Jump to content

Increasing state-authorized/Mandated segregation


Recommended Posts

I have long appreciated that the Church local congregations are largely determined by geography.  The Church does have "language" wards (our stake as a "Spanish" ward and a "Japanese" ward), but anyone can attend. 

The Church also has "Polynesian" wards that are, as I understand it, not based on "language" but on broad shared cultural/ethnic bonds.  These are something of an anomaly in the Church, but I think they persist because, well, they tend to be very effect.  My sister-in-law is from Samoa, so my brother - a haole - has for many years attended a Polynesian ward.  In fact, he is currently the bishop of the ward.

I'm not sure what the criteria are for getting records transferred to a Polynesian ward.  My sense is that the rules are somewhat lax.  We had a young man in our ward transfer his records to a local Polynesian ward for a while.  He is not Polynesian and has never lived in the islands.  But he had some Poly friends and they appeared to have an influence on him.

Anyway, there is not, in my view, race-based segregation in the Church.  I have been in my ward for 15 years, and have seen people of many, many different racial/ethnic/cultural backgrounds cycle through (I live near BYU in Provo, so we have a lot of turnover).

I am, however, concerned about the return of segregation in other segments of society.  But where old-school "segregation" favored and privileged white people, the current trend goes in other directions.

Race-based "Hang-outs" and "Safe Spaces":

Race-based healthcare:

Race-based housing and roommate selection:

Race-based grading and selection of teachers/students:

Race-based student orientations and graduation ceremonies:

Race-based student events and training/educational opportunities:

Race-based "training" sessions:

Obviously there is some nuance and differentiation to be applied here, but in broad strokes these trends are pretty troubling.  

Much of the rot seems to be coming from college campuses and government.  In other words, from power structures and institutions.  

I would like to discuss what we as individuals, and as members of the Church, do to address and correct these things.  Certainly there are legal and political options available (I'd rather not discuss them here), but are there additional things we can do as private individuals?  As members of the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

There are three things we can do as individuals and as members of the Church to begin to correct the systemic racism that leads to the initiatives that are so laughably framed above as segregation and as discrimination against white folks:

I think it's pretty clear that there is "discrimination against white folks" going on.

And your appeal to ridicule doesn't really work.

46 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

1. Set aside our blithe and unthinking defense of the nation's systemic power asymmetries that serve our interests over and against those of minorities.

I don't know what this means.

And it comes across as a strawman.

And it presupposes that which has yet to be demonstrated.

And what's thie "our interests" versus the interests "of minorities?"

46 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

2. Stop insisting our perspectives are the default or the ruling perspectives and

Again, strawman.  

Again, presupposting that which has yet to be demonstrated.

Again, I'm not really sure what this means.  It's pretty vague.

46 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

actually give space to the consensus of minorities regarding those systemic power asymmetries.

I don't know what this means, either.  

46 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

3. Stop confusing right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and colorblind racial ideology for the gospel. 

Again, strawman.  

Again, presupposting that which has yet to be demonstrated.

And please don't politicize this thread.

Overall, your contribution doesn't contribute much.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Prediction - this thread will be a trainwreck. 

Prediction: People will try to sabotage a genuine and well-intended discussion about difficult issues by trying to guilt/shame others into silence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

When black babies die at a disproportionate rate (and a whole lot of other similar glaring data, we can hardly blame black people for thinking that many of those outcomes wouldn't happen if there were more black drs (who know better incidentally, black bodies which are not altogether identical to white bodies medically).   The point is that we have a whole group of citizens whose outcomes can be improved by knowing more about black people and having more people of color in medicine and the law and other fields.

I think the segregation on colleges for Black Dorm and a Asian Dorm is counter productive.   But I'm not in a category who fears for their live regularly (whether or not you believe that is a rational fear), either:  many of our fellow travelers do not even feel safe  in their skins.    I think the approach ought to better trying to find commonality, particularly in our shared divine heritage and humanity.   And working on critically thinking and hearing each other and rejecting what needs to be rejected, while trying to reconcile or alternative different preferences.   But those programs would have to be intentional and students may need some help to get to that place.   And those who are basing their choices on their divine worth with belief in their ability to accomplish/become whatever they want, sometimes need practical help like tuition and inexpensive living to get there.

