People of Colour Lunch

12/9/2018

Week 8, Semester 2

By Jackson Willows

‘Equality & Social Justice invites you to join us for our second People of Colour Lunch! The event is a wonderful opportunity to meet and chat with other students and staff at MLS who identify as persons of colour.’: “E&SJ People of Colour Lunch”, MULSS Website.

If this doesn’t disturb you, I am sorry - you have lost the plot.

I would like to think folks who peddle this kind of thing have good intentions. I am not out to compare anyone with Hitler or anything, but this stuff is just annoying because it is so obviously wrong. I know they think they are correcting historical wrongs, which is why they use ostensibly harmless words such as ‘equity’ and ‘inclusiveness’ (the irony...) as justifications, but for God’s sake, how are people so blind to the inherent hypocrisy?

Imagine if someone at the Law Students’ Society organised a ‘white people lunch’… Melbourne Law School would go bananas, and rightly so. Exclusion on the basis of race is absolutely unacceptable and every student here should know that. What is more, the Law Students’ Society should not be facilitating or endorsing it. There are no excuses.

‘But it’s impossible to be racist to white people because history’ … ah, no. Think about it - if you decide whether something is racist based on the race of the person it is committed against, then you have a shoddy and half-baked definition of racism. I would even go so far as to say you have a necessarily racist and self-defeating definition of racism.

We should not be dividing ourselves along arbitrary lines that have fuelled one historical tragedy after another. We should know better than that, especially here in Australia with our history. We should be emphasising the things that unite us, like our common humanity, our dignity and how we are going to work together to improve our future. They are the things that matter, not race.

I know it is terribly clichéd to invoke him and it is surreal to be doing it against people who think they are combating racism, but that is the message of Martin Luther King Jr, to judge people ‘not …by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.’

In any case, how does excluding people of one race correct historical wrongs? Are you not merely committing the same wrong you are trying to correct? If race-based prejudice is wrong, it is wrong. Full stop. This needs repeating: the wrongness of the prejudice does not depend on the race of the person subjected to it.

While we are on the subject, people should not be held responsible for the historical wrongs of people of their race. Obviously. If you disagree with that statement, take a second to think about what that means. Should people be held responsible for things they did not do, merely on the basis of their race? Do you think that is the way forward? Do you think that will solve our problems, really?

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.

That is not to say we are not obliged to solve the problems that history has left us, such as the gap in life outcomes between Indigenous Australians and other Australians. That particular problem has been with us a shamefully long time, and is far too pervasive for anyone with half a conscience to be satisfied with. We are not only obliged to solve these problems, we are obliged to work together to solve them - that is what we should be talking about.

It took hundreds of years and God knows how many lives for us, as a society, to figure out that racism makes us all worse off, and that it is evil, wrong, ugly and degrading to everyone. I am not willing to let that go so easily and neither should you be. So, next time you are tempted to think racial discrimination is okay, especially if you think it’s for a good cause, remember that it is wrong.

That being said, I want to reach out to all students with an invite to a potluck on Tuesday the 18th of September in Room 224 at 12:30-1:30pm where we can share a meal and talk about what unites us, not what divides us.

In response to this article, Ayman Shash (Director, Equality and Social Justice) MULSS and members of the ESJ team provided the following response:

The ESJ portfolio of the MULSS is committed to facilitating greater access and inclusion within the law school community. To that end, we and other MULSS portfolios facilitate initiatives that respond to inequities experienced by some law students, seeking to encourage a sense of belonging for all. Our Book Fairy program, as well as the recent activities of the Education, Women’s, Queer & International portfolios provide examples, some of which are autonomous.

Through our consultations with students, we are aware that marginalisation, intentional or not, does impact upon the experience of some students from First Nations and minority ethnic backgrounds. Prejudice and unconscious bias are not things of the past, with real consequences on the participation and wellbeing of those subjected to it. While we share your egalitarian aspirations, it is with this backdrop in mind that we agreed to facilitate the lunch, following the lead of previous MULSS committees, fostering community as an act of inclusion. To characterise the event as reflective of or equivalent to institutional discrimination is, respectfully, not a position we subscribe to.

We should all feel that we belong and are valued at the law school.

Arabella

12/9/2018 12:57:48 pm

The purpose of autonomous events for groups of women, people of colour, queer people - for example - are that they facilitate a space for individuals within those groups to describe experiences they’ve had specific to their gender or race or sexuality, in a welcoming, accepting space. My experience in women’s autonomous spaces is that they have allowed me to articulate instances of sexism and misogyny with the knowledge that I was amongst a group of people who can, to a greater or lesser extent, relate. That’s an incredibly powerful, and empowering, experience to have, and is one that is often not afforded individuals from marginalised or underrepresented groups.

I think your argument that “the wrongness of the prejudice does not depend on the race of the person subjected to it” is too simplistic. “Prejudices” don’t happen in a vacuum. The context in which those “prejudices” are experienced is so relevant to their overall impact. So, exclusion of non people of colour from spaces that are otherwise very accomodating of them, is different from the exclusion of people of colour from spaces that have tended to be hostile towards them.

I also think using Martin Luther King Jr to bolster your argument is rather disingenuous. He was an explicitly and unapologetically pro-black activist. Selecting one of his quotes out of context does a disservice to what he argued for. This event was not about “judging” somebody on the colour of their skin. It’s about recognising that the academic and legal world continue to be places that can be hostile or unaccommodating to people of colour - if no longer through explicitly segregationist ways, then in more subtle, insidious and structural ways. The role of an equity portfolio, or a queer portfolio or a women’s portfolio is predicated on the fact that the playing field is not equal, and autonomous events and spaces are one way of grappling with that inequality.

Daniel BS

12/9/2018 02:53:31 pm

Couldn't have said it better Arabella!

Emily Grutzner

12/9/2018 04:47:58 pm

Well said

Pia M

12/9/2018 04:32:11 pm

YES! Amazingly articulated

Lily Hart

12/9/2018 04:34:21 pm

well said Arabella <3

Annika

12/9/2018 04:43:58 pm

Well said!

Sabine

12/9/2018 06:12:03 pm

Brilliantly said Arabella!

Gabrielle

12/9/2018 06:12:42 pm

Amazing words Arabella! During such events even for students within those groups who were skeptical, I always heard really great feedback as well.

Brittany LL

12/9/2018 08:47:31 pm

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw_mRaIHb-M>

Siane R

12/9/2018 08:54:18 pm

Well said Arabella and Ayman!

Ariz

13/9/2018 12:24:14 am

I wanted to say exactly this, especially about him using MLK to explain racism. Thanks for putting this so beautifully into words!

