A response to ‘People of Colour Lunch’ by Jackson Willows

18/9/2018

Week 9, Semester 2

By Ying Wong, Heli Yoon, Caity Setter, Ellie Ryan, Alana Ticchi, Lizz Kuiper, Jessica Flatters

This piece is a response to an article published by Jackson Willows in last week’s edition of De Minimis that challenged the utility and purpose of autonomous spaces in the Law School. Amidst the live debate, a few matters of importance must be confronted.

The practical function of a ‘People of Colour’ lunch

Firstly, the article never addresses in depth what the practical function of a lunch would be, beyond an assertion that “they think they are correcting historical wrongs”.

Every day, students of colour navigate a space that is overwhelmingly white - MLS. In fact, society at large reflects this whiteness. Think about the High Court bench, the eminent authors of our prescribed readings, and the composition of the faculty. Navigating this space can be exhausting at times; a slow, unrewarding, and seemingly endless trudge on the treadmill that is making others comfortable with our race. For people who feel this way, events like the People of Colour lunch create a space where our physical and cultural differences are accepted, and not thought of as the foremost defining feature of our identity.

The article appears to take issue with the idea that an event should not be drawing a line on the very basis that POC are discriminated against. Sure, but rather than tackling any lofty goals of “correcting historical wrongs,” we would like to make clear that the lunch was simply an opportunity to congregate without having to be concerned about race, and to just eat some goddamn pizza.

The “white/non-white” binary and the purpose of the lunch

We acknowledge the argument that the use of the term “people of colour” bears an element that might, as was (kind of) pointed out in Jackson’s article, create an us-and-them dynamic; an “othering” that has the potential to be polarising. It may also be a term that casts a blanket over the multifaceted experiences of the different permutations of not-whiteness, and assumes that “colour” is what defines “culture” and life experience.

Whatever the issue may be with the idea of a “white/non-white binary”, as canvassed by the article and subsequent comments, this cannot mean that a space should not be made for people who have collectively decided that they share a common interest in a common issue.

It is undeniable that people who have experienced racism, or come from a migrant or non-English speaking background, have needs that differ from those of the general cohort. The ES&J LSS portfolio is vital to addressing such needs, as are the Queer and Women’s portfolios in addressing the needs of students who identify as Queer, or as women. And, if you’re not comfortable with identity politics, the Later Law Students’ Network is another fine example of a student society built on the premise of addressing the needs of a particular section of the cohort who have experiences not faced by the rest.

Is the POC lunch really exclusionary? - Caitlin Setter

If you saw me walking through the law school, you’d probably be surprised to know that I am Chinese. Due to my mixed Hungarian background, the predominantly white features of my physical makeup grant me a certain type of privilege. I don’t bear the same burdens imposed upon a lot of Asian-Australians, and I can’t claim to understand their experiences of subtle and structural racism. I don’t speak the language, as my mother was vehemently discouraged from learning Cantonese growing up while the White Australia Policy was in force, and I won’t pretend that I am immersed in the Chinese culture.

It is for these reasons that I didn’t feel like the person of colour lunch spoke to me, or was an event that I needed to attend. And that’s okay. The key to these events is that, rather than being exclusionary, attendance is and ought to be self-nominated.

It would be a stretch to assert, as alluded to by Jackson, that the lunch sought overtly to “exclude” white people. Let’s think of it as seeking to include anyone who, for any variety of reasons, and despite their physical appearance, feels that it speaks to their needs and experiences.

The usefulness of white historical guilt

“You are not guilty of anything committed by someone else in history merely because you share a race. Neither am I. Neither is anybody. Race-based guilt is morally regressive to the core and should be expunged from society.”

Obviously. Many scholars have written about the stifling effect of guilt on any real change in our society. But no-one is suggesting that you, or that all white people, should be feeling guilty for the actions of their ancestors in order to effect change.

The rejection of the existence of “reverse racism” isn’t premised on guilt-treatment. Rather, it is imperative that we all - and white people especially - recognise that the systems we operate under now were built on the back of those historic, colonial injustices, and that this continues to inform who benefits from that system today. It is only once you acknowledge this fact that you become capable of contemplating solutions.

What next?

Being well-educated makes it harder to immediately understand what it’s like to go through life without a good education; being someone in good health makes it harder to immediately understand what it’s like to go through life in ill health. Obviously, it’s harder to understand experiences of the world that you haven’t had yourself, because life is, necessarily, subjective.

If there was one positive that came out of this whole shebang, it’s that the comments section opened up a forum for those with valid critiques of the lunch itself, particularly of the invitation process, to come forward and express those views. People on the wide spectrum of colours - and these are the voices that are important to hear - provided constructive criticisms. No doubt, these suggestions will help the ES&J portfolio identify what they can actively do to promote a less-divisive, more inclusive support network to promote equity.

We would encourage anyone who sympathised with the views expressed in Jackson’s article to listen to (like, really listen to) the experiences of people of colour who think that the lunch is important. This is not to say that all people of colour think it is important, but listen to those who do. If you’re genuine about reaching a point where our experiences of life are not shaped by race, then we would posit that listening to people who don’t experience the world that way is probably the best place to start.

If you do not identify as a person of colour and the past week’s discussion has created discomfort for you, we urge you to seize the opportunity to ask yourself why.

Let’s make the 21st century a more empathetic place.

Dbs

18/9/2018 08:41:58 pm

Fantastic article!

Name (Required)

18/9/2018 08:50:55 pm

"Every day, students of colour navigate a space that is overwhelmingly white - MLS. In fact, society at large reflects this whiteness. Think about the High Court bench, the eminent authors of our prescribed readings, and the composition of the faculty. Navigating this space can be exhausting at times; a slow, unrewarding, and seemingly endless trudge on the treadmill that is making others comfortable with our race. For people who feel this way, events like the People of Colour lunch create a space where our physical and cultural differences are accepted, and not thought of as the foremost defining feature of our identity."

Don't you think this is a tad problematic? Is there something especially awful about being in a space that is overwhelmingly white? Do you dislike white people? Why do you seem to have a problem with the race of the members of the High Court, the authors of the text, or the faculty? Why is it a 'slow, unrewarding endless trudge on the treadmill' to be surrounded by white people?

Perhaps it would be equally fair to describe a walk through Melbourne's CBD, whose resident population is about 70% Asian, as a 'slow unrewarding endless trudge' for anyone who is not themselves Asian? Perhaps I, a non Chinese person, could go to China and complain about how many Chinese people there are in China, how there should be more white people in the government, on the judiciary, and so on.

You know what I think the answer is? I think deep down what many of you really want is to yourselves be in the position of supremacy and majority, you want the experience and feeling of your identity as being the norm and would prefer that to be the reality you live in, so you create spaces that simulate that experience on a small and fleeting scale. You just feel more comofortable around 'your own kind', being constantly surrounded by people who are not of your kind is just a drain, because, well, maybe you just don't like them very much.

