There is an interesting controversy at Oak Park and River Forest High School in Oak Park (outside of Chicago) where the school allowed students to hold a black-student only meeting. OPRF held a “Black Lives Matter” assembly on Feb. 27 but barred parents of white students who tried to participate. Principal Nathaniel Rouse (right), the assembly’s organizer, insisted he thought black students would speak more freely among members of their own race as what is known as affinity grouping. It might also be called racial segregation at a public school. What if white students wanted to engage in “affinity grouping” by excluding minority students?
The OPRF school board met to discuss the controversy and heard from dozens of parents, students and teachers who virtually all supported Rouse.
While I understand Rouse’s view that black students needed to discuss recent events among themselves, I disagree with the decision on both legal and pedagogical grounds. I believe it is far more important to have the whole community involved in speaking to such issues. Indeed, many of these parents appeared to want to come to express their solidarity and sympathy.
The controversy is reminiscent of the backlash against the Smith College president for being too inclusive in saying “all lives matter.”
Superintendent Steven Isoye (left) also defended Rouse in saying that “It was clear to me that Mr. Rouse was trying to build a space that was safe space for our black students.”
OPRF English teacher Paul Noble was more forceful:
“Not everything is about us. Not everything needs to have our stamp of approval, much less our participation. Can we just check our white privilege for a minute? I don’t know why a white affinity group is necessary to make a black affinity group palatable.”
I fail to see why the question is one of “white privilege” rather than equal treatment. To call a demand for equal treatment as “privilege” is rather Orwellian. The privilege goes to the group allowed unique or exempt status in a given practice. If the school is saying that students are allowed to base affinity groups on race, I do not see why such groups would be only permitted for African American students. There is a reason why the law imposed color-blind tests that seek to establish neutrality and equality in the treatment of different racial, religious, and other groups.
While I reject the notion of “White privilege” as the reason for objections, there does remain the good-faith view of Rouse that this meeting was to allow a minority group to discuss contemporary issues among themselves. Although I disagree with the decision, I can see why Rouse believed that the highly emotional recent events warranted a special evening for just black students and parents to express shared feelings and viewpoints.
What do you think?
Source: Chicago Tribune
Thats racist lorac
Racism 101.
Racism is not exclusive for one race to another. If equality is the destination, racism is the cause for collision. We will never reach our destination if continue defining each other by the color of our skin.
i’ll wager that everyone above me in the comments is a white male.
While seemingly done with good intentions, it seems divisive to me. There were possibly many white students and parents for whom “Black Lives Matter” as well.
OtB has this exactly right in the first post.
slohrss29
I’m not saying that it is correct. However, the ‘If whites did this’, routine fails to address the fact that Whites aren’t Black and Whites did not endure hundreds of years of slavery, followed by a hundred years of oppression, unable to access the ‘rights’ of all. Perhaps, regardless of whether it makes sense vis a vis theory of justice, there needs to be an interim period. Most of the people who grew up believing that separate was an option are dead or dying. Thirty years ago Americans were being born into a time when affirmative action had help create a professional class where Blacks had a visible profile, laws against racism were being rigorously applied, and the mere thought that the color of one’s skin could mean anything was hard to understand. Yet the residual effects of hundreds of years of oppression linger.
‘If Whites did this?’ Whites don’t need to do this. Perhaps Blacks do. How would a White understand. From what source of history would a White understand. My ancestors were Scottish and Ukranian. Both were oppressed peoples. I have absolutely no idea what it means to be Black. I have no idea what it means to be oppressed. Nothing like that has ever stood in my way. How do you make the jump from White to Black in the understanding department?
issac – you are forgetting about the Irish Catholics who have been repressed and enslaved by the English Protestants for more than a thousand years.
Racism at its best, Who’s the main speaker, Al Sharpton?
Bruce – Al is busy advising Obama but I understand that Jesse is free.
This is simply stupid on the part of the principal since it limits the force of the whole student body and community in our concern for ALL peoples rights.
Yup, what about this does not undermine the law?
If it was a in a home, fine, be disclusionary…and call it ‘affinity’ if you like….be the hypocrite. But in a school ? No whites allowed? No Asians allowed? Mexicans? Canadiennes?
Just a thought, what percentage of blackness was acceptable for admission?
And do I have to wear a hoodie?
I’m sorry, I totally disagree, Issac. It is time to cast of the notion of “differentness.” If whites did this, they would be referred to by only by abbreviation. We better figure out soon that a house divided cannot stand.
the more you know
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm
These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).
According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country’s leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.
The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.
In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4).
In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings (5). In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners (6).
In 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina’s largest Negro slaveowner. In Black Masters. A Free Family of Color in the Old South, authors Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak write a sympathetic account of Ellison’s life. From Ellison’s birth as a slave to his death at 71, the authors attempt to provide justification, based on their own speculation, as to why a former slave would become a magnate slave master.
At birth he was given the name April. A common practice among slaves of the period was to name a child after the day or month of his or her birth. Between 1800 and 1802 April was purchased by a white slave-owner named William Ellison. Apprenticed at 12, he was taught the trades of carpentry, blacksmithing and machining, as well as how to read, write, cipher and do basic bookkeeping.
