Dear MLS

28/3/2017

VIRGINIA HOLDENSON

Vol 11, Issue 5

Last Tuesday evening as I sat on the tram mindlessly scrolling through Facebook, I was startled to see the headline: "Dear White People of MLS" appear in my Facebook news feed. I looked down at my pasty white skin and asked myself have the "white" people of MLS as a collective done something wrong? Who are the “white” people of MLS? And why is there a need to address them as a sub-sub group of the MLS? With my summer glow fading I opened the article to figure out what I (and my white counterparts) had done wrong.

I navigated my way through this article as it recounted recent political events and highlighted some examples of injustices within our own community. Overwhelmingly, however, I sensed the right to freedom of ideas at an educational institution was all but dead. It is this freedom that the author relies upon to write this piece, it is this freedom that he suggests we assist our persecuted neighbours in gaining, but it is this exact freedom that if exercised a) by a white person and b) in a way that veers anywhere to the right of left, the freedom should not be had (as I understood his article to suggest).

People who are white are more than that, just as those who are any other colour or shade, we are all defined by more than our skin. The whiteness of my skin has not always and does not necessarily endow upon members of my family privilege. Many students at this law school who have been categorised as “white” have parents or grandparents who have survived persecution at the hands of Dictators for none other than their Judeo-Christian faith or their differing political ideologies and belief in democracy. That is to say, whiteness does not in itself grant nor does it deny the rights and freedoms protected in this country.

It is in baselessly categorising a group by nothing other than the colour of their skin and vilifying the members of that group that the author appears to further do a disservice to addressing the injustices he seeks to highlight.

As someone who likes to educate and keep myself abreast of political issues, I recognise that there is great unrest at the moment with the rise of so-called populism. I also recognise that being at a leading law school I am surrounded by educated individuals who not only have the right to their own views, but also have the resources with which to educate themselves and form those views.
Whilst I do not profess to know the author’s own personal political views, nor do I seek to challenge them, because I know he formed these himself and has that right – a right I respect. However, I do seek to highlight the inequality that the author seeks to perpetuate by claiming certain views are unacceptable and should not be tolerated.

Anyway, it is my duty to challenge him – he asked that when we see bigoted views around us to call them out – so that is what I am doing: calling out his narrow-minded assertion that some people are allowed to exercise their rights and others cannot. Specifically, the most remarkable claim in the piece was that: ' 'Supporting Trump’s policies and being part of the alt-right should be unacceptable positions.' I am sure because the author has some economic sense, and understands that some of Trump’s policies have sound economic grounding and ought to be considered, that the author attempts to protect himself by claiming: 'This is not to say that right-wing economic populism is an immoral political position.'

It is in addressing the white students of MLS and claiming that a particular position is unacceptable the author effectively denies those students their right, while allowing himself to maintain his right and use it to tar them all with the same brush. And while some have interpreted this intolerance as a mere metaphorical call for people to respond to such views, when the article is read as a whole with specific attention to the intended audience (white students), the sentiment that some do not deserve their right to freedom of speech and opinion as much as others is overwhelming.

Now I am no fool and can recognise that some of Trump's policies are undeniably targeted towards particular groups whether they be immigrants, Muslims or women. While I would not have endorsed such policies myself, I understand that one has the right to support them if they wish. And whilst I can voice my disdain and attempt to educate them against supporting such policies, I cannot dictate that their position is unacceptable and that therefore my position must be the one true and correct view.

Virginia Holdenson is a second-year JD student

More articles likes this

Freedom to Disagree: The Erosion of Public Debate In Australia

The rest of this issue

Ho Wen

28/3/2017 04:33:36 pm

Exactly! My first thought was "so, as an Asian, this article wasn't meant for me?" Glad I wasn't the only one who got /inspired/ by that article

"The whiteness of my skin has not always and does not necessarily endow upon members of my family privilege"

28/3/2017 05:31:51 pm

"People who are white are more than that, just as those who are any other colour or shade, we are all defined by more than our skin. The whiteness of my skin has not always and does not necessarily endow upon members of my family privilege."

Really Virginia? Really? So are you suggesting that being white in Australia doesn't put you in a privileged position? Because if so, you really need to get out more (and not just for a tan).

