Ethnic Minorities Deserve Safe Spaces Without White People
Debate Rounds (4)
I would like to keep the same structure, so I will repost my previous rules.
This article is what sparked my interest in this topic: http://www.ryersonian.ca...
1) This is a sensitive issue. As such I have allowed a 3 day response and cooldown period. Hate, racial slurs, and general disrespect will not be tolerated.
2) Do not post video, article, or anything as an argument other than your own response.
3) SOURCE please. Not for every statement, but no bogus statistics.
Round 1) Acceptance. NO arguments.
Round 2) Con then Pro opening statements. Pro may offer a rebuttal.
Round 3) Rebuttals from Con and Pro, as well as a Construction (or re-addressing) of your side.
Round 4) Closing statements
Thank you again for accepting this debate!
I will be referring a-lot to this article, since it was the initial news story that sparked my interest:
And this article (where I got the title) : http://www.huffingtonpost.ca...
1) Racism: hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
-Discrimination based on race is racism:
This may seem silly to say, but a vast majority of people seem to feel differently. I say again: If I am race A and you are race B, and I disallow you to eat, drink, enter, sit, stand, stay in an area, or make any other restriction based on you being race B, that is RACISM.
Argument 1a) There is no scenario in which this is "permissible": There seems to be a growing feeling of "Whites were racist for years, so it is ok for there to be prejudices against them now". Any prejudice or mistreatment based on race is RACISM and is wrong
-Pure logic defies the resolution: "Ethnic Minorities Deserve Safe Spaces Without White People"
"Safe zone" in this scenario is being used in the way of thinking of the original use by the minorities:
"Marginalized groups have a right to claim spaces[safe zones] in the public realm where they can share stories about the discrimination they have faced without judgment and intrusion from anyone else."
So basically, a "Safe zone" is an area where racism is quelled in an attempt to hold a discussion about previous encounters with racism. How then, logically, should the zone then be allowed to turn away whites?? Logically, if a zone is supposed to do something, is marketed to do something, and everyone SAYS it will do something, but then it does the opposite, how is that allowable? Even had the meetings been marketed as "Minority only", that STILL would be wrong, but for a meeting to be held in a public place and two students be asked to leave because of their race is outrageous. This is not something that should be allowed, nor is it something that minorities deserve. There once were "SAFE PLACES" for minorities. It was called the back of the bus, and you know what we CHANGED that because it was WRONG. People fought against slavery and segregation. Whites AND blacks. They fought it because it was wrong, and to allow or suggest minorities re-create the very thing that was fought against is wrong. Its childish. If you're meeting to promote understanding and acceptance, but you do EXACTLY what you're fighting against, then your "safe zone" has become a pitty party, and is accomplishing nothing for society. Which brings me to my next point.
-What we are really debating here is "Is it right for minorities to be openly racist?":
RSC(Racialized Students’ Collective) claims to “oppose(s) all forms of racism and work towards community wellness for students,” that they focus on “building an anti-racist network” and “fostering an anti-racist environment through campus-wide services, campaigns and events.”
See they SAY that, but when the opportunity presents itself, what happens, Racism. Turning someone away because thy are white and aren't "racialized"...Even if we are GOING with the logic that whites aren't racialized in society, by turning them away "for not being racialized", that racializing them!
The debate is bigger than this one fixed issue, but it is important to note a few key facts about this case:
1) This was advertised as a public meeting
2) Held in a public place
3) Was marketed as a racism free zone
To sway my opponent from following the rabbit trail of the lawyers coming out saying the students "had the right to ask them to leave". This isn't about the rights of the press at public meetings. The issue at hand here, is that two students were turned away from a public meeting because they "aren't racialized"..
That's like telling someone they cant attend the "Cowboy hats only" convention and the giving them a cowboy hat! The mere act of assuming something about a person because of their skin and denying them entrance IS racializing and is racism.
