Academia, Constitutional Law, Free Speech, Politics, Society

Illinois School Holds Blacks-Only Student Event For “Affinity Grouping”

150px-OPRFHighSchoolLogoNRouseThere 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.”

SIsoyeSuperintendent 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

179 thoughts on “Illinois School Holds Blacks-Only Student Event For “Affinity Grouping””

  2. More leftist crap. There has to be “White Privilege” else the liberals won’t have anything to renounce to make themselves feel good about themselves. Plus, enforcing the black “separateness” meme helps keep the Democratic voting bloc together! I mean, what’s the point of divisiveness if you don’t have some division.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Max-1 – I went to my local Starbucks hoping for a loooooong conversation on race with my barista. I was hoping to hold up the line for at least a half hour. However, my barista did not want to play, she just wanted to hand me my coffee in her lily-white hands.

  9. “TJustice – supposedly Obama taught Constitutional Law, but his actions show that he failed it when he took it and I fear for his students. Obama is a pseudo-intellectual.”

    ******************

    Ok, Paul, here we go again to correct your dead-wrong version of history:

    University of Chicago statement:

    The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.”

    From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

    http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

    1. mespo – There is nothing in you ‘correction’ that shows I was wrong. The man doesn’t know the Constitution exists. Remember, this is the school that hired bomber Bill Ayers, why not hire his buddy Barry Obama?

  11. Mr. Schulte,

    Okay, I get your point.

    What does a genuine intellectual talk about then? And what is off limits?

    Obama is now a politician. He was an intellectual, but it’s difficult to be considered a serious intellectual without writing more content heavy work.

    And of course you have to play politics to get where you are. You think Congress would higher JT or the establishment intellectuals would accept JT if he was not clear about be a Madisonian scholar and giving great deference to the US???

    1. TJustice – I would argue that Obama was never an intellectual which is why he has been hiding his grades. He got on to the Harvard Law Review because he was selected by his fellow students, not by the faculty. The faculty would select the top students, so we know he wasn’t a top student at Harvard Law. We know he spent a certain amount of his time at Columbia doing drugs, so he wasn’t studying. It has been my experience as a teacher that students who are serious students do not do drugs or alcohol.

  12. If I go to this meeting and say “I is black” ….. how you gonna to prove I ain’t black ? whatcha going to do ? use paint chips ? test my knowledge of Ebonics ? See how well i dance or be eating watermelon ? #amygdalaFantasy

  13. Mr. Schulte,

    You really wiling to call Bertrand Russell a ‘pseudo-intellectual’??

    Remember, law is not based on science. Law professors are intellectuals for certain, but they are merely interpreting a social system, nothing science or math related that tells us more about the world around us.

    1. TJustice – supposedly Obama taught Constitutional Law, but his actions show that he failed it when he took it and I fear for his students. Obama is a pseudo-intellectual.

    1. TJustice – anyone who talks about ‘white privilege’ in this day and age is a pseudo-intellectual. And I know some professors who kissed the right butts to get where they are. Bertrand Russell has been dead for at least 45 years.

  15. If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that,

    William Shakespeare

  16. Wow, Ken Rogers! Salient points, well-said thoughts, and references to John Donne along with a quote. It’s everything the blog commentary section used to be.

    Now let’s hear from the knuckledraggers about “angry liberals,” incivility and that Obama is the cause of all the world’s problems.

  17. “Pogo Hears a Who

    “I’m not sure why JT puts white privilege in quotes. It’s a rather well-known reality in academia”

    Because it’s fiction.”

    *********************

    Here’s some verifiable facts, Pogo, to “refine” your off-the-cuff statement:

    “In fall 2011, there were 1.5 million instructional faculty in degree-granting postsecondary institutions—approximately half were full time and half were part time. Faculty include professors, associate professors, assistant professors, instructors, lecturers, assisting professors, adjunct professors, or interim professors (or the equivalent).

    In fall 2011, of those full-time instructional faculty whose race/ethnicity was known, 79 percent were White (44 percent were White males and 35 percent were White females), 6 percent were Black, 4 percent were Hispanic, 9 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander, and less than 1 percent were American Indian/Alaska Native or two or more races. Among full-time professors, 84 percent were White (60 percent were White males and 25 percent were White females), 4 percent were Black, 3 percent were Hispanic, 8 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander, and less than 1 percent were American Indian/Alaska Native. ”

    ~http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61

    USA Population stats:

    “White Americans are the racial majority, with a 77.7% share of the U.S. population, according to the 2013 U.S. Census. Hispanic and Latino Americans amount to 17.1% of the population, making up the largest minority. African Americans are the largest racial minority, amounting to 13.2% of the population.”

    ~Wiki

    1. mespo – if there is ‘white privilege’ what do you call it when Asian students have 50 points deducted from the SAT score? Whites are the only ones whose score is not added to or subtracted from.

  20. Great post, Ken Rogers.

    I’m not sure why JT puts white privilege in quotes. It’s a rather well-known reality in academia… Discussed by many renown scholars. Further, almost anyone can notice white privilege in our country.

    On the issue: Don’t think it’s a wise decision. It’s not principled for open education and it’s discriminatory. Also, I agree that it won’t accomplish much for the students.

    1. TJustice – ‘white-privilege’ is only discussed by ‘pseudo-intellectuals.’

Comments are closed.