"Many students at this law school who have been categorised as “white” have parents or grandparents who have survived persecution at the hands of Dictators for none other than their Judeo-Christian faith or their differing political ideologies and belief in democracy."

I think you misunderstand the difference between being white in Australia and being white elsewhere. The author of the original piece never said that being white, either in other countries or other historical periods, could not possibly result in you being persecuted. He was saying simply that being white in Australia was and is a privileged position to be in. Can you really deny that that isn't the case? And if so, on what basis do you think that it isn't?

"That is to say, whiteness does not in itself grant nor does it deny the rights and freedoms protected in this country."

It's not really clear what you're trying to say here. If you're saying that being white doesn't help a person enjoy rights and freedoms in Australia, then you're ignoring swathes of non-white people whose experience suggests that that really is not the case at all.

On the other hand, if you're instead just saying that being white in and of itself does not go either way in terms of making life any easier or harder, then, as I've tried to point out above, you really must have either

(a) not understood the nature of white privilege, or
(b) not experienced and/or simply ignored the very publicly available stories of people other than yourself who don't enjoy that privilege. People who feel that, yes, it *does* affect their life in meaningful and material ways, ways that go beyond semantic arguments about whether or not there is an "inequality that the author seeks to perpetuate by claiming certain views are unacceptable".

The only thing I'm having trouble accepting here is your own lack of awareness of the country you're living in, of your position within it, and of the experiences of all those other people who share it with you. I feel you trivialise the entire issue with your remarks about getting a tan. Sadly for the rest of us, this is about more than whether or not you choose to spend time in the sun.

Olive Skinned

28/3/2017 05:45:37 pm

In mentioning her tan albeit briefly, it seems she is merely acknowledging her own whiteness and highlighting that it is something that at times is more emphasised that at others...just my interpretation because is it the mere appearance of white skin that classifies one as white? Or am I as someone with Greek and Italian heritage and olive skin exempt from the audience of last week's article?

@OLIVE SKINNED

28/3/2017 06:29:53 pm

Hey Olive Skinned, that's actually a pretty interesting question, and a very good one. I think you might be interested in what the artist Koraly Dimitriadis has to say about it: http://www.sbs.com.au/topics/life/culture/article/2017/02/22/comment-im-greek-cypriot-does-make-me-person-colour

28/3/2017 11:47:52 pm

Thanks for the article! Very interesting and addresses many of the things I have questioned over time (although it doesn't answer all my own personal questions it is definitely food for thought)

Interestingly Koraly said that "it’s the oppression they’ve endured that makes them POC" this leaves me with many more questions: if you have coloured skin but haven't yourself explicitly experienced modern oppression are you a POC? And if you do appear "white" and have experienced oppression (one of my Jewish friends)...where do you fit? I don't expect answers to these and I am sure there are lots of different views...but I guess circles back to this De Min article author's point that being white doesn't always mean privilege when all the other aspects of our identity come into play

Declan Fry

29/3/2017 03:14:36 pm

Hey Olive Skinned,

Glad you enjoyed the article.

I think the best thing to do is to keep exploring different points of view and maintaining an open mind. Questions of identity aren't easy. Indeed most of them are pretty difficult. You've got to stay engaged and keep an eye out for them.

For what it's worth, I'd recommend doing whatever you can. We only get one lifetime, and it's pretty short. So read widely - from SBS articles, to essays, to whatever else you can get your hands on. Follow different websites. Get involved in different neighbourhoods. Talk to family. Talk to strangers. Stay hungry. Walk further than you did yesterday. And keep walking.

White and Gay

28/3/2017 05:57:43 pm

I don't think understanding white privilege is the issue here. I think you as a commentor haven't understood that there is more than just white privilege at play in any scenario. I am a white male and whilst I don't like to go around scoring victim or privilege points I am also gay brought up in a low socio economic regional town and the whiteness of my skin sure as hell didn't make me feel any better when I was persecuted and bullied for being gay.