And as wonderful as a cultural setting is for church,  I'm thinking that for polynesians we might be better supporting them with integretation.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Certainly there are legal and political options available (I'd rather not discuss them here), but are there additional things we can do as private individuals?  As members of the Church?

Prepare for and welcome the further separation. Advocate a complete severance of church and state, where qualifying religions are considered to be soverign, like the Holy See. 

We can run from or accept the times we live in. 

 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)

Let's break this down a bit.

From the OP:

Quote

Race-based "Hang-outs" and "Safe Spaces":

From the article:

Quote

Beloit College, a small liberal arts college in Southern Wisconsin, has transformed a campus coffee shop into a gathering place for black students, according to the school’s website.

In March, the private institution announced the Java Joint would be closed in order to become “a haven for Beloit College’s Black students.”

Would American Society in 2021 find "a haven for ... white students" acceptable?  If not, why not?

Quote

The idea of segregating students by race on campus has gained steam over the past few years. According to a 2019 National Association of Scholars report, over 200 schools nationwide have implemented policies that encourage or facilitate segregation.

From the NAS report linked above:

Quote

“What we found was that neo-segregation is widespread if not pervasive. About 46 percent (80 colleges out of 173 surveyed) segregate student orientation programs; 45 percent (75 colleges out of the total) offer segregated residential arrangements; and 72 percent (125 colleges out of the total) segregate graduation ceremonies,” the report states.

The segregated graduation ceremonies are held in addition to the main commencements all graduates attend.
...
Additional items the study tallied included: segregated safe spaces, segregated mentorship programs, race-targeted scholarships, race conscious hiring committees, events exclusively for students of color and more.
...
The report argues this hurts students of color far more than it helps them.

“The most readily apparent harm from such segregation is that it fosters a sense of insecurity. The members of the segregated group are taught to fear other groups, especially white students,” it states.

“They are encouraged to see themselves as victims or potential victims, and as heirs to past grievances. Training students to see themselves as vulnerable to the transgressions of a larger, intolerant or bigoted community is poor preparation for life in American society. Students who venture outside the segregated bubble may indeed encounter some hostile attitudes and racial stereotypes, but surely it is better to learn how to deal with these realities than to hide from them.”

The nonpartisan National Association of Scholars, which independent and right-of-center scholars are often affiliated with, debuted the report Monday at Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center on Capitol Hill. The co-authors are Dion Pierre (left), a research associate at the National Association of Scholars, and Peter Wood (right), the association’s president.

NAS-293x400.jpg

At the event, Pierre, who is black, said: “It is our conviction that segregation in any form erodes our sense of national community, reduces the quality of intellectual life on campus, and perpetuates discredited racial thinking.”

I think these are some fair points.

Quote

From this article:

Quote

Numerous students at the University of Virginia recently affirmed in on-camera interviews that the school’s multicultural center, lately the site of a contentious incident in which a young woman publicly criticized white students for studying there, should largely remain a space for non-white community members.

Would American Society in 2021 find "a young woman publicly criticiz{ing} black students for studying" in the schools multiculteral center acceptable?  If not, why not?

The University of Virginia is a public institution.  

Quote

Last week video surfaced of a black female student delivering a “public service announcement” in the middle of UVA’s recently opened Multicultural Student Center. The student declared that there were “just too many white people” in the center, that it was made to be “a space for people of color,” and that nonwhite students in the center were made “uncomfortable” by the presence of white people there.

Here's the video:

Here's a trascription of what this student said: 

Quote

“Excuse me! Public service announcement! Excuse me! If y’all didn’t know, this is the MSC, and frankly, there’s just too many white people in here and this is a space for people of color, so just be really cognizant of the space that you’re taking up, because it does make some of us POCs uncomfortable when you see too many white people in here.  It's only been open for four days.  And frankly, there's the whole university for a lot of y'all to be at, and there's very few spaces for us.  So keep that in mind.  Thank you.”