Get fucked

13/9/2018 07:03:55 pm

Everyone who is in opposition to this article can GET FUCKED!!!

If you care about diversity so much... rather than having a people of colour of lunch, let’s all just crack open a VB and sit around the Barbie! We can start with your mums house???

Adriano

13/9/2018 01:00:58 am

From the get go, I think an exclusionary gathering creates a wall of separation. While providing victims a place discuss with others that have similar experiences, it doesn't allow people who are supposedly part of an identity group considered an oppressor whether it be white or male or whatever from developing a sense of understanding or sympathy. It generalizes and treats other identities as if they're inherently in the wrong or can't participate. From my experience in Australia as a Philipino international student, yes I've seen racism, but I don't believe that's what the majority of Australia stands for. I don't think separating helps facilitate a multicultural society. To propagate it requires constant interaction, contant cultural exchanges.

To your point about Martin Luther King Jr., it's not disingenuous for Jackson to quote him. MLK championed black empowerment of course. But that doesn't mean it was to be done alone. His criticisms of the white population was the majority's silence and indifference to the plight of black people which sought to perpetuate the system. It's a team effort, and to address this issue I believe that way is more productive and helpful in combating systems of oppression rather than exclusion and segregation, something of which sounds more akin to 'separate but equal' something we should be trying to avoid.

Segregation for me, not for thee

13/9/2018 07:56:36 am

It would have been extraordinarily enlightening to see what would have happened if a white person had shown up to the event. Was their a bouncer at the door with a colour chart checking people's skin colour? Would they have been turfed out? How would the other attendees have treated this person with the incorrect colour of skin? Would they have been friendly or welcoming or would they have been hostile or indignant that this person had shown up invading THEIR space?

Use whatever bullshit half baked understanding of historical context you like to justify your racism, but it will still be racism. Indeed few racists ever legitimately think of themselves as racist, they all think there are very good reasons for holding their racist attitudes and practices, don't they.

Tilly

12/9/2018 01:21:21 pm

Let’s unpack some of the more...interesting...lines, shall we?

“I am not out to compare anyone with Hitler or anything, but this stuff is just annoying because it is so obviously wrong.”

1.5/10
Aside from poor expression, Jackson immediately discredits whatever point people may have been sympathetic to in his (almost) first sentence. Reaching-and it is a far reach-to draw a comparison between the paragon of racism and discrimination with not being invited to a fucking pizza party is ignorant at best, and unabashedly revolting at worst. 1.5 for earnest intent that doubles as so-stupid-you-have to laugh.

“Imagine if someone at the Law Students’ Society organised a ‘white people lunch’...Melbourne Law School would go bananas, and rightly so’

0.3/10
I’m not going bananas for this pisspoor demonstration of reverse racism (but more on that later). Have you uhhh looked around yourself, Jackson? Almost everything at MLS is a white people lunch. Unless the focus of the panel is exclusively aimed at countering the overwhelming whiteness of speakers (which, by the way, never draws the same crowd as a firm presentation), you can hazard a guess that white will be the default. That’s the point of the poc lunch. 0.3 because ‘go bananas’ sounds like something my racist Aunt would say on a Facebook status and I’d make a drinking game about it.

‘But it’s impossible to be racist to white people because history’

-5/10.
Strawman 101. 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. No attempt is made to furnish this statement, or indeed, even argue how racism is premised on systemic discrimination. And that’s the frustrating part of this article, really, isn’t it? Being afforded an enormous amount of privilege based on the colour of your skin and being so fragile you can’t acknowledge that. Nobody is saying your life hasn’t been easy (though you did write that one article about how you’re mediocre and can’t finish things); it’s just that the colour of your skin hasn’t been a contributing factor. I would note the examples, but I can imagine them now: “Yes people HAVE made assumptions about ME because I’m a WHITE MALE and it HURTS,” “No it IS RACISM because EXCLUSION is WRONG in EVERY CASE”

‘Something something MLK surreal irony’

-20/10

I hate when racists bring up MLK. He’s rolled in his grave 10,000 more times since 2016, probably.

‘Are you not merely committing the same wrong you are trying to correct?’
0/10

Yes, dude. Having a lunch where POC are able to talk openly and without fear of judgement or tantrums like yours is akin to genocide, displacement, degradation, slavery, and the ripple effects of these policies.

And this is where I’m going to stop breaking down each line, because it’s a waste of time. Bringing up Hitler and Martin Luther King in the same article, comparing students who already have to put up with enough shit and then waste several minutes of their lives listening to an angry white man talk about how missing out on pizza is practically a continuation of historical wrongs? If you don’t laugh, you cry.

Jackson, mate, pick up a book that isn’t Ben Shapiro. Start with Angela Davis, bell hooks, Frantz Fanon, Edward Said, Audre Lorde, Glen Coulthard, or even Toni Morrison. Part of critical analysis is learning how to shut up and listen. That’s where you need to start.

Mahalia

12/9/2018 10:43:02 pm

Thank you Tilly, this comment is everything

R.E.S.PE.C.T

12/9/2018 11:11:50 pm

Wait, and you're the one calling him angry?

In the first paragraph alone you:
- Insulted his expression;
- Implied that the article was stupid, which it clearly wasn't;
- Placed his views (which were relatively reasonable and well articulated) somewhere between ignorant and revolting, which they clearly aren't;
- All before reducing his entire article to a rant about non-invitation to a 'pizza party'. (Pro tip: Accusing someone of the strawman fallacy makes more sense when you don't do it yourself.)

Oh, and signing off with 'shut up and listen'? LOL. All class.

The funny thing is that you act so enlightened and morally superior, yet you don't realise how counterproductive to your own aim it is to spew this kind of utter garbage.

As you can clearly tell, DM is a unique forum where people are able to share and discuss their ideas. Even if you find someone's views completely repulsive, shooting them down with such disdain won't make them disappear. It just sends them into hiding, where they go unchallenged by open, respectful debate. For that reason, you should be fucking ashamed; if not for the ridiculous level of disrespect you've shown, for the fact that after reading your absolute bin-fire of a response, it would clearly be far easier to hold a bigoted view than it would be to subject said view to the light of day. Unpopular views will persist at MLS and elsewhere as long as people like you refuse to engage with them.

On that note, quit being such a hypocrite and take your own advice. Shut up, listen and have some fucking respect.

13/9/2018 12:12:23 am

At least I have the guts to put my name to this critique. Also, it was so poorly articulated that it kinda became funny. That was the point.

Feel free to have open and respectful debate with me in person, rather than hiding behind your own sense of self flagellation, mate.