@WHITE AND GAY

28/3/2017 06:24:49 pm

I have understood that there is more than just white privilege at play in any scenario. But you miss the point: being things other than white doesn't then mean that your white privilege will proceed to magically disappear or be subsumed by all those other aspects of your identity. Rather, it simply continues to exist alongisde of them. Being white certainly won't make you feel better about being any other number of things in your life, but it still gives you a privilege that you can either choose to acknowledge or that you can simply go on pretending somehow doesn't exist. See: https://mic.com/articles/144985/here-s-one-brutal-truth-every-white-gay-man-needs-to-hear#.ifKZ8KLIB

It was my privilege

29/3/2017 12:09:35 am

White privilege is simply not quantifiable and as such it is a completely useless concept

Allow me to demonstrate

Person A is a 5th generation white Australian in majority white Australia. They have rarely or perhaps never been subject to overt acts of racism. They attended a public school and end up with middle class career and a $500,000 mortgage.

Person B is a person of aboriginal descent. They are sometimes subjected to overtly (or covertly) racist acts. Due to their aboriginality they have qualified for numerous affirmative action benefits and as a direct result end up at elite institutions who reserve places for them and end up having a high flying career in, say, business or politics.

Which person in this scenario has more racial privilege?

You literally can't fucking tell me. There is absolutely no way to objectively quantify privilege in numerical terms in order to place one person next to another and say 'this person has x amount more racial privilege than the other person'.

All we get from the 'White privilege' crowd is vague assertions that it is self evident, or sometimes lazy and incomplete or wilfully blind reasoning.

Margie

29/3/2017 08:12:21 am

In response to "It was my privilege"

I think you may be missing the point of affirmative action policies.

When put in place for people of different "racial" backgrounds, these policies are a recognition that those people are seriously disadvantaged and do not have the "privilege" that others have.

It does not mean they are not deserving of their place at the "elite institutions" you refer to.

It seems also disingenuous to bring up the example of Aboriginal people in this debate considering there are also a lot of other factors at play here, ie dispossession and genocide

29/3/2017 09:43:47 am

And once affirmative action policies have been implemented, can you say they have brought those who benefit back to the level of privilege of those who don't need it? Can you even say what that level is in the first place?

You can't, because you can't quantify it.

It is useful to talk in terms of outcomes that you can measure such as earnings, life expectancy, levels of education, etc. It is absolutely not useful to talk in terms of bullshit ideas like 'privilege' which for reasons I have already outlined, is not quantifiable and is pseudoscientific nonsense.

I am not intimating that aboriginal people are not deserving of their places. I am intimating that in my specific scenario person B would not have had their level of success without AA policies. You only find it is disingenuous for me to use an example of an aboriginal person because it is inconvenient to your argument.

Anony Mouse

28/3/2017 05:34:23 pm

You're completely right. It's a sad state of affairs that such common sense needs to be communicated, but I guess that's what's lacking in the anti-free-speech racist SJW sphere of the West's academic institutions.

Would be great if we could change our elite academic institutions back from places of witch-hunts to those of thought-exposure and free debate. So that we can once again discuss ideas without radical thought jihadists trying to derail everything to matters of skin colour or genitals.

Flynn

28/3/2017 10:40:28 pm

"anti-free-speech racist SJW sphere of the West's academic institutions."

"without radical thought jihadists "

Looks like you're on a witch-hunt yourself. Tone done the language, and projection; and you'll find people more willing to engage with the debate that you so desire.

Wants a drink

28/3/2017 06:04:13 pm

I just want the Corkman back :'(

Straw man

29/3/2017 12:17:28 am

If you're not denouncing Donald Trump 24/7 you're part of the problem

Donald Trump

29/3/2017 08:13:26 am

I just want to build a big beautiful wall.

And make drinking great again

Just leaving this right here...

28/3/2017 06:35:20 pm

I am not here to comment in support of either side of this.

I just think it is worth putting out there for people who may not have seen the film that this title (which has everyone up in arms) may have simply been making light of.

I may be wrong but I think the author of the original article that this one is responding to was attempting to draw on the title of the satirical film on race relations by the same name ("Dear White People"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OATfJ1SwnvQ.

You are welcome.

