term that is applied to victims of rape, violence etc.

[The_Squid]

Irony, the gift that keeps on giving.

Stupid is as stupid does....

[BC_chick]

It seems I have a poor understanding of the true definition of irony. I think I've found a perfect example

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/16/two-students-barred-from-meeting-at-ryerson-university-because-they-were-not-racialised/

So wouldn't the correct answer to the question of "have you been marginalized or racialized?" be yes, I'm being racialized now.

I'm not going to go and call this reverse racism or anything. But I will say that these students completely miss the point when they start barring students that aren't of a visual minority.

White people can experience bigotry just like anyone else. Even some racism in certain situations. But if a white student wants to show support for a cause why should their skin colour matter?

I'm unsure if this is a debatable issue, does anyone want to try and defend what these Ryerson students did?

Oh I'm sure they'll be scarred for life. Maybe they can start their own group and discuss how much it sucks to be excluded from a group that identifies as a safe place for the racialized.

Oh wait, that'll never happen because they will never know what it feels like to be excluded from things that actually matter. Like getting that job interview when your resume says Jamal. Or the landlord who suddenly rented that suite when you show up.

six months down the road this will be a faint memory to them. Hence why they could never truly belong in such a group.

[Bryan]

What was left out of the op was this:

"The Wednesday event, held in a small meeting room at the Ryerson Student’s Centre, was advertised as “a space to voice concerns and barriers affecting students of colour.”

The meeting is designed to provide a 'safe place' for non-whites to discuss the racism they experience that are most likely not experienced by whites.

I don't have a problem with this meeting. What exactly is the problem of not allowing these two white folks to attend. Seriously, do they experience racism because of their white skin? How on earth would they relate to the participants of this meeting.

It is a 'safe meeting', the same term that is applied to victims of rape, violence etc.

Exactly, the group which purports to support victims of racism openly admits that they themselves are a bunch of racists.

[Boges]

To assume that whites being present at the meeting is "unsafe" is pretty startling. Are people being lynched in modern day Canada?

[Bob Macadoo]

To assume that whites being present at the meeting is "unsafe" is pretty startling. Are people being lynched in modern day Canada?

They weren't barred b/c they were white. You clearly said they were barred b/c they said they hadn't felt discriminated against. All they had to say was they had felt that way. Pretty clear. Score one for perceived irony over reverse racism.

[guyser]

If there is a women's group that discusses being a rape victim, should they have to allow men?

If there is a men's group that discusses children's custody issues with respect to fathers, should they have to allow women?

Yes and yes. (perhaps not 'Have to" but should) Edited March 18, 2015 by Guyser2

[Ash74]

Could they not now go to the next meeting because they have proven that they have been racialized?

Edited March 20, 2015 by Ash74

[WestCoastRunner]

lets get real here. There were 2 white 'journalist students' looking for a story. There is nothing here. Move on. It's a silly debate

Edited March 19, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

[Bob Macadoo]

Could they not now go to the next meeting because they have proven that they have been radicalized?

Was that freudian or what?

[Michael Hardner]

Yes and yes. (perhaps not 'Have to" but should)

That's just ridiculous. The Scottish Heritage society shouldn't have to let Japanese people in. How far do you expect these things to go ?

With these kinds of responses, no wonder white males are always on top... they never give an inch....

[Boges]

That's just ridiculous. The Scottish Heritage society shouldn't have to let Japanese people in. How far do you expect these things to go ?

With these kinds of responses, no wonder white males are always on top... they never give an inch....

I dunno. Knowadays women's change rooms can't even be for just women anymore.

What if some white people wanted to get a better understanding of racism. I'm always told, as a whitey, I could never understand how oppressed minorities are even in wonderful Canada. Well perhaps I want to educate myself.

[Michael Hardner]

What if some white people wanted to get a better understanding of racism. I'm always told, as a whitey, I could never understand how oppressed minorities are even in wonderful Canada. Well perhaps I want to educate myself.

So start a group then. I think that sounds like a noble gesture. What isn't noble is for people to apply a geometric interpretation of equality, even to the point where they disallow initiatives to address real inequality.

There are instances where segregation can help groups discuss common problems and work together for betterment.

[guyser]

That's just ridiculous.

No whats ridiculous is suggesting it is using 'have to' when in fact my post said shouldnt 'have to'

The Scottish Heritage society shouldn't have to let Japanese people in. How far do you expect these things to go ?

Well I certainly wouldnt use a minor sub set group and breka it down in some vain atempt to prove ridiculousness.

Whats ridiculous is trying to.

In case its lost, there are humans on earth, males and females.

With these kinds of responses, no wonder white males are always on top... they never give an inch....

Ya know, you could have just asked why without the idiotic assertion.

The reason is simple,in the case of a rape discussion, it is primarily men who do so. So a man going to a mtg of rape victims could see first hand the damage done , could see first hand the impact of another males behaviour. Considering there exists some men who who are quite willing to suggest that women suck it up and others who quietly agree, perhaps viewing the resultant damage would produce better results. Add to that the power most men have, politically, police wise,a nd so on , it may get better results in the long term for them to be there.

I am aware of only two women who have been raped. One was a date rape drug and she has no recollection of what happened. The other was done to her while she was under the effects of alcohol. They both are tight lipped about ever talking about (for obvious reasons) but in both cases I am left wondering what the real impact is to them.

I think I know, I think I can see lingering effects , self esteem and the like, choices they have subsequently made, but I dont really know

In both cases, no charges, one due to time and evidence gone, the other was the Crown said there was doubt since she was drunk , bruises and other visible evidence nothwithstanding.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Guyser2

[Boges]

The reason is simple,in the case of a rape discussion, it is primarily men who do so. So a man going to a mtg of rape victims could see first hand the damage done , could see first hand the impact of another males behaviour. Considering there exists some men who who are quite willing to suggest that women suck it up and others who quietly agree, perhaps viewing the resultant damage would produce better results. Add to that the power most men have, politically, police wise,a nd so on , it may get better results in the long term for them to be there.

This is what I'm thinking. White Men are always told how awful they are. It could be instructive to see some real world examples.

Private groups like this don't really change anything. It's literally analogous to a the cliche "preaching to the choir"

Edited March 19, 2015 by Boges

[guyser]

This is what I'm thinking. White Men are always told how awful they are. It could be instructive to see some real world examples.

Private groups like this don't really change anything. It's literally analogous to a the cliche "preaching to the choir"

Bingo !

But not if they are Scottish.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Guyser2