-Allowing these sorts of meeting promotes racism, and is only prolonging the struggle our world faces:
We live in a racist world, and a racist country. Racist jokes are funny, peoples parents grain it in them, and it never stops. The only way FOR it to stop is for YOU to stop it, And attending a meeting like this, setting up a meeting like this, or condoning a meeting like this (such as a University or organization) is making racism a standard. Imagine if I walked into a restaurant and asked to rent the business seating area for a company meeting, and told the manager only whites would be allowed to attend, and asked a waitress to keep an non-whites out. That would be outrageous, and most likely would be denied. But when Universities and campuses allow these meetings, they are allowing RACISM! Now, had the meeting taken place as advertised, great. But, when the game changed and racism started occurring, that is where ANYONE'S rights end.
"When asked about Hewitt and Knope’s incident, RSU coordinator Vajdaan Tanveer confirmed they couldn’t attend the meeting because they were white."
-Racism is racism, regardless of what race is receiving it, and is wrong all the times, in every scenario.
-Minorities sectioning themselves away from whites is counter productive and is wrong
-There is a flaw in the logic of the resolution, because allowing racism is wrong and no-one deserves the right to be racist
-Allowing these meetings to turn away whites is being counter productive to the "race less" and racism free world we are trying to create
I would like to thank my opponent again for this debate, and look forward to hearing their views and to the next round! May th debate begin!
I agree with my opponent when he says that "discrimination based on race is racism." But unfortunately, if we did what my opponent said, we would inadvertently be discriminating. Lets say that race A discriminates against race B for about 300 years. Slowly, race relations increase, but there is still a gap in wealth concentration. Some people say that we should give race B a bump in the college admission process. But then the PCP (politically correct police) come and shut it down because its "reverse discrimination." Let me ask you a question. Wouldn't we be inadvertently discriminated because we allowed race A 300 years of discrimination but shut race B discrimination the second it was going to undo the damage? The point of this argument is not argue affirmative action or any policies like it but to show the dangers of being politically correct. I will add to this argument in my next counter argument.
First of, the point of the safe zone meetings was not to "add to society." They were not trying to end racism. The simple point of the meeting was to share experiences where minorities encountered racism. In your words, it was a "pity party." The safe zone is not for us, the general public. It is for the minorities who have encountered racism. The problem with this country and my opponents argument is political correctness. BootsWithDefer is so worried about being politically correct, he misses the point of the safe zones. It is just for discussion. The fact is there is white privilege in this country. Even Fox news anchor Megyn Kelly agrees with that. Caucasians, in the United States and on balance, don"t face the same challenges that other ethnic minorities face, on balance. Let me ask you a question. Can a nonalcoholic join an AA meeting? No. Isn't this the same situation as the safe zone except with alcoholics instead of discrimination? Yes. Why is there such criticism against the safe zone? Race attracts the PCP.
I agree with my opponent when he says that the is a racist world. It is only natural. Our brains are wired to categorized. We do it with everything. Foods, animals, and even humans. But my opponent is suggesting to eradicate racism by giving everybody the politically correct mindset. This is not how we will solve racism. racism is based on stereotypes. Different races have different stereotypes. To solve racism, we must strive to make the stereotypes of each race the same. There must be educated African Americans and uneducated African Americans as with Caucasians. There must be Asians that are good at math and also Hispanics that are good at math. This can be achieved through education and other programs. But it will take time. It will be hard. But this is the only way to eradicate racism.
When we place discrimination into this focus, the pursuit of unraveling the potential of each race, a the importance of simple safe zone meeting becomes so small. This meeting is not going to start a civil war with Caucasians on one side and minorities on another. It is simply a meeting. It may be contradictory to the RCU"s stated mission. But is this such big a deal? At the end of the day we should treat it like an AA meeting, just a way to health scars from past discrimination.
I wish my opponent had followed my wishes for presenting a case in their previous argument and not merely a pure offensive approach, as this only offers me one chance to rebut my opponents case. Since this is irreversible, I will continue, but I would appreciate everyone noticing this as poor conduct on my opponents part
To address my opponents various views on my case seems arbitrary, since they all boil down to "political correctness", an ambiguous term in its nature and one not defined by my opponent. Nevertheless I will reaffirm my contentions one at a time insight of my opponents counter arguments.