What I understood the article to mean

28/3/2017 08:30:50 pm

1. That holding conservative, or even Trump-esque political viewpoints should not be deemed 'unacceptable' - to do so would be to deny freedom of speech, which is what last week's author relied upon to make his points.

2. That being white doesn't automatically mean you lack perspective on what it means to have freedoms denied e.g. people who are white but who (or whose families) have fled dictatorships or oppressive regimes. for this reason, it was unhelpful for last week's article to target 'white people.' I would add that last week's article didn't actually ask any white people what they thought - it just assumed they cared about the Corkman more than Trump and racist policies.

3. That (to some extent) white privilege and other forms of disadvantage can and do intersect, granting an individual perspective on what it might be like not to have other privileges. So, someone who is white, but but persecuted for being gay, might empathise with someone who is persecuted for being brown. "White and Gay" added perspective and helped to make this point.

I think the point of this article was that we shouldn't alienate people and assume political perspectives on the basis of race, and that freedom of speech includes the freedom for others to say what we don't want to hear. That seems fair enough to me.

28/3/2017 10:39:32 pm

MAGA

Make the Law Building Great Again

29/3/2017 12:19:38 am

We are going to build a wall across Pelham Street and make the Business School pay for it.

Just another snowflake

28/3/2017 10:41:03 pm

I don't think anybody is for 'thought policing' or discouraging genuine debate on social issues. However, when the premise of debate is the validity of certain human beings to exist and engage in society (on an even ground or otherwise) based on their gender, race, sexual orientation etc., it is necessarily an affront to their free speech and thus, free speech in general. The 'alt-right' is unabashedly characterised by racist and misogynistic beliefs designed to silence the people most likely to be against their rhetoric - those who hold oppressed identities. And those most likely to support this position are white people who, despite what you believe on a 'personal experience' level, have maintained dominance throughout most of history and continue to within the societal structures.

What the original article meant when it stated that support for the alt-right should be unacceptable was that the position should be shunned. Not that we should go out looking to lobotomise anyone with intolerant and corrosive views (though... not a bad idea). In promulgating alt-right beliefs as 'acceptable' or not speaking against them, you are in turn promoting the unacceptability of certain people and their views.

To put it another way, no one can stop anyone from being a Nazi but certainly having those beliefs should not be OK within society. White people (in general) need to realise that the true cost of remaining silent or promoting 'alt-right' beliefs is free speech. The fact that the movement has even gained so much traction is testament to the fact that no one is stopping them from speaking freely. They have made it difficult for people of colour to speak against them without those POC supposedly just playing the ‘victim card’. So yes, as other white people, in positions of privilege (at least in this regard), we have a responsibility to find alt-right views unacceptable so that non-white people can have free speech.

2 way street

28/3/2017 11:34:57 pm

"Not that we should go out looking to lobotomise anyone with intolerant and corrosive views (though... not a bad idea)" Seriously?! You were making a decent point until you revealed that you don't think it is such a bad idea to lobotomize someone with a particular point of view! Clearly you didn't pick up on the author's point that freedom of speech is a 2 way street.

Didn't think this would need to be said but...

28/3/2017 11:56:53 pm

Clearly you didn't pick up on the fact that was a joke.

No jokes allowed

29/3/2017 12:10:31 am

Clearly you didn't pick up on the fact this is MLS and we aren't allowed to joke (or even make comments about how tan we are fyi I am really tanned from my summer job as a labourer)

Peer reviewed Historian

28/3/2017 11:59:53 pm

'white people who, despite what you believe on a 'personal experience' level, have maintained dominance throughout most of history'

History goes back further than the 19th century. It even goes back much further than the 16th century. White people were certainly not globally dominant prior to 1492 and indeed prior to that they had been subject to about 1000 years of invasion by (non white) Muslims, Mongols and Tatars. The Turkish Islamic Ottoman Empire continued to occupy huge swaths of Eastern Europe well right up until the early 20th century.

From a demographic point of view, white people have never been dominant. They have never topped 30% of the global population and today comprise barely 10% of it.

ARE YOU FOR REAL

31/3/2017 11:59:29 am

Jesus Fucking Christ - the lengths people will go to deny to deny white privilege. I mean, really?? YOU'RE GOING BACK TO 1492?!