Look into your soul and tell me that you truly experience racist oppression and discrimination at Melbourne Law School, and then tell me if what you are seeking is refuge from that oppression or discrimination, or what you are seeking is something a bit more questionable.

Brother in arms

18/9/2018 09:04:24 pm

Grab the tikki torches, we have a march to go to Brother.

You Sure About This?

19/9/2018 07:46:49 pm

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tiki%20Torch

You okay sweetie?

18/9/2018 09:16:06 pm

'Perhaps it would be equally fair to describe a walk through Melbourne's CBD, whose resident population is about 70% Asian, as a 'slow unrewarding endless trudge' for anyone who is not themselves Asian?'

Seems like someone has a lil problem with Asian people, don't they?

Boris

18/9/2018 10:57:15 pm

This is called a mischaracterization of an argument.

Siane Richardson

18/9/2018 09:21:27 pm

Wow, there is so much wrong with this I do not know where to begin.

Firstly, if you must say something so hurtful at least have the guts to put your name to it. Particularly, because in this instance people of colour must exist in the law school and cannot hide their identities behind a keyboard.

Secondly, if we pretend your premise about China and its leadership makes any sense, the membership of the HCA and our government should be completely Indigenous. But I imagine you would dislike this as well.

Australia is a multicultural society and all positions of leadership should reflect this diversity.

Thirdly, I am a white person and I find the whiteness of MLS often a slow unrewarding endless trudge. And it just got a lot slower knowing that these opinions exist among the people of MLS.

prefacing an argument with incredulity makes it more inherently convincing

18/9/2018 10:06:31 pm

"Australia is a multicultural society and all positions of leadership should reflect this diversity."

Why? Why do you care about the race of the members of Australia's leadership? Can someone of race X not represent someone of Race Y? Can only an Asian person represent an Asian person? Can an Asian person represent a black person or not? Can a white person represent anyone other than a white person? Could barack Obama represent White America as their commander in chief, or not because he wasn't white? Can a Christian represent a Muslim or vice versa, and can either of them represent a Jew?

Its hilarious but also deeply worrying that our so-called progressives are completely clueless about how truly reactionary and backward their views about race, identity and representation, are, and that in principle they are effectively marching lockstep with the same racists and bigots they apparently despise.

How reductive

18/9/2018 10:11:20 pm

I feel like I'm commenting rather than marching lockstep with racists and bigots I despise

Can X represent Y?

19/9/2018 07:57:56 am

"Can someone of race X not represent someone of Race Y?"

It sounds like you've misconstrued the argument. I think the point is that, if you take a cross-section of Australian society and transplant that into parliament, for example, it will be significantly more racially, culturally, religiously and sexually diverse than it currently stands.

And secondly, as an immigrant -- no, not everyone can represent my interests because they are uniquely coloured (oh fuck! I used the bad 'C' word!) by my experiences and cultural smorgasbord. You asked the question, I'm just answering as living, breathing primary source.

19/9/2018 08:37:51 am

“And secondly, as an immigrant -- no, not everyone can represent my interests because they are uniquely coloured (oh fuck! I used the bad 'C' word!) by my experiences and cultural smorgasbord.”

At least someone was brave enough to let the mask slip. You’re essentially confirming what I’m saying, you’re basically just another chauvinist sectarian, so the question is why should the rest of us indulge those impulses.

The follow up question that nobody wants to hear the answer to is that if identity politics is good enough for people of A B C X Y Z, then is it also good enough for white people? It’s the only logical endpoint this road leads to.

CHAUVINIST SECTARIAN

19/9/2018 08:51:41 am

"why should the rest of US [emphasis added] indulge those impulses"

Thanks for confirming what I'm saying as well. By US you mean the 15 million people born in Australia and the 9 million born overseas obviously, not just White Australia right?

19/9/2018 08:59:57 am

Of course. Is there something about the phrase ‘the rest of us’ that indicates it is limited to a particular sectarian group?

chauvinist sectarian

19/9/2018 09:08:02 am

Not necessarily! I just didn't want to imply anything in what you said -- clarification is all. I'm interested in talking about this (heckles and hackles down) in person because I see the points you make but don't fully understand them (and would like to). Coffee?

History happened

18/9/2018 09:23:36 pm

The real issue with your argument, as with Jackson's, is that it is completely detached from any kind of historical context.

White people violently colonised the world, including China. The fact that this country is majority white is a direct result of genocide. White people founded this Federation on racist policies that continued for the majority of its existence. And yes, white people are racist to this day, including at MLS. To think that isn't true is to be wilfully ignorant of your own actions, those of your white classmates and the pleas of non-white students.

It's astounding that so many people cannot let them have just one damn lunch without being so offended.

Oppression Calculator

18/9/2018 09:35:44 pm

Again, social justice morons think they are smart enough to place all of humanity's rights and wrongs against each other for thousands of years into a neat oppression pyramid they can fit onto their sociology lecture slides whereby those above may be guilty of racism and those below may never be.

Unfortunately their powerpoint slide is not large enough to explain whether the people of the Balkans may be racist towards the Turks who opressed them for 600 years, whether the Spanish reconquisita was racist against north Africans who similarly opressed them for about 1000 years, whether Russians may be racist to Mongolians for genociding their civilization that one time, whether the Chinese may be racist against the Japanese or whether the Japanese may be racist against the Chinese, and so on.

James Hogan

18/9/2018 09:43:16 pm

If you're dissatisfied with the slides, you could always try reading a book.

18/9/2018 10:01:16 pm

It's actually pretty simple. I can give you a lesson if you like. Often it's just a case of putting a bit of nuance into the conversation. Nuance and context, I know, are hard.

1. I'm gonna need more info about what specific conduct you're saying might be racist between a Balkan and Turkish person. They're diverse regions. Once again, context is important.
2. Yes, Spain was (and is) incredibly racist towards North Africans, and wholesale massacred many of them in futile independence wars. The invasion of Spain was so long ago and its effects are so depleted today that it is no longer relevant, sorry. Nuance.
3. Russians can be and are racist to Mongolians. You're going to have to be more specific than "that one time" to convince me otherwise (13th Century perhaps? If so, see point 2). But Stalin was important. Not to mention the interplay of European versus Asian sides of Russia (which of course is an arbitrary distinction but society is so often arbitrary). Nuance and context.
4. China and Japan have an incredibly complex history and it's very dependent on the specific situation and the power structures sitting behind it. Context. Nuance.

I'm not an expert in any of those historical situations, but I think a basic understanding of these concepts can get you a fair way. It's not hard to be a decent person, but a lot of people struggle.

Regardless, none of it is relevant and you're just derailing the so-called debate.

Be Careful

19/9/2018 05:04:37 am

@JAMES HOGAN

Not all books are created equal.

:)

False equivalences

18/9/2018 09:31:28 pm

You seemed to neglect a key component in your misapplication of the quote to Asian people.