Thanks but no thanks

14/9/2018 01:53:00 pm

Sorry champ, I have no idea who you are and I'd prefer to keep it that way. FYI, you might also want to double check the meaning of 'flagellation'. All the best.

Rachel

13/9/2018 08:20:47 am

You articulated everything I wanted to say, Tilly. What an ignorant article.

Person of light

13/9/2018 08:57:18 am

“White people”

We prefer the term “people of light”

The Machine

17/9/2018 04:46:27 pm

Why do white girls think they are the authority on race, you're privileged too and no more of an expert on the issue than the author?

Telling people to shut up and listen doesn't mean you're correct, nor does insulting the author who hasn't attacked you at all.

Accusatory garbage like you've just posted isn't productive or helpful, nor is 'putting your name to it' as you've probably spent the last week showing your comment to your friends showing how moral and progressive you are.

And even if you're intentions are good, you end up dividing instead of uniting.

P.S only one throwing a tantrum here is you, grow up

Left wing student who hates racism

19/9/2018 02:51:46 pm

I disagree with Jackson's article, and agree with many of your points, but lame, aggressive, virtue-signalling comments like this have never actually got someone to change their view.

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.

Alumna

12/9/2018 02:26:23 pm

Please sing to tune of singin in the rain:

Some things are not for you
Some things are not for you
Some things are not foooooorrr you
Some things are not for you

Big Bazza

12/9/2018 03:14:56 pm

I reckon we should all be mates.

Cis White Male

12/9/2018 03:33:09 pm

I know you all think you are woke AF for your postmodernist id pol recognition of the power hierarchies at play at MLS... that the 'playing field is not equal'... but what if Jackson is even more woke, and that by ignoring/not seeing the power hierarchies, and judging people as individuals he has effectively found a way to remove the influence of social hierarchies based on arbitrary physical features altogether?

Maybe unrealistic? but if everyone thought more like Jackson, maybe the world would be a nicer place.

Stay woke sheeple.

Another

12/9/2018 04:01:56 pm

People organizing around their common interests is legitimate, lest those common interests be ignored by everyone else.

another cis white male?!

12/9/2018 04:02:01 pm

pls see comment above re vacuum.

Miles

12/9/2018 05:42:43 pm

These "social hierarchies" you speak of are not based on "arbitrary physical features" you moron, they're based on years of oppression and discrimination. By removing that "influence" you basically negate these experiences that people have had and continue to have.

Help help I’m being oppressed!

13/9/2018 09:10:09 am

I feel so awful for these poor oppressed individuals attending the best law school in Australia and one of the best law schools in the world.

Oppressed

13/9/2018 09:36:59 am

My point exactly!

Although there's no way MLS is one of the best law schools in the world. Only an arbitrary ranking mostly based on research says so.

Lara

12/9/2018 06:25:00 pm

sure, I see your point, but as other people have mentioned in other comments:

1. most people don't think like Jackson, in that they are still quite racist (whether or not they want to admit it -- racism runs very deep and is hard to effectively/completely unlearn): and that's not going to change as a result of one de minimis article. Given that most people are pretty racist, and are likely to be for quite some time, a response like the POC lunch is a very appropriate one.

2. I also think that your suggestion that the solution is to "think differently" obscures the fact that a lot of racism is not even interpersonal but operates on really deep, structural racism (such as, as Jackson notes, the gap in life outcomes: that's due to a lot of different, ingrained, systemic issues -- not just people "thinking" racist thoughts). so even if we were able to somehow magically make everyone think in a not-racist way, there would still be tons of racism at work, and so events like this lunch would still be 100% warranted.

Another straight white guy

12/9/2018 03:46:50 pm

hahahaha you mad bro??

Just a shirt bro!

12/9/2018 04:02:32 pm

Haha! You got a problem with my shirt bro?

Anonymous White House Source

12/9/2018 04:19:08 pm

To view your article, Jackson, in it’s most charitable light, you aren’t racist. You live in, and write of, a post-racial, post-racist utopia.

To me, you’re right. That utopia IS the ideal.

But we aren’t there yet.

To get there takes more than everybody looking past racial differences. It takes more than you demanding racists not be racist, and ‘divisive id-pol woke’ kids not be ‘divisive id-pol woke kids’, It takes more than insisting we’re all morally hypocritical for not inhabiting your enlightened race-free outlook.

It takes positive action to redress current, race-based injustices (many or all of which have historic causes). You said as much in your words regarding the welfare gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. You say “we should not be dividing ourselves along arbitrary lines that have fuelled one historical tragedy after another”. Aren’t you, justly, pointing to precisely one of those lines in decrying the welfare gap?

Whether you think it’s the right method - or motivated by the right intuitions and worldview - the lunch initiative you criticise might be just one tiny step on the path towards the utopia you inhabit. Criticising the lunch, and impatiently demanding we all join you in your post-racial utopia, fails to see how getting to that utopia first requires
eradicating instances of individuals’ intentional racism
redressing structural, racist outcomes
evolving beyond unconscious racism as best we can
other

But the really sad thing about this article is the lack of charity, the lack of grace, the lack of self-reflection, exhibited by your article AND inevitably in comments from the liberal/progressive/woke/id pol/POC/LGBTIQ++++/bernie voting/socialist/(insert Andrew Bolt’s latest here) people in the comment section.

The knee-jerk reactions against anybody relying on a term like ‘people of colour’, or anybody who says “why can’t I have my white person lunch”, serve only as self-gratifying affirmations of our places in these political/moral/social tribes.

We aren’t reasoning together. We aren’t listening. We’re emoting.

Your article was laudable in articulating (hidden beneath the excrement) something of an ideal. It seemed to come from a place of frustration and exasperation. But it seemed to come from an entrenched position; a divisive position!

If we all calmly recognised the grain of truth in the other’s side, perhaps we’d take a step towards that promised land and not get so angry seeing either: 1. an ad for a woke lunch or 2. cringe-worthingly cliché ‘privileged first year law student’ articles.

Krisp

17/9/2018 06:55:02 am

Amen

Ayu

12/9/2018 04:45:44 pm

I see someone has a problem with affirmative action.

As the person on the LSS who introduced this POC Lunch last year, you best believe I am not at all disturbed by the notion that people like myself need and want a space in which we can all gather and affirm each other’s existence in what is a predominantly white institution.

The fundamental premise of this article is that there is no difference between the exclusion of white persons and the exclusion of non-white persons in a predominantly white institution. Until we achieve a post-racial utopia, this premise draws a false parallel.