Peer reviewed historian

31/3/2017 09:09:14 pm

My comment actually had nothing to say about white privilege. It was correcting the factually wrong statement that 'white people...have maintained dominance throughout most of history'.

I thought the LSAT was supposed to weed out people with poor reading comprehension.

1/4/2017 12:19:10 am

Amen @peer reviewed historian

Lillian White

28/3/2017 10:55:48 pm

I was personally appalled by the author's failure to acknowledge that she speaks from a position of privilege in her being fortunate enough to have had time to achieve a modest 'summer glow' in her vacation. I myself enjoyed no such tanning luxuries as I was completely deskbound over the summer, undertaking an unpaid internship at my father's law offices, with only a meagre 10-day break over the Christmas period which I was forced to spend with family at our dreary lodge in Aspen. I would ask that the author and any future would-be contributors to De Minimis endeavour to be a little more attentive to those around them whose path through MLS is less sun-drenched and golden, and that next week's D.M. furore return to my own personal favourite, conspicuously absent in recent publications: Gender Wars!

L.W.

Come On

28/3/2017 11:07:48 pm

Ffs she admitted she was white in the opening paragraph (an seemingly acknowledged any privilege and connotations that came with that). Unlike some people that write and comment on DM articles she hasn't sought to keep score of aspects of her life where she hasn't had privilege (i.e. being a female in this "male dominated" world)

P.S. IMO the "fading glow" comment came across as s a light hearted reference to the fact whether she liked it or not she was white

P.P.S. And not that it should matter but I am an Asian male whose parents escaped a Dictator.

@Come on

29/3/2017 12:13:59 am

Believe it or not, saying "I'm white" and acknowledging privilege aren't actually one and the same thing.

Who woulda thunk it?

Instead, the former simply proves that you've checked a mirror at some point after your birth.

The latter, on the other hand, requires reflection, reading, experience, openness, more reflection, and much else besides.

It's a far cry from the narcissism of reading an article, picking out its title, and then making it all about you.

Come on

29/3/2017 12:34:11 am

Did you read either of the articles? The first one's title addressed white students (despite the title I read it), the point I took issue with is that the original author sought through the title to post out a sub section of MLS. This week's response was really a critique that seemed to say: although last week's article had some good points the way the author wrote it made it come across as if all white people who support Trump are privileged and their points of view shouldn't be tolerated which reading between the lines = silence freedom of speech

Great comment

30/3/2017 02:19:37 pm

Claire Nielson

29/3/2017 08:14:12 am

In 'Dear White People of MLS', I don't believe Asad ever said people of the alt-right / trump supporters at MLS should be denied their right to free speech. He was simply conveying that what they do say, especially with regard to Anti-Islam rhetoric, should not be acceptable, and that those who don't condone hate speech should speak up rather than simply letting it become part of normal conversation. It needs to be actively challenged.

I really don't see how imploring people not to accept islamophobia and racism denies anyone of free speech. You can still say whatever you want; granted it doesn't break any laws... just be wary if it's discriminatory that people will, and should, rise up in solitude against it - not because people shouldn't have a right to speak, but because the content of what they're saying is immoral and wrong. It needs to have social opposition in order for society to function without denominations being unfairly targeted.

To the people in the comments talking about white privilege being unquantifiable because there are poor white people in Australia and rich black people benefiting from affirmative action, or the fact that white people are globally 'outnumbered'... I'm sorry but you have completely misunderstood the concept of white privilege altogether.

WP is not simply a question of whether you're in financial straits and then linking that to your race... nor is it a question of 'which race is most populated?' It's so much more systematic and socially-rooted than that. Fuck, the stories I've heard from my Middle Eastern friends, as well as Asian friends with regard to some of their experiences in Australia is appalling. Some of it stands out, like getting told on public transport to 'go back to your own country' or being given chopsticks at a western restaurant after asking for cutlery. Other things are far more instilled in everyday behaviours and therefore more difficult to identify. As a white female I've never walked down the street, had people stare at me, clutch their handbag and then move to the walking path on the other side of the road, but I've known a number of middle eastern people who have explained this experience to me. I've never just been stared at by cops for doing nothing wrong, and when PTV officers come to check mykis, ive noticed they often make a beeline for the nearest person of Asian or dark-skinned appearance. Yes, WP is not statistically quantifiable. It's because it happens right under our noses and often without intervention.