The article clearly stated that the metaphorical 'trudge on the treadmill' was **making other people comfortable with their race**.

Look Morty, I turned myself into an anachronism

18/9/2018 10:23:52 pm

Is there actually a serious claim that white people at MLS are not comfortable with non white people at the law school and need the efforts of people of colour to make them feel comfortable? As in, in a country as diverse as Australia, in a city as diverse as Melbourne, and at a university as diverse as the University of Melbourne, a university with about 35% international students?

I mean, were we thrown through time and space into the Jim Crow deep south or something when I wasn't paying attention?

You have not been paying attention.

18/9/2018 10:31:23 pm

Yes; Yes; We never left a racist society.

Regardless, you're centring your experience (as per usual I assume) with white people being uncomfortable. The majority of white people are making a number of non-white people uncomfortable. That's the issue here.

Educate yourself.

CURIOUS

18/9/2018 11:33:08 pm

You have not been paying attention;
Could you expand on what the 'white people' are doing to make the other students at MLS uncomfortable?

You have not been paying attention

19/9/2018 12:01:10 am

Curious - Gladly!

First off I want to make a disclaimer that I am white - I simply cannot represent the views and experiences of non-white people accurately and this should be kept in mind. Additionally, I don't think this will be the experience of every non-white person in the building. Nonetheless, I perceive a number of ways I believe white students could make non-white people uncomfortable.

1. Consistently mispronouncing people's names
2. Consistently asking where people are from, or about their family, or whatever thinly veiled attempt to find out what their non-white heritage is. Some people might say "But how will this make people uncomfortable?" It is because these people are then othered - they are reminded every single day that they do not belong, that other people are thinking about their skin colour and their culture all the time and the simple fact that they are not white.
3. The failure of the student body to appropriately address issues that we face every day in the legal world - the 'African gangs' phallacy, the imprisonment of refugees being reduced to legal technicalities, the entire historical basis of the Constitution we study being 'White Australia' and black genocide. These issues directly affect students amongst us, they are not hypotheticals and us white people do not do enough to challenge the status quo.
4. The lack of faculty/senior members of the legal profession/judiciary who look like them, and the lack of challenge to this from white students. They know they will stick out like a sore thumb wherever they go in the legal world, and the fact that so many white people perceive them as 'other' could very well hinder their career.
5. Articles and debates like that begun by Jackson. For white people these conceptual debates can be purely intellectual discussion. Personally, I have the privilege of just getting angry at it. But I have had too many distraught discussions with friends over the last week about how this debate has made them feel less-than, has made them feel like they don't belong and has even made them question their own identity.

I think it can be hard for white people to empathise with this situation, but this kind of daily behaviour wears people down. I hope that my brief overview has given you more curiosity to research this more, and question how this place is! There's so much more than this

Samuel Johnson

19/9/2018 06:27:01 am

@YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION

Phallacy (noun): Something that looks like the male pudendum. Alternatives include 'phallus-y', 'phallasy', 'priapus-like', and (rarely) fallacy.

See Also

19/9/2018 07:16:29 am

Scrotal: A screaming axolotl.

Bollocky: Heavy (sometimes misspelled 'bulky').

Priapism: Thinking too much about Matthew Albert.

The social justice warrior has no clothes

19/9/2018 08:16:46 am

Why do you give a flying fuck about what members of the faculty look like? You’re literally the textbook definition of a racist.

I was not attentive

19/9/2018 09:29:23 am

@Samuel Johnson

*Fallacy. Nice pick - did you read the rest?

Samuel Johnson Again

19/9/2018 11:36:44 am

Dude, I'm on your side. I was just getting bored with everyone slinging mud at each other.

So I decided to penetrate some (awful) humour into the discussion.

Sorry for causing the distraction.

Attention

19/9/2018 11:52:29 am

@Samuel Johnson

I got that vibe and appreciate the effort - wasn't having a go at you (hard to convey tone). Thanks for acknowledging derailing possibility

SAMUEL JOHNSON AGAIN AGAIN

19/9/2018 11:58:52 am

No hard feelings. :)

Now I'll go and rinse my mouth.

Name (re-kkk-uired)

18/9/2018 09:34:17 pm

tl;dr “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children”

Oh come off it

18/9/2018 09:42:42 pm

Don't be ridiculous

Name (Not) Required

18/9/2018 09:14:38 pm

Look into your soul and tell me that you truly would say this in person to anyone at Melbourne Law School.

You Know What?

19/9/2018 07:58:29 pm

It's scary to think that that day may not be far away when such stuff becomes the norm in the Australian public discourse.

I hope it doesn't happen but it's a distinct possibility.

Apparently we have literal white supremacists here now?

18/9/2018 09:16:34 pm

Nah I'm not at all surprised. Just saddened.

Literal..?

18/9/2018 09:43:19 pm

Really?

Yes: literal

19/9/2018 04:25:14 pm

Really.

JESSIE LAYMAN

18/9/2018 10:33:55 pm

Incredible article! Thank you!

Anj

18/9/2018 10:50:50 pm

From a person of colour who attended and got value out of this event, thank you to all the contributors for writing this response.

Isabel

18/9/2018 11:28:22 pm

In response to 'Name (Required)':
"Perhaps it would be equally fair to describe a walk through Melbourne's CBD, whose resident population is about 70% Asian, as a 'slow unrewarding endless trudge' for anyone who is not themselves Asian? Perhaps I, a non Chinese person, could go to China and complain about how many Chinese people there are in China, how there should be more white people in the government, on the judiciary, and so on."

Can we just unpack this paragraph a bit?

First, I want to ask for your statistical evidence to prove that 70% of the Melbourne CBD is 'Asian residents', and with that evidence provide the percentage of that property being owned by 'Asians'. If you can't substantiate this claim, I'd rather you not use numbers and just clarify the fact it might be your subjective experience.

Second, based off your comment on non-Chinese people complaining about Chinese government, I suppose given that logic I'm not allowed to comment on the Australian government given that I am Chinese by descent and I do not count as Australian? I don't count as Australian because my parents are Chinese, even though I was born here, never held another citizenship, lived in Melbourne my entire life and went to primary, middle and high school here. I suppose I can't comment about the state of anything in Australia as I am not Australian because I look and am Chinese? I think this is the exact rhetoric that events regarding POC engages with and reminds us that it is okay to be Australian, even everyone tells you you're not. To be honest, I'm not sure you even realise that you're alienating a whole portion of Australians and implying to me and others like me that I should go back to where I look like everyone else if I want to have a say. Honestly, I've never felt the need to comment on anything on De Minimis but I really want you to look at what you're saying and know that there are people in this city, in this law school, that have grown up hearing that they're not a member of the society that they consider home.