As an aside, I welcome all manner of discussion but have seen enough edgelord behaviour from students like yourself at this point that your POV is , for lack of a better word, extremely banal.

one more time for those in the back pls

16/9/2018 03:10:53 pm

the white fragility is screaming, halp

Non white student

12/9/2018 04:47:35 pm

I am a non white student who was invited to a PoC lunch and was pretty disgusted. Did the event organisers scroll through Facebook with a "appropriate skin tone" chart and pick us brownies out of the hat?

12/9/2018 04:54:00 pm

Hi, I was the event organiser last year and I’m pretty yellow, so I invited people on the non-white spectrum within the JD Community to attend! If you felt unfairly targeted by that, I truly apologise. I was just trying to invite as many POC as I could. My white co-director had nothing to do with the invitations.

Ying

12/9/2018 06:34:20 pm

I wonder if this issue might be resolved by the portfolio not actively inviting specific people to the event, and leave it for people who self-identify to come forward? Probably not ideal for marketing purposes, but it would be a whole lot less problematic. The colour spectrum is necessarily a wide one.

19/9/2018 02:49:31 pm

I like Ying's approach.

Huda

13/9/2018 10:08:20 pm

I’m not sure if you’re referring to this year’s PoC lunch, but based on similar concerns that were raised when Ayu ran the event, promotion this year was done by posting on the JD Facebook pages, allowing students to self invite. Students were not selectively invited by the E&SJ organisers.

19/9/2018 02:49:19 pm

Last year's event. Looks like they learned their lesson.

12/9/2018 04:50:37 pm

I don't want to live in a post-race world. I DO want to live in a world that acknowledges and celebrates difference.

Hungry

12/9/2018 05:26:11 pm

Real talk: is the pot luck being rescheduled?

Jackson

12/9/2018 06:05:57 pm

Hungry,

Thanks for pointing this out.

**The potluck is at 12:30 in room 224 on the 18th.**

I must have forgotten to include the updated time in my pre-publish version.

I’ll get in touch with the good folks at DM and ask them to change it.

Jackson

LOL

12/9/2018 06:25:29 pm

Unseasoned chicken and white bread for all

Clarification

12/9/2018 11:55:36 pm

Sorry Jackson, this is white people only, yeah?

13/9/2018 06:17:47 am

Clarification,

Absolutely not. There is no race requirement to attend the potluck.

If there are people who would like it to be all-white I'd ask them to stay the hell away. They are not welcome.

Jackson

18/9/2018 12:27:34 pm

**Update**

The potluck is in ROOM 608, not 224 as advertised. Apologies for the mix-up.

Jackson

Jackson Fan Club

12/9/2018 05:51:00 pm

Good on you Jackson for voicing your opinion, I see no reason why people are so up I farms about this.

This is a free country, you're allowed to speak your mind, although I don't agree with all your points, I think your view is valid nonetheless.

Another Jackson Fan

12/9/2018 05:59:04 pm

I absolutely agree with u! Jackson, you have written this eloquently.

I really don't understand why they are so irritated about your comment.

To anyone who suggested you were being racist, you don't understand Jackson's point!

12/9/2018 05:59:12 pm

If we're all about respecting freedom and free speech then Jackson really shouldn't be up in arms about and offended by a simple lunch organised by people who hold different beliefs then him, should he? Hmmm? Isn't it a free country after all?

In all seriousness though, Jackson is entitled to his opinion, but so is everyone disagreeing with him. You'll also note that most of the comments have been respectful and evenly toned. Those who disagree with him aren't 'up in arms', they're sharing valid opinions.

12/9/2018 06:28:13 pm

yep, agree with this -- people are not really "up in arms", they're just responding to things they disagree with, which... they're allowed to do.

also, in terms of tone, I don't feel like Jackson's article is particularly calmly written either. just a thought!

Donald

12/9/2018 05:52:03 pm

In the words of someone you likely admire Jackson:

This article is fake news. Sad!

FEMALE OF "UNDEFINED COLOUR"

12/9/2018 06:21:41 pm

omg this is actually ridiculous! Why is it that the minute someone doesn't agree with some left wing idea they become labelled a trump-supporter, and then eventually a fascist??? As someone who was invited to this lunch I think it's pathetic! Is that the best response you have? Why are you just assuming all "people of colour" (whatever that spectrum is) somehow have all the same experiences? Maybe some of us don't even see ourselves as people of colour?

So?

12/9/2018 07:56:15 pm

So you don’t identify as POC and didn’t attend the lunch. What’s the problem, then? Others do and see value in the event. Go do your readings or something.

12/9/2018 11:56:28 pm

K sweetie

13/9/2018 12:23:42 am

Also thanks So?

Lizz

12/9/2018 05:53:13 pm

If your personal views on how to best achieve 'equality' stand in direct contradiction of what people of colour are saying would be helpful and meaningful for them, then maybe you need to re-evaluate what you're actually trying to achieve.

12/9/2018 06:10:01 pm

This ^^^^

POC

12/9/2018 07:24:57 pm

Does it stand in direct contradiction though?

Ironically, it seems as though most of the 'POC' commenting on this article are agreeing with some or all of the things he said

Really?

12/9/2018 11:57:13 pm

Not that I can see

female of "undefined colour"

12/9/2018 05:58:54 pm

I have to agree with this article and I am glad finally someone is talking about it. I was invited to this lunch both this year and last year as a "person of colour", but how do you pick and choose who is a person of colour? I feel like the invitation process is inherently racist in itself. I have never identified as a person of colour so why am I and other "non white" looking people being thrown into the same basket as if we are all somehow related by our "non-whiteness".

Also what constitutes a person of colour? What if I'm just a really tanned white person? Do you guess? People of Arabic descent seem to be included in this (although not all - apparently some aren't "colourful" enough), but what about Greeks and Italians? Why do they not seem to be considered "persons of colour"? Have we just accepted that they have never faced racism?

Furthermore whilst I understand Arabella's point that these events are meant to "facilitate a space for individuals within those groups to describe experiences," this assumes that all people who don't look white, somehow share the same experiences, when this is frankly just not true. "People of colour" (whatever that is) experience racism to varying degrees, some none at all, so why are you acting like we are all the same? I think that is racist in itself.

Lara Shirley

12/9/2018 06:19:42 pm

Hello,

I can’t speak to all of the points you raise (I’m a white person and so do not really feel qualified to comment on who does and doesn’t constitutes a person of colour!) but there was one thing I’d like to comment on.

I am a person of Southern Italian descent and have spent a long time thinking about why exactly we don’t get to be “persons of colour”, particularly since a lot of my specific family’s heritage involves talking about cultural links to other countries in the Mediterranean, the Arab etymology in a lot of our dialect, etc.