Now just to the first para in the present article, where the writer describes being 'startled' by the title 'Dear White People of MLS'... the fact you've gone and taken this stance from the outset, yet completely ignored the fact that Muslims log on to the internet everyday and see headlines telling them that nearly 50% of Australians would support a Muslim ban, or that democraticallly elected Pauline Hanson is both providing her own definition of Sharia law and then slamming it in press conferences on national TV, or calling for Muslim bans... I think you would be more than a little 'startled' and want to do something to defend yourself. Complaining that you and your white family haven't always been so privileged is just narcissistic and ultimately undermines your argument. After all, if you want to support free speech then what's wrong with Asad titling his article 'Dear White People of MLS'?

29/3/2017 09:17:56 am

（☝ ՞ਊ ՞）☝

This. So much this.

@Claire

29/3/2017 09:35:57 am

1. I encourage you to re-read Asad's piece, for me what it conveyed was that some points of view should not be accepted in the law school. You may know through your own personal conversations with Asad what he may have meant in more detail, but for many who don't know Asad the piece overall came across as we should not allow certain speech - not we should educate people to make better choices - but that their view is not allowed, that is not accepted, shouldn't be voiced etc.

2. That's right you can still say whatever you want granted it is within the law. The problem is that these days when someone says something "unpopular" they are labelled a bigot and dragged through the court system only to have a judge prove that they did not breach 18C (see QUT case).

3. The concept of white privilege and any privilege in general is a construct that is influenced by many different elements. Any one person's experience with their own privilege and white privilege is their's alone. I don't think Virginia sought to speak for all (white) people and their experience with white privilege she merely sought to convey that in addressing all white people and assuming that their white privilege translated to an overall privilege Asad failed understand the nuance of personal experience and unfairly drew generalised conclusions about them.

4. I am fairly sure the point should be that at MLS we should be above the mainstream media that appeals to fears and emotions to sell papers. The author was merely startled (as was I and many other people at MLS) that one of our peers felt the need to address only white students. It shouldn't be narcissistic to respond to an article that your peer has addressed to a collective that you are a part of, and seek to highlight that despite the colour of your skin and the privilege it carries, you and others are not automatically immune from oppression and prejudice.

Claire

29/3/2017 05:05:12 pm

I don't know who I'm replying to, but:

1. I have literally never spoken to Asad on this topic. The extent of knowledge I have re: his POV comes from what I've read of his online writing. Assuming I'm supporting his article because I'm his friend and have additional knowledge of his situation is assumptive. I have re-read his article, and in it he demonstrated a strong anti-Trump, ant-alt right position. His call to action was to disapprove of those who are outwardly Islamophobic and who support politicians that encourage and spread Islamophobia. He never at one point comments on removing their right to speak on the topic. The writer in the article above claimed he relies on freedom on thought/speech yet denounces it. That is simply not the case. You can still support free speech and oppose certain ideas. You can even hate certain ideologies and denounce them without expressing a desire to remove free speech.

2. Calling someone 'bigoted' is an opinion; not a denial of the bigot's right to free speech. People are often judged on the basis of what they say, especially when it reflects hateful thoughts. There's no point trying to stop people from judging others on the basis of their questionable political stance/s.

People who want to deny asylum to muslim refugees, and publicly advertise that fact, are opening themselves up to public criticism. Equating strong opposition to Islamophobia with denial of free speech is simply a flawed analysis of free speech.

3. I never claimed that Virginia attempted to speak for all white people. Any white person, however, who can't acknowledge the existence of white privilege, or somehow thinks they aren't particularly affected by it at any one time, is kidding themselves.

4. If the author had actually read and responded to the content of Asad's article, rather than merely focus on the title, maybe she would have come across as less narcissistic. Instead, she just jumped at the word 'white' and went on a tirade on how she and other white people aren't always privileged and shouldn't be shoe-boxed. (I don't know if she failed to notice that the title was a reference to a TV show).