Name (required)

18/9/2018 11:52:54 pm

The comment was plainly a reductio ad absurdum. The idea of me going to China, or even being born in China, and complaining about being surrounded by Asian people is clearly riduclous, by the same token an Asian person coming to Australia or being born in Australia and complaining about being surrounded by white people is equally ridiculous. The actual statistics of the suburb of Melbourne are unimportant, the point is it would be unacceptable for me to complain about its demographic makeup whatever it may be and by the same token it is unacceptable for others to complain about the demographic makeup of some other area or institution.

The point I am making is it doesn't fucking matter whether you are surrounded by people who do not share your race or are surrounded by people who do share your race, or whatever bloody balance of race exists anywhere in some given institution or society more broadly. If our ideals and practices are not colourblind we are doomed to eternally fight zero sum identitarian and sectarian conflicts against each other over every petty plot of dirt available to fight over. The great betrayal of modern 'progressives' has been to abandon the colourblind ideal in favour of playing the same old tired game of pitting the interests of race X in opposition to the interests of race Y and thinking it will lead to anything other than disaster in the long term.

Emily T

19/9/2018 01:17:23 am

Hi Name (Required)
I didn't realise that the mere fact of being born in Australia means that I am unable to have any views on this being a society that operates from a Western, white point of view. I didn't realise that non-white people should sit down and be nice quiet minorities, because hey, didn't you ask for it coming here or having the audacity to be born here?

The main point I take issue with, though, is the idea that our ideals and practices have to be colourblind. Sure, in a perfect world that would be great, but unfortunately we don't live in that perfect world. The reality is that a colourblind perspective doesn't recognise that people of different races DO have different experiences.

The fact that you're suggesting we should forget about my race is saying that we should forget about my experiences growing up Asian in a white society. We should forget about when I get asked "where are you from?" multiple times during a night out. Forget about when a drunk stranger says "ni hao" to me on the street. Forget about the times when I've been treated differently because I look Chinese, even though I know I was born here and I do belong just as much as anyone else. Dismissing race dismisses my identity and my experiences.

The truth is we live in a society where race does matter. Being white affects how you're perceived too - but wait, you don't have to think about it, because being white is the norm. That's a luxury you have if you don't have to worry about race.

By the way, I attended the POC lunch and I found it to be a rewarding experience filled with great people (don't get me wrong though, I love white people too - I have white friends!). Thanks Peggy and Ayman for organising the event, and also to all the contributors for writing this great article.

Not the Authors

19/9/2018 04:53:54 am

Two points.

1. People who want diversity among judges, lawyers, faculty, legislators, etc. are not hoping for some kind of a non-white takeover of the society. Their desire for diversity stems from a related desire for the people in power to accurately reflect and represent the composition of society at large. Diversity is not just for the sake of it. Underlying this point is the idea that people with similar backgrounds are more likely to understand, appreciate and address each others' concerns.

Which brings me to my second point.

2. The People of Colour Lunch, as many have said already, is the sort of initiative that allows for people with a shared experience to be with each other. I can assure those who are concerned that no one there had the least inclination to plot the 'downfall of white folk'. It is just difficult for one to understand another's feelings if the first person has never experienced life like the second person has. This has nothing to do with the 'people of colour' being racist towards the rest but has everything to do with lived experience. The lunch simply provided an opportunity for the relatively marginalised - emphasis on 'relatively' - to be with each other.

The road goes ever on and on

19/9/2018 08:25:27 am

“Their desire for diversity stems from a related desire for the people in power to accurately reflect and represent the composition of society at large. Diversity is not just for the sake of it. Underlying this point is the idea that people with similar backgrounds are more likely to understand, appreciate and address each others' concerns”

Do you really want to go down this path? Doesn’t it just lead to white people only voting for whites people, black people only voting for black people, Muslims only voting for Muslims, Jews only voting for jews, and so on? I

The logical conclusion of your position is that it would have been right for white Americans to not want Obama as their president because he was black and therefore could not understand and appreciate their concerns as well as a white person could. It means Indonesian islamists are right to complain about Jakarta’s Christian governor for the mere fact that he is Christian, it means that it would be right for an Indian woman in the division of Hasluck to complain about Ken Wyatt being indigenous and therefore not able to represent her interests.

I think what you are arguing for is a very dark vision of society, but you don’t even seem to know it.

Logical Conclusion? Lol!

19/9/2018 08:52:15 am

Ah, the parallel with that (in)famous slippery slope argument about bestiality in the same-sex marriage debate.

By the way, Obama was half white and half black. And, no, your conclusion is not very logical.

Ok?

19/9/2018 08:55:49 am

So you’re saying Obama couldn’t properly represent the interests of either white or black people as well as a white or black person could because he was neither fully white white or fully black?

STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH

19/9/2018 11:48:21 am

Thanks for your attention. Have a lovely day.

19/9/2018 12:38:23 pm

Hi @THE ROAD GOES EVER ON AND ON. Thank you for highlighting your concerns. I defer to the parallel drawn by @LOGICAL CONCLUSION? LOL!. The logical trajectory of my argument is not quite as you suggest.

Perhaps I should explain that my point about diversity is akin to the (now thankfully unneeded) argument about gender diversity on, say, the HCA bench. People who were advocating for more female HCA justices did not claim that men don’t understand women’s issues or that women don’t understand men’s issues. It just makes sense to have the makeup of the society reflected in bodies whose decisions affect that society. That’s all.

To address one of your specific examples, it is wrong to complain about Jakarta’s Christian governor on the basis of his religion. But, hypothetically speaking, if the entire administration of Jakarta was being run by Christians and the non-Christian residents in Jakarta did not feel represented well, that would indeed be a problem. Such a scenario would be rather like not having diversity of the kind I mentioned in my original post!

To @ OK? (in case that was a different poster).

The remark that “Obama was half white and half black” is a reference, the way I read it, to the notion that Obama’s race had nothing to do with his ability to represent different groups of people. Because if Obama’s race were relevant, he would be able to represent both the population groups. But that is simply not how it works.

Wide brown land for me

19/9/2018 09:51:32 am

“People who want diversity among judges, lawyers, faculty, legislators, etc. are not hoping for some kind of a non-white takeover of the society”

Really? There seems to be a lot of commentary coming out of the United States these days celebrating the ‘browning of America’. I don’t believe that is a bad thing, but to actually celebrate it as a good thing seems a bit questionable.

How So?

19/9/2018 04:20:39 pm

Why is a celebration of diversity concerning?

I am white and I would much rather be represented in our federal parliament by the likes of Wong and Gichuhi instead of Hanson and Anning. I think that my kind is becoming increasingly lax about our general apathy (and often antipathy) to fellow human beings. If it's non-white people who can lead the way to a better and brighter future, so be it.

How interesting

19/9/2018 04:42:16 pm

If I understand it correctly, you in fact are hoping for some non-white takeover of society?

NOT THE AUTHORS

19/9/2018 04:52:30 pm

Hello @WIDE BROWN LAND FOR ME. Thank you for your feedback.