The simplest way for me to think about white privilege is as being constituted by two elements: being white-passing (looking white) and benefiting from more structural systems of privilege that help white people. So:
1. Italians, in Australia (and most of the world today), are generally seen as white, or at least they aren’t seen as not-white. (This wasn’t always the case, but it is now.)
2. The historic not-great-treatment of Italian immigrants largely doesn’t affect their standing in society today. It’s something they’ve been able to overcome.

People of Arabic descent (to use your example), on the other hand, still face a lot of discrimination. There are lots of ugly stereotypes, which I’m not going to repeat, that Italian-descended people do not have to put up with. While Italians were, at one point, considered too far away from whiteness, we are now definitely included within it, and the level of privilege with which we move through society corresponds to that.

12/9/2018 06:45:02 pm

Hi Lara,

I understand and appreciate where you are coming from but my reference to people of Greek and Italian background is simply to demonstrate the issues with making generalisations when using the label "persons of colour". Whilst the historic treatment of Italian immigrants may not affect their standing today, I don't think we should be making generalisations by using the label "POC". I may be considered a person of colour by some people but I have never considered myself to be such, nor have I ever experienced the same level of racism that people of other nationalities may experience. What concerns me is that the LSS thinks they can just throw everyone who doesn't look white into the same basket where we can all happily bond over our oppression, despite some never having even faced it.

Couldn't agree more

12/9/2018 06:22:19 pm

Well said. As a person of colour, I won't attend events like these or because we are defined by so much more. Don't categorise me as 'oppressed' because I'm brown.

Appreciate your point

13/9/2018 12:09:15 am

I don't think events like this are about who is/is not oppressed within a certain race within the law school. They're about creating a space for people who are statistically a minority in the law school/ society/ genuinely face issues of racism outside MLS to catch up for an informal lunch.

This sort of event isn't about race v race. It's just about people being in a safe environment to talk about stuff which the vast majority of students wouldn't have to deal with.

MLS is a bubble which might be fine most of the time . But POC and others face hatred/discrimination etc in Australian society. Why not just let people who have been through similar experiences talk about their experiences?

There of course are POC who haven't had the same experience, but so what? The LSS exists to connect to ALL students. That's why they run different and varied events so that they to have something for everyone.

Maybe this isn't for you, but don't belittle the value it has for others.

Thank you for this comment.

19/9/2018 02:53:19 pm

A dose of sanity, and I empathise with your comment deeply.

The Best thing

12/9/2018 05:59:25 pm

Finally someone has the balls to tell the truth. White people pretending to care about diversity!!

Reality check

12/9/2018 06:12:07 pm

Um....you know this was organised by self identifying people of colour, right?

Are you dumb

12/9/2018 07:29:21 pm

Um...are you dumb? The people representing it may be of colour but the people who promoted and funded this society do not have social inclusion in mind.

Jackson's Ballz

12/9/2018 08:41:34 pm

Notice me senpai

Hello are you dumb - rude

13/9/2018 12:15:02 am

It's literally funded by the Equality portfolio which has been led by POC for the last couple years who ARE IN CHARGE OR ALLOCATING FUNDS TO IT.

But no I might be wrong because you must be able to read minds. 'The people who promoted and funded this society do not have social inclusion in min' lol sorry, I must be wrong cause last time I checked the Equality portfolio promoted it and funded it from their budget.....but oops I must just be dumb. Last I checked they were POC who chose what events ran?

But please, tell me how the white people control everything at MLS?

Double Standards

12/9/2018 06:34:19 pm

I’m a person of colour. But I don’t understand this. How is excluding white people not racist?

If we believe all people are equal, then why exclude white people purely on the basis of their skin colour?

As Jackson rightly pointed out- if there was a ‘white people lunch’, how would many people who are ironically outraged at this post (rightly) react?

If its people of colour, that’s fine. But if it’s white- racist? The double standard is insane. And nobody who is angry about the criticism of this lunch has offered a substantive explanation.

Maslow’s Hierachy of Frauds

13/9/2018 07:27:23 am

Social justice warriors think they are smart enough to compile all of humanity’s rights and wrongs against each other since the dawn of time and construct an oppression period whereby people on higher levels can be racist to those on lower levels but the reverse is not true.

POCMAN

12/9/2018 06:43:43 pm

Was talking to a few recruiters as part a group 'discussion' (more of a 'who can talk the loudest' exercise) and heard one guy say loudly 'That's why I think it's so important to promote a diverse workplace' and I could feel my eyeballs' desire to roll so far into their sockets that they would never return. Diversity and intersectionality should not be used as a weapon in the job hunting market or big note your moral character. I assume he did actually believe that but it's a funny thing to broadcast so loudly, as if you need to prove that, just because you look white, you can be inclusive and diverse as well.

As a person of colour who has never been and would never be referred to as such (for reasons I can totally understand as POC is inherently related to identification, both your own and from others) I can understand where the author is coming from. I do, however, agree with many of the commenters that these places do operate for people who have had legitimate grievances to air them. If, as a result of being white, someone had a similar grievance I would hope that they would have some avenues to air them as well.

The only time I've ever experienced persecution was from POCs bullying me on the basis that I was too white for them. Given I was a kid I've long forgiven that but things aren't always so...

multicultured girl

12/9/2018 07:10:33 pm

I agree with your comment.

Let's also not forget that many of these POC cultures and subcultures from places in South Asia, East Asia and Africa have inherently discriminatory attitudes, such as looking down on those with darker complexions and not having straight 'Caucasian' hair.

I have also personally witnessed and experienced more racism from POCs.

12/9/2018 06:50:25 pm

Although equality in a dictionary means everyone is the same, from a social perspective equality is about recognition of difference and acting to try and level the playing field.

That social perspective is what institutions like the LSS try to do. The equality portfolio recognises that not all students have the same social economic status so have initiatives like book fairy, the women's portfolio recognises that law is a male dominated industry and have initiatives like women networking nights, the queer portfolio recognises that LGBQTI students have a different experiences in the industry and have initiatives like queer networking nights.

I think the other missing piece here is that that recognition isn't made by an LSS committee of people making decisions in a vacuum. It comes agtewr debate at a meeting and even before that student feedback or consultation. For example Annika, Karrie and I had a survery prior to intiating the womens workshop series on what events women of MLS would like and student feedback was a WOC event. Tilly and Ayu also had feedback from students when holding the POC potluck and got great feedback afterwards.

All events are for self identifying students.

I persoally struggled with this last year. I'm half Filipino and half Dutch. I have the skin of my Dutch father, but the culture of the Phillipines as someone who was raised by a single parent WOC. I was hesitant to hold a WOC event last year but we consulted with students on whether Annika and I should attend and to what extent we should be involved.