In any case, the exact issue that Asad's article analyses is collective action. White people, whether they spout racist views in the law school, or hear it and don't challenge it, are contributing to a much larger problem. That much larger problem was never mentioned by V in her article, she merely addressed free speech and defends white people without even addressing the broader issues highlighted in his original piece. This is why the element of narcissism overrides her article - it didn't effectively respond to Asad's arguments at all, it merely tried to critique him on the basis of a 'free speech' hypocrisy which didn't even exist.

29/3/2017 07:38:24 pm

1. The reason I suggested you may have spoken to Asad is that what you have taken away from Asad's piece is very different to what I and others took away from his piece prima facie (not that there is anything wrong with that). The thing is to many (both white and not) it did appear that Asad's piece sought to denounce freedom of speech in that it labelled specific positions unacceptable - take of that what you will but prima facie I take it to mean not allowed.

2. I think you have misinterpreted my claim regarding the chilling effect on freedom of speech the article could have.

3. I don't think there are many white people who would deny the fact being white carries with it some element of privilege - but you would be kidding yourself if you are to think that being white is the only thing at any one time that affects oneself (as so many other commenters have highlighted "white and gay")

4. I am sure she read the article as have a lot of us (many times) and yes it appears she did jump on the word 'white' doing so no doubt to raise the point this has had an impact on Asad's credibility and the ultimate point he tried to make. Asad himself clearly jumped on the word for a reason himself as well.

And thanks for the hint that the title was in reference to a TV show, I have since googled this, before someone claims I am ignorant for not watching it maybe consider that I am just not privileged enough to be able to afford Netflix nor do I have the luxury of time between working to support myself to watch the show.

@ anon, from claire

29/3/2017 09:12:30 pm

This is the last time I'm going to reply, because I can see that the main issue here is that you're equating the idea that *disapproval and opposition* (saying that something *should* be unacceptable -- a value judgment) is the same as saying something is not allowed (a statement of fact). They simply aren't the same thing. For the sake of accuracy, I've pasted the very statements made by Asad below:

"Supporting Trump’s policies and being part of the alt-right should be unacceptable positions. This is not to say that right-wing economic populism is an immoral political position. Rather, that the white supremacist rationale overtly and covertly behind the policies and rhetoric of the Trump administration should be rejected, not normalised."

*SHOULD be unacceptable positions*

*SHOULD be rejected, not normalised*

^ This is clearly a value judgment, and an expression of opinion (a demonstration of Asad's free speech, in editorial format). It is not a statement that people with these alt-right opinions don't have the right to speak. In light of the fact he identifies as Muslim, and he feels targeted every day by alt-right individuals / conservatives alike for his mere existence in Australia, his POV is entirely legitimate, and I'm sorry but the 'denial of free speech' argument is both flawed and weak in comparison. Muslims should not have to lend legitimacy to alt-right perspectives by listening to young conservatives who demonize an entire religion, as well as refugees. That's a matter of self-preservation; not narrow-mindedness.

Anyway, I also work part time to support myself, while studying full time and am interning. As a result I have no more time for this conversation - I'm going to take some coveted luxury TV time RN in fact. Cheers, and good night.

@claire

29/3/2017 11:12:12 pm

Hope you enjoyed the TV, I just got home from my minimum wage part time uni job and have no such luxury...

For the sake of accuracy I have pasted the statements by Virginia comments below:

"It is in addressing the white students of MLS and claiming that a particular position is unacceptable the author effectively denies those students their right, while allowing himself to maintain his right and use it to tar them all with the same brush. And while some have interpreted this intolerance as a mere metaphorical call for people to respond to such views, when the article is read as a whole with specific attention to the intended audience (white students), the sentiment that some do not deserve their right to freedom of speech and opinion as much as others is overwhelming."

*when the article read as a whole with specific attention to the intended audience*

*do not deserve their right to freedom of speech and opinion as much as others*

^For anyone who studied VCE English, Virginia has just engaged in the basics of language analysis in deciphering the affect Asad's article had on its intended audience.

29/3/2017 09:55:03 am

I posted this above but I will post it here again. It is useful to talk in terms of measurable outcomes for people of different skin colours, in education, earnings, health, etc.