You appear to be drawing some sort an equivalence between celebrating diversity and “a non-white takeover of the society”. I am not familiar with the commentary you appear to be taking into consideration. I hesitate to speculate about it.

I was simply saying that societies change over time, ethnically and otherwise, and such changes should be reflected in the institutions that regulate/affect/control the society. Whether we celebrate it or not, change is a fact of life.

Also, thanks to @HOW SO? for your contribution.

STOP BEING SO PARANOID

19/9/2018 05:22:40 pm

@HOW INTERESTING

Hold your horses right there! Are you reading the same thing that I am reading?!

The whole point is that race or ethnicity does not matter, only ideas matter. If it is the non-white people who have the right ideas then it would be profoundly stupid to not listen to them just because they are not white.

No one is talking about takeovers or mergers or acquisitions here in that sense! When the OP mentioned ‘takeover’, it was solely to illustrate the extreme and *drum roll* false proposition that such a thing could occur.

Not an alternative fact

19/9/2018 06:04:36 pm

“false proposition that such a thing could occur.“

You do realise that the US state of California has gone from being 90% non-Hispanic white to less than 37% non Hispanic white in the span of just the last 40 years, right?

You do realise the United States as a whole currently sits at 60% non Hispanic white down from 90% in 1940, right?

What makes you so confident that it is a false proposition that demographic change can occur when it plainly does occur and when demographic takeovers have been a constant thing throughout human history? You can think it is a good thing or a bad thing (I personally think it is neither) but you better damn well recognise it is actually a thing, and reconcile yourself to that fact one way or another.

Seriously, STOP BEING SO PARANOID

19/9/2018 06:50:43 pm

NOT AN ALTERNATIVE FACT, mate, not sure what your point is. The previous commenters have already said that - e.g. NOT THE AUTHORS: ‘I was simply saying that societies change over time, ethnically and otherwise…’ And I didn’t dispute that.

Seems like you think that ‘demographic change’ (a fact of life) and ‘demographic takeover’ (a whiff of a conspiracy or something sinister) seem to be equivalent terms for you. If that’s correct - as I think it is since you mentioned these terms in the same breath - then you might want to reconsider your claim that ‘I personally think it is neither [a good thing nor a bad thing]’ because you’re not hiding your true feelings particularly well. Either that or you’re in denial about how you truly feel.

Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean everybody isn’t out to get you

19/9/2018 06:55:59 pm

If you’ve taken Corps you’ll know that a takeover can be hostile or it can be friendly, but in the end it’s still the same thing, a takeover.

Now We Are Talking

19/9/2018 07:01:23 pm

So which one is it:
a) you couldn’t disguise your true feelings quite so well; or
b) you were in denial?

I’ll go with a).

@PARANOID

19/9/2018 07:11:00 pm

Dayum man! A comparison between Corps and ‘demographic change’? That’s some heavy stuff you’re smoking!

Jackson

19/9/2018 08:12:03 am

Thanks for your contribution to the conversation, authors.

You raised some interesting points.

I have written a response article. I am waiting to hear back from DM as to whether it will be published in next week's edition.

Jackson

You’ve got to be joking

19/9/2018 08:35:28 am

For the love of god, please don’t. As another comment said above, this may just be intellectual conversation for you but it’s causing anguish to others.

Man bear pig

19/9/2018 08:53:16 am

The truth can indeed be quite inconvenient.

Pocman

19/9/2018 08:54:46 am

I agree, when I read this article all I thought is “here comes another shitfight”. The comments on this one are probably even more nasty than the last. I know it’s an issue everyone has an opinion about but I think it should have been left to lie or at least given some space for people to reflect.

Stop Paying Attention to Him

19/9/2018 11:56:13 am

@YOU’VE GOT TO BE JOKING

It may be causing anguish to others, but does Jackson care? No. It's a question of his freedom of speech, I suppose. And well it may be - so that everyone can become aware what horrible ideas he harbours.

And @JACKSON, please listen to @LEARN THE CRAFT FIRST and learn to make non-fallacious arguments.

Learn the Craft First

19/9/2018 08:59:48 am

Jackson bro! If you insist on writing, do make sure you give a rational explanation for why you felt the need to quote MLK so blatantly out of context.

And the way you structure your arguments is riddled with fallacies (see SAMUEL JOHNSON above). I say this without malice: consult a good book on logic.

Say No to Tyranny

19/9/2018 01:50:42 pm

Stop telling Jackson to read good books to improve his pitiful logical reasoning skills. How dare you! He clearly does not understand that opinions are like phalluses (phalli?) and consequently they should not be thrown about willy nilly! He is handicapped, if you will, in that respect. What have we come to as a society if we start poking fun at the handicapped?

He has his freedom of speech. Obviously that's more important than the quality of his arguments.

De Minimis hominem

19/9/2018 09:43:39 am

It seems like you still see this as a purely intellectual debate. If you write anything else you better recognise how traumatic your actions have been for people, and justify why some average dude who thinks he has a special opinion has the right to make people feel that way because he was offended by a lunch.

I hope De Min come to their senses and banish your banal opinions to your self published blog.

‘Traumatic’ opinion

19/9/2018 09:55:18 am

So much for ‘white’ fragility.

404 parental love

19/9/2018 10:02:27 am

Where's your sensitivity? Where is your empathy? The reason those two are different has been canvassed so much already - you're not adding anything to the debate

"traumatic'

19/9/2018 12:24:53 pm

My word if this is traumatic I sincerely hope you don't become a lawyer. Ban anyone who disagrees!!!!!

Trauma ≠ submission

19/9/2018 12:48:35 pm

Oh you better believe I'm going to be a lawyer, and I'll be fighting your type every step of the way

'Traumatic'

19/9/2018 01:37:01 pm

Fighting my 'type'? what does that even mean?

You're on some fucked up kind of crusade with a warped sense of what justice is.

Have some respect

19/9/2018 10:24:13 am

I wish I was surprised that you intend to, once again, write yourself into a narrative about which you have no clue.

The practical effect of your first article was to force PoC to, yet again, explain their existence to you and defend their right to autonomous spaces. This exhausting enterprise is exactly why events such as the PoC lunch exist. In that space, the people of colour who choose to attend can chat to wonderful people who have meaningful contributions to the discussion about the experiences of people of colour more broadly, as well as specifically within the legal profession. In that space, there is no need to disclaim or explain who they are.

And you chose to attack that space and those people who get value out of it and denounced the organisers of the event.

Now you feel the need to do so again in response to a well-reasoned and thoughtful response to your original article? You obviously have no idea about the effect of your actions. Having discussed with my PoC peers these past weeks, it has had a much more destructive effect than could have been anticipated.

Please have the self-awareness to withdraw the article and spare people of colour a repeat of this ordeal.

If it matters that much to you, I will buy you some goddamn pizza. But this discourse is hurtful and dehumanising and it needs to stop.