On June 8, 1816, William Ellison appeared before a magistrate (with five local freeholders as supporting witnesses) to gain permission to free April, now 26 years of age. In 1800 the South Carolina legislature had set out in detail the procedures for manumission. To end the practice of freeing unruly slaves of “bad or depraved” character and those who “from age or infirmity” were incapacitated, the state required that an owner testify under oath to the good character of the slave he sought to free. Also required was evidence of the slave’s “ability to gain a livelihood in an honest way.”
Although lawmakers of the time could not envision the incredibly vast public welfare structures of a later age, these stipulations became law in order to prevent slaveholders from freeing individuals who would become a burden on the general public.
Interestingly, considering today’s accounts of life under slavery, authors Johnson and Roak report instances where free Negroes petitioned to be allowed to become slaves; this because they were unable to support themselves.
OtB:
You summed it up well.
In theory it is not correct. However, this country as with most countries doesn’t always meet the theory. Perhaps there is a lead up to a time when all will matter equally. Blacks do not have the same history, advantages, conditions as whites. This much is true. Read the papers. Perhaps something beneficial will come out of an assembly of blacks who will feel freer to vent, discuss, brainstorm etc without having to concern themselves with what they are supposed to say or not say.
JT and others are always placing the law and the theory first. This is, in the end, the goal, but not always the bottom line.
“Here the only “harm” is to white students who are told no.”
It is not clear to me that is the only harm. There is at least the possibility that members of ethnic groups are being taught that they should not feel comfortable speaking out in mixed groups, and harm to society in accepting segregated activities for students.
There are those still alive who fought for the right for everyone to be involved in community activities. I am not at all convinced that now it the time to give that up.
Students today see race differently than we do. I would rather that all the students met together to solve their problems. To not do that is divisive. You start something on your campus that wasn’t there before. The only people who have ‘white privilege’ are the white administrators who are liberals. They can check it at the door any day.
Bailers,
“They didn’t get dinner at a nice restaurant funded by the taxpayers. It was an assembly.”
If the assembly is held at school property, then the location is paid by tax money and should follow the laws.
This is a poor decision and it is very exclusionary.
Nothing good will come of this.
Lefties divide, balkanize, and foment hatred between groups.
It’s what they do.
It’s who they are.
Look at Ferguson, MO.
Their ginned up “Black lives matter” (based on the “Hands up! Don’t shoot!” lie) was their campaign and it has killed that town.
Housing prices have fallen 47% since then.
People won’t move there and residents are leaving.
Businesses that closed won’t re-open. No new businesses will start.
Put a fork in Ferguson.
Blacks who live there will be “worse off” over time as tax money dries up.
And it’s completely the fault of lefties.
Now they want to do the same thing to a high school in Oak Park Illinois.
Lefties can only give you revolution, never peace.
It’s what they do.
It’s who they are.
Message to white and Asian parents.
it’s open season on your kid.
Take them out ASAP.
Maybe they can make the whites use different drinking fountains so their white privilege doesn’t taint the black affinity.
Actually, I’ll defend this. But there’s a catch – this only works if there could be a white/hispanic/other meeting that excludes black students. I doubt anyone would go for that, but just presume that it’s possible.
If I had to defend this (and keep in mind I’m only on one cup of coffee) we’re talking a combination of freedom of speech, assembly, and association. Why can’t a principle hold a meeting for just black students? Are white students harmed? Is this academic in some way that they’re getting graded for? So the first question I’d ask is where is the harm in this meeting to others? Because in my opinion, that’s the reason we have laws generally preventing discriminatory conduct. It harms others. Not allowing blacks to stay in hotels. Not serving customers at a bakery because they’re gay. Preventing women from voting. All of those have a demonstrable harm. Here the only “harm” is to white students who are told no. Poor babies. Special snowflakes need to melt once in a while or they’re going to be unprepared for real life once they’re out of the safe zones of school
I understand the court cases may go against this. But that doesn’t make it right. The principle held an activity that was specifically geared toward black students. They didn’t get some special trip to Six Flags. They didn’t get dinner at a nice restaurant funded by the taxpayers. It was an assembly. A chance to speak their mind freely (speech) surrounded by only peers with similar traits and background (association). There was no harm toward white kids or hispanic kids by being excluded.
“Can we just check our white privilege for a minute? I don’t know why a white affinity group is necessary to make a black affinity group palatable.””
No, it isn’t necessary. But what’s the harm in having one? Why can’t white kids decide they want to have a group only for white kids? Wouldn’t a better response of the school district to be set up the white, black, etc groups, then bring them together in a moderated setting later?
This is may be well meaning, but it is divisive. What I can never understand is how political “leaders” can’t see that any action that treats minority groups as separate will somehow lead to more inclusion. When minority “leaders” have an “us vs. them” mentality (and that is the message that a program like this sends), they should not be surprised when that leads to less inclusion and more division. Pretty sad, actually.