It is not useful to talk in terms of 'privilege' which is an unfalisifiable idea that you can't measure and which generally just serves to cause division anyway.

You might impute that differences in outcomes is a result of 'white privilege' but this is again an assertion without evidence that cannot be proven or disproven. Even the experiences of non white people you describe cannot be logically or evidentially proven to be a result of some mythical concept of 'privilege'.

It's a useless concept and it in fact alienates many white people who are good intentioned, but resent be tarnished with this original sin they are told they need to spend their lives repenting for, and even then they will never be clean of it.

Georgie I

29/3/2017 10:04:39 am

@ Claire -- so well said!

29/3/2017 10:34:27 am

And @ It was my privilege -- have you ever heard of qualitative data? Data which can be quantified and is easily measurable makes up a very small percentage of all the information out there... Just because qualitative data is more difficult to analyse doesn't make it any less legitimate as a research method.

The existence of white privilege in Australia is documented in so many reflections, and evidenced by the lived experiences of both white and non-white citizens in our society. The fact that you choose to diminish or effectively erase the existence of these people's experiences simply because they can't be easily quantified is completely illogical, and, dare I say, revealing about who's voices in society you are willing to listen to...

Why do you feel so hard done by acknowledging your privilege? No one is condemning you to a miserable lifetime of atonement for the sin of whiteness. All that is asked (as a first step at least) is that you acknowledge your privilege, and that you listen and learn from people of colour about their experiences.

Of course, acknowledgement of privilege alone does little to assist in dismantling power structures which disempower people of colour and other marginalised groups, but I think we'd better save that step for another day.

29/3/2017 09:48:52 pm

Qualitative data is a legitimate took of research but it's not helpful here anyway. How arrogant must you be to think that you or any other person can have in their heads a calculus of the complete history of human experience and interaction since the dawn of time to be able to draw a conclusion that this thing called racial privelege exists and some people have it in greater amounts than others

The fact remains that you can never stand one person beside another and definitively say one of them has more racial privilege than the other. Again you must be extraordinarily arrogant to think you can weigh up in your head the experiences of their lifetime and decide who is more or less privileged than the other.

Until you can do that you are no better than something like a creationist/intelligent design proponent. 'The Earth has so much beauty to it, therefore God did it'. 'I have observed X Y Z, therefore white privilege.

Henry HL

31/3/2017 05:25:56 pm

Spot on Claire

31/3/2017 08:36:39 pm

(L)

Straight White Male

29/3/2017 04:10:04 pm

Good debate, guys!

Just a quick question to my fellow straight white males. You guys receive your White Privilege package in the mail yet? It's already the 29th, and I could really use the money, get-out-of-jail-free card, and instant partner-promotion coupon right now.

Get your shit together, Government! What else are we making those minorities and females pay taxes for.

Lily

29/3/2017 04:44:46 pm

I'm so ashamed to be a MLS student reading these responses in support of Virginia's article. The saddest part is that it's not even surprising.

29/3/2017 05:24:33 pm

The difference between being able to say 'we may not always be happy with a political outcome' and saying 'this political outcome puts my life at risk' is white privilege.

So funny how white people are all for freedom of speech until a person of colour starts trying to exercise theirs. Also when have you ever, in your life as a white person, felt that you weren't able to express your holy opinion prior to the 'dear white people' article?

29/3/2017 09:53:43 pm

"The difference between being able to say 'we may not always be happy with a political outcome' and saying 'this political outcome puts my life at risk' is white privilege."

An assertion in want of reasoning or evidence, like usual.

Melanin deficient

29/3/2017 05:44:56 pm

So many snowflakes here. Most people at the MLS are privileged; you are at one of the best law schools in the world. Ironic to see so many here decrying the fate of minorities having gone to elite private schools themselves. It is this sort of virtue signalling that turns normal people off. If a civil debate on a pertinent issue turns into this what hope is there for civil discussion full stop. For people who preach on "tolerance" and everyone being Australian isn't constantly deploying identity politics rhetoric counter productive? Get a clue.

@melanin deficient

29/3/2017 08:41:54 pm

your comment makes no sense lol

Comments are closed.

Dear MLS

Archives