Please Stop

19/9/2018 12:35:55 pm

Thanks 'Have Some Respect', you articulated it perfectly.

Jackson, you must reassess your desire to pursue an 'intellectual debate' that is causing hurt amongst your peers without at all being productive (see, above re: your demonstrated reluctance to listen to, and engage in a dialogue with, those who attended/thought about attending/organised the lunch).

Most importantly, you must critically reflect on your desire to be an authority on the experiences of people of colour. The event was not for you, and the experiences detailed in the many comments are not yours, such that your reflections on this issue provide very limited insight in to what is a very difficult discussion with tangible implications for people of colour.

Now is the time to reflect on their responses, rather than to speak over them once more.

You do not need to write a response, you have already created a vicious environment for your peers through your account of 'reverse racism' when you could have easily raised your concerns with the ESJ team, or spoken with (and listened to) your peers.

how is this even an issue

19/9/2018 02:59:03 pm

Jackson, I would also suggest you reconsider your decision to publish a response in De Minimis next week, for reasons that HAVE SOME RESPECT and PLEASE STOP have articulated extremely well.

I personally find it difficult to understand why you feel the need to publish another article, instead of just responding to the comments that have been posted. A second article will allow you to state what you think without requiring you to effectively respond to the issues that people are raising: I genuinely think you will have more legitimacy, and will be more respected, if you respond to the comments disagreeing with you directly and explain exactly why you disagree with them.

19/9/2018 12:12:57 pm

I'm all for free and open debate, but surely you can see you've made your (logically fallacious) point and position abundantly clear already. I fail to see what purpose yet another article will serve. From previous articles you've penned for DeMin -- something groundbreaking about law school being difficult, I recall -- you appear to be a fan of waxing lyrical about yourself. So maybe your desire to continue to fan the flames of a conversation that is clearly causing anguish to others stems more from enjoyment of the attention this is generating amidst the wider student body, than it does a belief that anything further you write will constructively add to the debate. Idk.

That being said, should you choose to write a follow-up article, I don't agree with prohibiting its publication. With the exception of hate speech, censorship is never okay, and proscription would be playing into the hands of those who crow about 'left-wing thought police' etc., etc.. You're exercising your free speech, and free will, to pen and publish any response article. I just hope those members of MLS community will at least a semblance of rationalism and empathy will exercise their own in choosing to ignore it.

FAN THEM FLAMES, JACKSON

20/9/2018 10:48:48 am

Yeah, I bet Jackson is looooving this absolute cluster fuck of abuse, pitchforks and misguided idealistic wankery. That MUST be why he's writing a reply.

Go Ahead Jackson

19/9/2018 03:07:06 pm

Attaboy! I am already looking forward to a pitiful rant on how you have been targeted for having an unpopular opinion.

pandora's box

19/9/2018 03:32:39 pm

jackson, there's another factor which I would encourage you to consider in your decision to publish or not, and that is what kind of broader response your article enables.

whether you intend it to or not, the types of things that you are saying are things that align with a lot of pretty racist views, and create the space for racist people to feel safe in discussing their shitty views - which, in turn, makes people of colour feel a lot less safe in MLS overall. (for example, see the "story time" comment below, which appears to say that POC are becoming powerful and want to overthrow white people -- something that I think you would not agree with, having closely read your earlier article and your comments).

your decision to publish a second article will have really significant consequences, and I urge you to approach that decision with a lot of caution, nuance and empathy.

Good One!

19/9/2018 03:36:25 pm

'caution, nuance and empathy'

HAHAHA!!! Nice one!

Lizz

19/9/2018 10:00:04 am

A lot of people have already canvassed this point, but I would like to break it down and hope that some of the commenters (on this article and on Jackson’s) will engage with it in earnest.

A PoC lunch is not ‘reverse racism’.

I notice some commenters relying on a rather basic conceptualisation of racism, stated as: “treating anyone differently is bad”. Simplification like that is great, if you want to teach your 5 year old how to behave — not so great when dealing with the complexities of the world. For example, treating people differently — i.e. ‘positive discrimination’ — can work to help combat actual discrimination. A simple example is government funding for schools to help children with special academic needs. On a simple conception: money going to help one group of people means no money for another group of people which = discrimination = bad. All things being neutral and equal, everyone should get the same as everyone. But no-one (I hope) actually thinks we should get rid of this funding, because we recognise that the systems we had in place before were not suited to people with special needs. Removing positive programs that seek to address differences in the guise of “treating everyone the same” can actually have the effect of widening inequality.

So, hopefully we agree that not every instance of treating people differently is automatically “bad discrimination”. Now, I won’t reiterate at lengths the many reasons why people may find benefit in a PoC lunch (that was done well in the article and in various comments). But I will speak to the argument raised that, by having a PoC lunch the people who attend are basically being racist against white people and committing the same atrocities as white people did. This is really hurtful hyperbole and it’s a false equivalence.

You cannot divorce history and context from the situation. Why should we embrace a PoC lunch when a “white’s only” lunch would be bad? Pretty simple. This country was colonised by white people who committed a genocide against the Indigenous peoples of the land. This is not ancient history. Our racist past is not so far behind us that we can pretend we’re on a neutral playing field and everything is hunky dory. Caity, in the article, spoke about the fact that her mother was prevented from learning Cantonese whilst growing up when the White Australia policy was in force. That’s why a “white’s only” lunch is offensive — as it harks back to a not-so-distant past where white’s only spaces were not only prevalent, but a matter of government policy. A group of people of colour hanging out at Uni, eating pizza does not have the a comparative weight.

I’ll try and use a different example to talk about the importance of context, because I feel like if we keep talking about the specific lunch, we may be too close to the matter to see things clearly. It’s an extreme example, but I feel like it’s simple enough to get the point across: white people should not use the N word. Nor should they want to. Why though? It’s just a couple of letters? Why are you forbidding me from saying this word, when other people can say it? Isn’t prohibiting white people from using the N word akin to some sort of attack on my liberty and freedom of speech, which runs COUNTER to what all the social justice people are fighting for? Isn’t it just the same form of discrimination, but in reverse? No. It’s not. Because history and context matter. That word was used to dehumanise and degrade black people, and it is their choice alone to reclaim it. History and context matter. Whites-only spaces should scare you. PoC spaces shouldn’t.

If you still harbour some irrational fear that one day people of colour are going to rise up and commit the same atrocities that white people did in this country, then I dunno what to say to you. And if you don’t understand why some PoC say that navigating predominantly white spaces can be exhausting — it’s probably because it’s exhausting having to expend bucketloads of emotional labour trying to explain these topics. And not only explain them, but explain them politely and clearly and without appearing to get too passionate — lest you be shut down and your points ignored because you got upset and angry during an intellectual debate about your humanity.

Amen

19/9/2018 11:45:12 am

THIS^^^

Exactly

19/9/2018 11:49:54 am

All hail the Deity of Reason!!!