If you actually researched about the events before writing on them, you would know the POC of the LSS such as those representatives identifying as such in partner with the Indigenous portfolio spend a lot of time talking to students about what they want the event to be and look like.

The Law building is full of intersectional differences. The aim of events like the POC pot luck is about recognition of the inequality such groups experience and providing something and somewhere students can feel empowered by.

Regularly-asked-where-i'm-really-from brown girl

12/9/2018 09:03:24 pm

Agree and disagree. So many of these events make me feel like my colour is the most important thing about me. I do not walk around all day thinking about my skin colour; I got shit to do. I agree with Jackson's point about this specific event at an institution that is fairly cloistered.
Using MLK as an example was not a great choice - the systematic treatment of black people in the US is still very much an issue thats nowhere near resolving and is incomparable to application to an event like this.
But I used to go to events like these and i used to seek out people of the same ethnicity as me. I understand it might serve some people, but it didn't for me, it only reinforced feeling bad about my skin colour where I'd prefer to not think about it at all. The casual racism I see from my own community towards other non-white ethnicities are some of the most vicious I've ever encountered and this is a big part of why I'm averse to things like this.
In addition, a people of colour lunch aimed at relating to other people assumes that just because someone else is not white, I will automatically relate to them - why is this? There's something equally off-feeling about being grouped together to "relate" even if I am worlds apart from the people in attendance, just because we are not white. I have other POCs constantly asking me where I'm from before they ask me my name or say anything else at all to me. It sucks, and I don't care as much about where I'm from anywhere near as much as they seem to.

Bring on the potluck. Or go to the POC lunch, if you get value out of it.

Pls be mindful

12/9/2018 10:15:45 pm

It is easy to get caught up in arguing and forget that there are people behind these events. Ayman and Peggy have hearts of gold, are exceptional directors and put so much thought and effort into every event they put on. What might be a fun de minimis topic for you, or an interesting debate, is something very close to the hearts of other people and I think that some of the commenters here could be mindful of that. Hosting an event for POC does not warrant all of this hostility- think of the people behind the event who are reading these comments and reassess what you say

Jimi

13/9/2018 09:02:13 am

CONCERNED

12/9/2018 11:19:19 pm

The most concerning part of this article is that the author has run for an LSS position next year....
As someone who fundamentally believes the LSS is elected to represent me as a student, I do not feel that way about the author

13/9/2018 02:08:41 am

Yes, it is highly concerning that someone whose views you disagree with might put their hand up to be democratically elected to a position in the LSS.

You're all demoralising.

13/9/2018 01:22:42 am

With a a few moderate exceptions, this entire incident is embarrassing. For all sides.

You're all as bad as each other. And so entrenched in your own rigid mindsets, and so angry at the other side, that nothing constructive is possible.

Plenty of intelligence, little wisdom.

The centrist CHAD

13/9/2018 09:20:50 am

Why pick a side when you can be cooler than both?

Dead Memes

13/9/2018 10:47:34 am

I'm getting 'plenty of intelligence, little wisdom' tattooed on my forehead <3

Avenue QAnon

13/9/2018 09:25:04 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RovF1zsDoeM

Smh

13/9/2018 09:38:58 am

This article is so #alllivesmatter

13/9/2018 02:22:26 pm

Jackson,

First, despite disagreeing with what you've said, at the very least, I applaud your bravery in starting a conversation like this. As an above comment mentioned, you have created a platform for POC to anonymously express their own concerns.

My main problem with what you have said is that you, as a white male, think that it is STILL okay to be commenting on something that expressly is not intended for you. Commenting on the experiences of another race -- or another person, for that matter -- is futile. You CANNOT a) assume to understand how POC feel and how they situate themselves in inherently racist society like Australia and b) assume that all POC have the same experiences. Nor can I, or anyone, except for the person who actually experiences it for themselves.

I sincerely hope you read these comments and challenge your own views -- you are entitled to your own opinion, but I encourage -- urge -- you to broaden them beyond your own sphere of experience.

13/9/2018 02:49:29 pm

“My main problem with what you have said is that you, as a white male, think that it is STILL okay to be commenting on something that expressly is not intended for you. Commenting on the experiences of another race -- or another person, for that matter -- is futile.”

I’ll remember this line next time anyone who is not white presumes to offer their opinion about what white people can and cannot/should or should not do. In fact if you are not white, this probably applies to you too :)

Enough with the shit-throwing

13/9/2018 04:06:37 pm

As some of you sit red-faced frantically typing walls of text, just take a step back and try to see how unproductive so much of this discussion has been. Jackson's article is clearly problematic – indeed I wholeheartedly disagree with a lot of it, for reasons which have been outlined to exhaustion above. But the frequent lack of attempts at real conversation, the efforts to simply shut Jackson down, and the sheer rage that has fuelled so many responses are frankly embarrassing.

What have we achieved? Some people did give thoughtful responses, some people of colour voiced their own concerns about the POC lunch, but mostly it's just a long list of people feeling chuffed at how vicious their attacks on Jackon's article, and unfortunately Jackson himself, were.

Call me a filthy centrist, disregard me if you want. But at the end of the day all you've done is shouted furiously into an echo chamber full of "this^^^^"s, "spot on"s and "couldn't have said it better myself!"s. So give yourself a pat on the back, but realise you've convinced no one who didn't already agree with you.

Something to consider.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Steel Man Me

13/9/2018 04:38:30 pm

Thanks Filthy Centrist,
Couldn’t have said it better myself!

Seriously though, spot on.

13/9/2018 07:01:22 pm

Minister of Truth

13/9/2018 07:23:04 pm

"Diversity" is another one of those words which doesn't actually mean what the dictionary says it means anymore. In today's brave new world diversity simply means less white people, and the fewer white people are present in any given setting the more diverse things are. This continues to the point where there are no white people present in that setting and upon reach that point the situation becomes 100% diverse.

I get it, we're an 'elite' group, in AU, but GTFOHWTBS

16/9/2018 03:28:07 pm

are you actually an MLS student, or are you trolling from a bunker in Idaho??

13/9/2018 08:27:52 pm

I am glad to have started a conversation. We should all be grateful to De Minimis for giving us a forum.

While I am not exactly thrilled with the tone of the conversation, I do take some responsibility for that. I tried to find a balance between communicating my disappointment with the Law Students’ Society, pointing out what I think the moral and logical incoherencies of these kinds of events are and having something constructive to say. Not easy when it comes to topics as contentious as this.

Up front I have to say the condescension in lots of the comments is almost unbearable. People treat you like a caveman who has never read a book because you disagree with them, it’s as if they think you’ve not discovered your brain yet. God forbid someone put some thought into their opinions and came to a different conclusion than you! They basically say “You’re so stupid that you think that because you’re white and male. Let me reveal the truth of our God, Clementine Ford.”