My opponents argument is confusing to me. The mentality seems to be summed up by "two wrongs make a right"
If I were to ask my opponent "IS racism wrong" the answer would most certainly be yes
So this in and of itself counters the entire argument against my first point, but I will continue.
I will use my opponents own statements to dismantle their argument.
"I agree with my opponent when he says that "discrimination based on race is racism"
"Let me ask you a question. Wouldn't we be inadvertently discriminated because we allowed race A 300 years of discrimination but shut race B discrimination the second it was going to undo the damage?"
If the DAMAGE that was caused in the first place was caused BY RACISM, then how is allowing MORE racism going to fix anything??
My opponent accepts my definition of racism, but doesn't seem to think its wrong! Correction: my opponent only thinks racism is acceptable if it is the right kind of racism. Only problem is, racism is RACISM! It is NOT acceptable! It is NOT tolerable! That's why slavery and segregation were ENDED!
LINK: Racialised Students Collective Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
The organization that put on the event says:
Our Mission: To create and anti-racist climate on campus that will foster a healthy and rich working and learning environment for ALL.
Our Focus: To provide a safe space for students who have been discriminated against and/or students who are committed to anti-racist action.
Building an anti-racist network
Fostering an anti-racist environment through campus-wide services, campaigns and events
Addressing concerns and challenging systemic institutional and overt racism at Ryerson.
Contributing to Ryerson Students' Union and the Continuing Education Students' Association of Ryerson (CESAR) programs and actions to address racism on campus.
NOWHERE in their mission statement is the word "Minority" used
My opponent seems to think otherwise
"The safe zone is not for us, the general public." -Not according to their mission statement
"It is for the minorities who have encountered racism." -Not according to their mission statement
My opponent has feelings about THEIR safe zone ideas, but the organizations page and mission statement have a VERY different story.
My opponent further argues about "political correctness"...
From Merriam Webster's: "agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people"(http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Dictionary.com: "marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving especially ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or ecology."(http://dictionary.reference.com...)
I wont put the UrbanDictionary definition though I am tempted to.
My problem here is that this is such a cop-out. All my opponent did to argue against me is say that Im part of the "politically correct police"...No, I believe I stand with the majority of the world saying RACISM IS WRONG.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" I LOVE this statement from the Declaration of Independence, and it is so true.
My opponent then moves on to various contentions
1) I don't watch Fox new. I find it biased and do not agree with lots that I have heard, and I definitely never heard Megyn Kelly say that.
2) Actually, at AA there are closed and opened meetings, and at opened meetings ANYONE may attend, and in any case a family member may attend to help a new member, so the metaphor, as poor a comparison as it is, hold no water. Ignoring that, it isn't even the same situation it non-alcoholics COULDNT attend meetings, because AA is advertised as Alcoholics Anonymous. The safe zones were sponsored by an organization that defined NO boundaries on who could attend.
This counter argument was a complete side-step of everything my argument offered.
Race stereotypes are not the cause of racism, the cause is thinking like my opponent is! That racism is "OK" as long as its blacks being racist to whites. If racism is wrong in one scenario, then it is ALWAYS wrong
Regarding my opponents conclusion argument:
Of course the safe zone meetings aren't going to start a Civil War. On a SIDE NOTE: (the civil war was fought because the South Seceded from the Union, and the North did not want to lose control of the Mississippi river. Abraham Lincoln himself is quoted saying
"“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. … And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”" (http://afrospear.com...)
TL;DR Abraham Lincoln was racist as well, so the entire civil war reference amused me, because both sides were racism when you research it)
And my opponent actually says here that it contradicts their mission statement. YA THINK???! Yes it IS a big deal, because the way THEY advertised it was anyone is welcome. Yeah, its a HUGE deal. And if the meetings are supposed to be "healthing"(think you meant healing) from past discrimination by re-creating a racist environments, then it really IS a pitty party and not accomplishing anything that the organization stands for.
I look forward to my opponents case, and sincerely hope they plan to offer one as that was how I outlined this debate.
dkyana forfeited this round.
I will not re-clarify my case as I feel my previous argument provides clarification enough
dkyana forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.