Claire

19/9/2018 02:00:22 pm

11/10.

OMG

19/9/2018 02:05:21 pm

Lizz, why is this cogent piece of reasoning not an article for DM?! It certainly deserves to be elevated to the main pages instead of languishing at the bottom of a comments section.

Yeah

19/9/2018 02:19:21 pm

And if Jackson sees it he might learn a thing or two as well!

With You On This. Although...

19/9/2018 03:01:15 pm

You might be putting too much faith in Jackson's ability to learn from reason.

Story time

19/9/2018 03:20:17 pm

Once upon a time there was a small country in the heart of Africa where race X was historically in a position of power and privilege over race Y, but gradually the scales tipped and race Y gained more and more empowerment.

One day race Y decided it was time to destroy race X, and with a view to their historical oppression and disadvantage compared with race X, when they tried and nearly succeed at destroying them they called it justice.

night night

19/9/2018 03:27:39 pm

so in this analogy, you're saying that:

1. non-white people are becoming more and more empowered

sure, this is arguably true in some ways, but racism is still very much alive and well. see, eg, pages 7-9 of the 2018 report by the Australian Human Rights Commission: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/NARPS_2018_FINAL-WEB-VERSION.PDF

2. non-white people are trying to destroy white people

who the fuck is saying this???? no-one in the comments, no-one in this article, and no-one who organised the pizza party said this. this wasn't even implied.

SMDH

19/9/2018 03:28:21 pm

You must really hate the Mabo decision.

Hey Story Time

19/9/2018 03:32:53 pm

If this is a home-made allegory then let’s put it down to your naïveté and forget about it. But if you are basing your ‘story’ in reality then let’s have names of the country and the races to better understand the context. Surely such information is not confidential or privileged!

Not a very long time ago in a continent not that far away

19/9/2018 04:47:43 pm

The fact that our masters of ‘historical context’ can’t spot a reference to the Rwandan genocide when it is staring them right in the face is a bit telling.

Holy Crap!

19/9/2018 05:36:06 pm

@NOT A VERY LONG TIME AGO IN A CONTINENT NOT THAT FAR AWAY

How on in the name of sweet baby Jesus is Lizz advocating anything even resembling the Rwandan genocide? Can you not fathom even the simple language that she has used?

Your masters of historical context couldn’t possibly have picked up on such a deluded comparison. Thank goodness they don’t think like that!

THIS WOULD BE FUNNY IF IT WERE NOT SO SAD

19/9/2018 05:43:57 pm

Going by this stilted logic, the US should not have abolished slavery because of the risk of how the formerly oppressed people might have exacted revenge!

Dear oh dear! Comparing Lizz’s comments with the Rwandan genocide! Clearly, things like historical context and a sense of proportion mean little, if anything, to you.

dot dot dot

19/9/2018 05:58:18 pm

I genuinely don't understand whether this comment is supposed to be a reference to the Rwandan genocide or not. Rwanda isn't exactly in the heart of Africa (it's on the Eastern edge of the continent), and also any account of the Hutu-Tutsi conflict would be remiss if it didn't mention the role that European colonialism played in it.

idk if this is referring to Rwanda or is just some warped neo-nazi version of a ~bedtime allegory~ but either way, it's a hugely incendiary - and unnecessary - overstatement of anything anyone else in this discussion has said.

Basic White Girl

19/9/2018 12:37:15 pm

As usual, the comments are mostly white girls trying to one-up each other on who is the most 'progressive'. The authors are as much an authority on the subject as Jackson was.

The difference is, Jackson gave his point of view, whereas the authors, and many of the white girls commenting from their Toorak homes on behalf of people the really know nothing about.

You ask white people to listen to POC's experiences who benefited from the lunch, what about those who didn't? Many of the comments on Jackson's article were from POC who opposed the lunch.

Lastly, the people not wanting Jackson to write a follow-up and voice his opinion should grow up and realise that if you ever get a job in law or any other field that there will be people that disagree with you and shutting out any opposing opinions is not gonna get you far.

Arse

19/9/2018 12:45:34 pm

You have no idea what you're talking about, to assume is to make an ass out of you and you alone apparently. This whole comment is dripping with finely distilled misogynoir

19/9/2018 01:23:19 pm

What about that comment is racist/sexist? pointing out facts which you obviously find confronting.

I just find it insanely stupid the people who claim authority on this are not POC, yet claim that any other opinion apart from theirs is racist/sexist.

It's scary that people like you are going to end up as our country's future lawyers (although I highly doubt you'll be able to deal with any pressure)

Ying

19/9/2018 12:49:58 pm

As a co-author of this article, I'd like to highlight that three of the co-authors of this article are not "white", myself included. I also attended the poc lunch despite my own reservations, and actually found value in it. I would like to think that my views on the topic are somewhat validated on that basis.

19/9/2018 01:28:17 pm

I still don't think you're an authority on the issue just because you're an Australian with an Asian background, but it's perfectly acceptable to speak about your own experiences.

It's clear that this lunch has divided opinions from people of all backgrounds and whilst I have no problem with you, I do have a problem with the people (majority white girls) who refuse to actually listen to any opinion than their own echo chamber without acknowledging they are also insanely privileged. Would they give up their Toorak mansions for 'equality' if you asked them? I doubt it.

BASIC WHITE BOY

19/9/2018 02:09:50 pm

@BASIC WHITE GIRL: thank you for demonstrating your misogynistic white boy attitude for everyone to roll their eyes at. You clearly have the socioeconomic positions of every female law student all figured out and should be congratulated, male overlord. When you're done jerking off to your own privilege and your polaroids of Jackson, please stay as far away from us - on all forms of public transport - as possible.

SAD!

19/9/2018 02:21:07 pm

Unsure how any of what I've said is sexist, it's simply true that the majority of people who are activists on this topic are white women, unsure why though.

I've got it figured out as much as you have the experiences of POC. I really do find it disgusting people like yourself use POC as your little pets to prop yourself up with, you don't care about them at all. Just self-righteous virtue signalling.

People like yourself are happy to use identity politics against those who disagree, but scream racism/sexism when they use it against you.

Read your own comment, then take a look in the mirror.

w. o. w.

19/9/2018 03:03:44 pm

Hi there,

I would urge you to reconsider labelling the commenters as being "mostly basic white girls". Most of the commenters are commenting anonymously, so how do you know they are basic or white? I know for a fact that at least a few of the anonymous comments on this article were written by non-white people, and there's really no way to tell unless someone tells you that they are. You also really don't know what people's socioeconomic circumstances are.

I'm all for being critical of where voices are coming from, but your assertions that the commenters are (1) white; (2) female; and (3) upper-class seems to be rooted in your own assumptions about what certain groups of people sound like, rather than any actual evidence.

What a Rare Gem

19/9/2018 03:09:26 pm

It seems that evidence-based reasoning is not a forte of law students at MLS.