I should also say, while I appreciated the effort, I was disappointed with the response from the ESJ folks and the Law Students’ Society. All I saw was a bunch of tired tropes of grievance and ideological platitudes.

I am afraid they missed the point, as did many commenters (and I don’t think that just because they disagreed with me).

It was pretty disappointing, if not predictable, to see comments targeting my race and gender were so prevalent, especially from people who apparently live to eradicate discrimination on those bases. Again, I know the irony is lost on many of you.

I’ll also take this opportunity to add a few points of clarification.

I was not claiming that associating in race-based groups was inherently racist. If a bunch of people of race X want to have a get-together, then fine - go right ahead. What I have a problem with is having a get-together while excluding one race. There is a substantive difference between the two. That is plainly obvious.

I am not sure why folks think I want to live in a ‘post-racial world’. That is not the message I was trying to send. I am guessing it came from the line ‘They are the things that matter, not race.’ Perhaps I should have phrased it with a bit more care. I was intending to redirect the emphasis we currently place on race to somewhere a bit more productive.

And a few observations.

Folks who agreed with the article tended to comment anonymously, while folks who disagreed almost entirely posted using what one assumes is their real name. That’s extremely interesting, if not sad. Why sad? Because people feel so stifled by the overwhelming stuffiness and belligerence that dominates the political culture at Melbourne Law School that they are unwilling to put their name to their opinion for fear of being pilloried. This is a very bad sign and is exactly what I took issue with in an article last semester, “Self-censorship, name-calling and political polarisation”.
Why interesting? Because most, but certainly not all (thanks for your thoughtful contributions, Arabella, Lara, POCMAN, Gabrielle and S), of the comments disagreeing with me were entirely unproductive and were just vehicles for people to throw insults and signal their virtue to each other. Wow guys, way to go! You dominate the narrative out of fear, not by the strength of your arguments.

So, if you would like to have a PRODUCTIVE AND CIVIL discussion with me and (hopefully) some others about this issue, please come to the potluck (EMPHASIS ON PRODUCTIVE AND CIVIL). That’s the point of it. I won’t insult you because I disagree with you, and I hope you will extend to me the same courtesy. Don’t just sit behind your keyboard and feel good about yourself because you yelled the loudest on the internet. Come and have a polite conversation over some food with people who disagree with you. God knows we might all learn from it.

I look forward to reading some well-considered responses in next week's edition. Keep it civil, everyone.

‘Big Bazza’ said it best:
“I reckon we should all be mates.”

13/9/2018 08:32:35 pm

** correction: “You’re stupid because you’re white and male. Let me reveal the truth of our God, Clementine Ford.”

Clementine Ford?

13/9/2018 10:01:54 pm

“You’re stupid because you’re white and male. Let me reveal the truth of our God, Clementine Ford.”

Sorry Jackson, but isn't saying stuff like this rather condescending and unhelpful — a direct complaint you had with the other commenters?

Anon

13/9/2018 09:09:59 pm

I think a productive and civil discussion requires acknowledgement of and engagement with the arguments of others.

However, in your reply, you haven't engaged with the substance of the response from the ESJ team, nor with the various arguments raised in comments (including those you see as thoughtful) about why events for people who identify as POC are not only defensible but important.

13/9/2018 09:28:04 pm

You know I think his sort of drama can be completely avoided if events like this are simply framed properly. Rather than actually declare an event exclusionary to a particular class you can simply give it its theme and let anyone who wants to attend attend. Usually you end up getting the crowd you created the event for anyway.

The queer events for example are always open to everyone, some straight people attend and they are very welcome to attend, but the attendees are always overwhelmingly queer.

I imagine if the POC lunch had actually been open to people of any race there would still have been zero white people show up, nothing changes and nobody gets mad over the principle of being excluded from an event based on their race. It’s like when you get pissed for not being invited to a party that you didn’t want to go to anyway and would have turned down even if you got an invite.

As far as I can tell the POC lunch didn’t actually say “no white people” but it’s interesting none of its defenders have tried to disclaim this, they seem to assume it was a racially exclusionary event and are quite happy for it to have been as such. In the future I might suggest that events like this are framed inclusively. Maybe one or two white people or Rachel Dolezal will show up to virtue signal to you about how not-racist they are, but other than that I’m sure the event will still be attended by those who it was intended for. But If someone really can’t stomach the sight of a few white faces in a sea of colour then I suggest you’ve been staring too long into the abyss and have yourself become the monster you thought you were fighting.

Jared

13/9/2018 10:22:05 pm

To be fair, he's offered to speak in person with anyone who cares enough to. I wonder if anyone will.

Tired

13/9/2018 10:20:12 pm

“I was not claiming that associating in race-based groups was inherently racist. If a bunch of people of race X want to have a get-together, then fine - go right ahead. What I have a problem with is having a get-together while excluding one race. There is a substantive difference between the two. That is plainly obvious“

... I’m sorry but I think we can now zero in on the logical problem you’ve introduced. Jackson, ‘white’ isn’t a race. Excluding white people is not ‘excluding one race’. Just like PoC =/= ‘one race’. People may identify as white, as PoC, or neither. Based on their SELF-identification, they’re welcome to attend social events within the law school related to their cultural identification. You still haven’t actually explained how this is racist.

14/9/2018 10:56:24 am

Hi there Jackson,

In your comment, you’ve only really responded to the tone of some people’s responses and not the substance of their arguments, which is a problem because (a) people both agreeing and disagreeing with your article have used more informal/aggressive language, so it’s not a valid critique to only attack the people disagreeing with your argument for using that tone when a lot of people agreeing with your argument have used similar tones and (b) there are people (like you yourself have pointed out) who’ve disagreed with your argument in more “diplomatic” language, and I don’t see much actual, concrete response to the points raised by them.

It’s a classic diversionary tactic to critique an opponent’s tone of language and redirect the conversation to be focused on that instead. While tone is a (potentially) valid topic in itself, it’s not what’s being discussed here, and I would ask that you and others disagreeing with the arguments raised address the substantive arguments, rather than only the language that they’ve been raised in.

14/9/2018 10:57:12 am

(Also: I find your theory that people agreeing with you aren’t putting their names because they’re “stifled” by “stuffiness” extremely weak. It’s unsupported by any other evidence — there could be many other, far more ungenerous reasons why people aren’t putting their names to those comments.)

13/9/2018 11:25:38 pm

I still don’t understand Jackson why you have an issue with the POC lunch yet don’t seem to have an issue with events like Women’s only networking nights? Please explain because it seems fishy

Not Jackson

13/9/2018 11:47:33 pm

One could similarly ask why you don’t have an issue with women’s networking events but would presumably have an issue with white women only networking events.