True

19/9/2018 03:25:11 pm

Completely agree with you, GEM. It's all about the freedom to express one's opinion - no matter how pathetic the opinion is.

By the way, I have SMH moments in particular when people start throwing about rules of evidence (tendency, coincidence and relevance) when the discussion is not going their way - all the while forgetting that there is also a rule on opinion!!!

JEWEL

19/9/2018 03:37:29 pm

@TRUE:

1. i think you've misunderstood GEM's comment -- they seem to be agreeing with W.O.W. (although feel free to correct me, GEM, if I'm wrong)

2. no-one is bringing up complex rules of evidence hahahaha. it's a pretty simple request: BASIC WHITE GIRL is saying that their main problem with the arguments is that upperclass white women are the bulk of the commenters, and W.O.W. is saying that there isn't actually much evidence to support that. it's a basic element of any logical argument that, if you're arguing something based on facts, that those facts exist.

3. what is this "rule on opinion", hun? the judiciary isn't supposed to have opinions in their judgments because their role, following the model of separation of powers, is that they shouldn't be expressing their personal views. we, on the other hand, are in the comments section of a de minimis article. it's not exactly the HCA over here, and this isn't going to be going into the CLR any time soon. xoxoxox

True True

19/9/2018 03:49:27 pm

Hey JEWEL. I could have definitely worded my comment better. I am agreeing with both GEM and W. O. W.

I actually just came from reading the comments on another of this week’s article by Xavier Boffa called ‘Feeling Inferior’. There, this person called DAVID had brought up relevance and in reply someone else mentioned the rules of evidence. That how I got thinking about the rules of evidence.

Apologies for the confusion. Completely my fault.

PS: When I mentioned the opinion rule, I was referring to the application of s 76 of the Evidence Act to a witness instead of a judge.

Jewel

19/9/2018 03:52:30 pm

@TRUE TRUE: oops, my bad! totally misread your comment! this whole discussion has got me feeling all ~aggressive~: sorry for going off at you!

True Again

19/9/2018 03:57:45 pm

Not at all JEWEL. I started it. Besides, it felt good to have a civil disagreement for a change! ;)

HAHAHA

19/9/2018 04:26:39 pm

This is what is perhaps better known as friendly fire!

By The Way

19/9/2018 03:12:00 pm

All things considered, for me this is the first De Minimis comments area with so much allusion to 'phallus'.

Did Someone Say...

19/9/2018 04:06:35 pm

phallus?!

Big phan

19/9/2018 04:12:13 pm

so here for more peen content on DM

Notice of Change

19/9/2018 03:40:38 pm

De Minimis used to be the 'officially unofficial student newspaper' of MLS.

Not so any longer.

De Minimis is now the officially unofficial Breitbart of MLS, where facts and logic are irrelevant.

FACTS

20/9/2018 09:35:04 am

AND LOGIC

It's a platform for all students.

20/9/2018 10:37:23 am

Anyone can write. If you don't like this content, write something different.

It's more diverse than that.

20/9/2018 10:38:56 am

De Minimis has a wide array of contributions. People who complain DM posts only controversial content never read anything other than the controversial content.

Did That Hit a Nerve?

20/9/2018 10:51:58 am

What a persuasive argument!

Just wanted to say...

19/9/2018 04:29:44 pm

This is the hundredth comment (according to my calculation). Great job DM!

Britt

19/9/2018 11:06:25 pm

Phenomenal article. Some of the comments here demonstrate precisely why events like the POC lunch should exist. The pejorative about Asians in the CBD was revolting. But on a less depressing note, we’ve heard that many commenters found the event valuable. We’ve also heard from POC who don’t feel the need to attend events like this, which is cool and in no way diminishes the value of the lunch for others (side note: I liked your point about self-selecting).

To those of you for whom this is merely an intellectual debate, please have some respect. By all means, have these discussions, but don’t ignore the historical context of this institution, and don’t forget that some of your peers and the writers here face discrimination on a daily basis.

Don’t forget the people who put in the hard work organising these events and trying to create a community for people who feel alienated (in the same way that the Queer Portfolio, Women’s Portfolio, Disability Support groups aim to, among other things, make the law school a less lonely place for people who historically have faced, and often currently face, deeply imbedded structural inequalities).

Overall, listen. Instead of immediately getting defensive, listen when your POC peers are telling you that they’re facing racism and that we could be doing better.

I’m beyond disappointed with some of the racist responses in this thread, but the eloquence and patience of other commenters gives me hope.

Basic Britt

19/9/2018 11:51:25 pm

Thank you oh wise and enlightened white woman for once again leaping to the defence of people of colour and speaking on their behalf. What would we ever do without you? We shall erect a statute to you in university square celebrating your virtue.

20/9/2018 08:08:41 am

I just find it super interesting that no one has openly attacked Jackson's race or gender (which were inherent to his point of view) but when Britt fantastically articulates herself and asks simply for consideration of the experiences of others she is mocked on the basis of both.

Xavier Boffa

20/9/2018 10:39:40 am

"Basic Britt" your comment says more about you than it does about Britt. Why do people always find it so much easier to be nasty under the veil of anonymity? Do you actually think being nasty makes your argument more valid or more persuasive?

Factchecker

21/9/2018 10:28:02 am

@Siane Richardson

The following comments on Jackson's original article made note of his race, gender, or both.

Tilly
12/9/2018 01:21:21 PM
"I loathe white dudes who think looking in a dictionary and decontextualising the word racism will somehow give them the authority to decide what is racist."

"Yes people HAVE made assumptions about ME because I’m a WHITE MALE and it HURTS"

"... listening to an angry white man talk about how missing out on pizza is practically a continuation of historical wrongs?"

Andy
12/9/2018 01:26:26 PM
Your article show how out of touch with reality you are, undoubtedly a product of your whiteness.

S
13/9/2018 02:22:26 PM
"My main problem with what you have said is that you, as a white male, think that it is..."

Not Hitler
19/9/2018 04:42:32 PM
"Jackson, did it ever occur to you that your casual reference to a figure like Hitler is a function of the white privilege you possess in the first place?"

I didn't like Jackson's article at all and wish this discussion would just die off because no good is coming from it. But Siane, please do not make baseless claims without first checking them for accuracy.

WISHING FOR A BETTER FUTURE

20/9/2018 08:14:19 am

Hey BRITT and SIANE RICHARDSON

I wish I could derive more hope from this whole saga. Sadly people like BASIC BRITT are just everywhere. And the anonymity afforded by DM just encourages them to appear in full force, with hatred spewing all over the place.

21/9/2018 09:33:35 pm

Hi FACTCHECKER, thanks that's my bad. I still believe the basic bitch rant was inappropriate.

I just hope we're fact checking everyone across the board.

Comments are closed.

A response to ‘People of Colour Lunch’ by Jackson Willows

Archives