Clearly there are some classes which it is widely accepted can hold events exclusionary to that class only, such as particular women’s events, and clearly there are other classes for which it is not widely accepted that this practice is acceptable. Race in particular is one of those latter classes.

Most people do not live inside an abstract intersectional academic bubble, when they are told it is unacceptable to discriminate based on race, and then see the same people who told them that themselves discriminating based on race, all they see and all they will ever see is hypocrisy. As such, it is sometimes better to be more inclusive in principle even if in practice you will end up with the same thing.

It should probably be noted that women only groups are probably unique in many respects due to the inescapable reality of the male libido.

Yeah nah

14/9/2018 08:35:51 am

As opposed to the inescapable reality of, say, white institutionalism in an Australian law school?

14/9/2018 09:02:15 am

Women (and non-binary people) don't hold events because of the 'inescapable reality of the male libido', whatever that means. While I can't speak for everyone, I think it's much more accurate to say we hold or attend such events because of a context of inequality, discrimination, harassment and violence. Such events allow people to share similar experiences and they facilitate solidarity and activism. They nurture support networks that can be vital to helping people overcome gendered barriers to success.

LILY

14/9/2018 11:31:15 am

Sorry NOT JACKSON but just to be clear- you are saying that
1. Women have a valid reason to have women's only events,
2. The valid reason women have for having women only events is 'the inescapable reality of men's libido',
3. POC do not have a valid reason to have POC only events,
4. POC is an exclusionary term but Women isn't?

If i've managed to get that right, my issue is still that the concerns of women are privileged above the concerns of POC. If you can accept that women have a different experience to men in the law school why is it so hard for you to see that POC also face different barriers and may need specific support groups to help overcome those?

So my question still hasn't really been answered. The only reason given was that women have to deal with 'the inescapable reality of the male ego'. I think this is an oversimplification of the issues with the under representation of women to an extreme degree, but also it's not fair to men. You're saying that all male professionals can't control themselves and are at the mercy of their sex drive? I'm not sure I agree that that is the issue.

If we do accept that it's men's raging libido that is the reason women need special events, why is that given more recognition than the experiences of POC in the law school which points to their also being an issue with institutionalised racism? As YEAH NAH has pointed out that doesn't make sense.

For me I feel alot of these comments come down to people not wanting to recognise that non-white law students, law students from a different background to the majority, have different experiences that white students can't understand and aren't faced with. You're able to recognise these experiences when they happen to women because as a society we have slowly allowed (mostly white) women's experiences to be acknowledged. Unfortunately, given the different treatment of this event compared to women's events, I don't think the cohort is ready to dismantle racism in the same way.

If I'm wrong and you don't agree then please address my original question with more clarity :-)

Sigh.

14/9/2018 02:03:08 pm

All of this could have been avoided if you knew the difference between racism/discrimination and special measures/affirmative action and had made a proper argument on that basis

That’s just like your opinion bro

14/9/2018 02:32:35 pm

Just because your gender studies professor told you there was a distinction between such things doesn’t make it objectively true.

Double Sigh.

14/9/2018 05:16:48 pm

If you want to claim that something is racist or discriminatory rather than affirmative action or a special measure (both of which objectively exist in real legal terms), then you have two options.

One: explain why you don't think that affirmative action or special measures ought to exist by engaging with and showing an understanding of anti-discrimination theory/law.

Or two, if you accept the premise of affirmative action or special measures, explain why it doesn't apply to the POC lunch.

I deeply disagree with what Jackson has said, and suspect he was raised in a hermetic bubble. At the same time, he also hasn't made a decent argument because he failed to engage with those points. He has just said: "it's necessarily racist because it excludes white people." As a result, what he's said is flimsy trash.

You have no power here

14/9/2018 07:56:38 pm

We can do whatever the fuck we want, we don’t have to play by your made up rules about “anti discrimination theory” dreamt up by some wanker in his ivory tower over his morning coffee.

Trolololo

14/9/2018 08:36:09 pm

I thought Jackson might appreciate some constructive advice on the importance of cogent, evidence-based argumentation.

Bless you, little troll.

lmao

17/9/2018 03:09:12 pm

90% of the comments in here are by privileged white women who have never actually faced adversity so they take it upon themselves to carry the cross for those they deem to be 'oppressed', they champion themselves as progressive, moral etc but in reality they just use minorities as their little pets to prop their social image up.

19/9/2018 02:13:46 pm

lol probably written by a dudddddde must be real comfortable when you don't put your ass on the line

18/9/2018 12:23:33 pm

19/9/2018 02:49:39 pm

A friend brought something to my attention today, which I would like to clarify.

The sentence referring to Hitler could be interpreted two ways, one of which would imply a comparison between Hitler and the folks of the ESJ portfolio. That was certainly not my intention and it was not read that way by the five people who read the article before it was published.

In fact, I was trying to make it clear that I WAS NOT comparing anyone to Hitler, but was still annoyed. I apologise if this caused any offence, and I accept responsibility for the poor phrasing.

A Basic Rule of Thumb

19/9/2018 04:33:06 pm

Just casually dropping a reference to the Führer is never a good idea.

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? Dropping a name like that - and not even phrasing it cautiously enough to avoid it being misinterpreted by others!!! - is pretty indicative of the level of racial discrimination (or lack thereof) that you have experienced in your life.

Also, sure, in your article, you say: "I'm not trying to compare anyone to Hitler" - - except that you actually say "I'm not trying to compare anyone to Hitler, but". That "but" implies you're about to go and compare people (again: three people of colour) of acting in a comparable way to Hitler, albeit not of acting in exactly the same way.

Define Empathy

19/9/2018 04:56:42 pm

According to OED: 'The ability to understand and share the feelings of another.'

Now, let me think... Nope, this must the wrong definition.

What's your definition of empathy, Jackson?

Come On

19/9/2018 05:07:46 pm

You have a very nice friend. Because there is only one way to interpret that sentence.

You say that it was your attempt at not comparing anyone to Hitler but still express your annoyance at them. Curious remark that. I cannot recall the last instance where I heard someone compared another to Hitler on account of being 'annoyed'.

You know what's annoying? When I'm in a hurry and that revolving door feels too slow. One should use, if ever, the nuke that is a comparison with Hitler for something more than just annoyance.

NOT HITLER might be onto something, methinks!

Where is Your Sense of Proportion?

19/9/2018 07:21:55 pm

Oh, great! Sets the whole forest on fire and then says sorry for burning the fence!!!

Comments are closed.

People of Colour Lunch

Archives