Imagine if this was a white person: "This area is a space for white people, so just be really cognizable of the space that you black people are taking, because it does make some of us white people uncomfortable when you see to many black people in here, and frankly, there's the whole university for a lot of you black people to be at.  So keep that in mind.  Thank you."

This would be patently inappropriate and wrong.  It's racism.  

Quote

From the article:

Quote

Students on a Princeton University podcast complained about white students “invading” “POC places” on Wednesday.

A Nov. 28 episode of the Princeton University student podcast Woke Wednesdays featured students decrying their white peers "invading" "POC [people of color] places" on campus.

Since fall 2016, the Carl A. Fields Center for Equality and Cultural Understanding (CAF) has been home to several cultural "affinity spaces.” These affinity spaces are areas within the CAF building intended for students to gather, study, socialize, etc. based on minority status. CAF has black, Latinx, and Middle Eastern affinity spaces, among others. While each space has an associated race or ethnicity, every student, regardless of identity, is allowed to any space.
...
The video cut to Carter sitting in the black affinity space, where she explained that non-black students occupy the room, “essentially, pushing out the black students who [sic] this room is intended for.”

“It kind of makes the black students feel like they’re a visitor in a space that’s supposed to be theirs,” the Woke Wednesdays presenter said.

The episode then transitioned to interviews with students. Princeton student Saran Touré indicated that she works at CAF and sometimes visits affinity spaces. 

“I’ve only ever seen, like, actual black people sitting in the black affinity space, like, three times,” she told Woke Wednesdays. “Every other time it’s always, like, someone that’s not black and someone that’s, like, usually a white male.”

Touré suggested that while she would like to cry in the black affinity room, she feels uncomfortable if individuals of other races are present.

“If I want a space to cry where I feel comfortable, I want to go to the black affinity room,” she said. “But if you’re there, I feel uncomfortable.”

“I went once. It was a white guy there. I left,” Princeton student Tamilore Ajeigbe told the podcast. “It didn’t feel right. Like, this place for African-Americans and there was a white guy there. It’s, like, ironic.”
...
Princeton student Rod Eric Joseph claimed that individuals whose identities conflict with that of an affinity space have, in the past, locked those whose identities do match up with the affinity space out of the area.

“White students often feel entitled to certain places on this campus, regardless of whether or not they are built for them,” said student Rita Keazer. “So, that sense of entitlement does trickle over into the Carl A. Fields Center, even though most of Prospect Avenue,” the street where CAF is located and best known as the home to Princeton’s eating clubs, “is quite white-serving.”

Keazer said that “you have to be either really ignorant or very vindictive to occupy that space.” 

  • “It kind of makes the {white} students feel like they’re a visitor in a space that’s supposed to be theirs.”
  • “I went once. It was a {black} guy there. I left.  It didn’t feel right. Like, this place for {white people} and there was a {black} guy there. It’s, like, ironic.”
  • “{Black} students often feel entitled to certain places on this campus, regardless of whether or not they are built for them. ... {Y}ou have to be either really ignorant or very vindictive to occupy that space."

These are pretty ugly statements.

I think a bit step forward is to object to institutionalized racism, even when it is intended to be benevolent.  It just doesn't seem to end up that way.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

One thing that I think we can do is to allow and support segregated spaces unless or until one is shown to be unjust in some way

This☝️ is scary. Who decides when  one is shown to be unjust?

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Okay, Spencer.  You're always right. 

You're not contributing.  And your personalizing this thread.

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It's not like you poisoned the well out of the gate or anything.

I don't think I did.

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

ETA: Mr. McClellan's post was dead-on of it's assessment of your post and your position. 

Well no, it's not.  I think racism is a terrible thing.

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It clearly made you uncomfortable. 

Not really. 

And again, you are trying to personalize this thread.

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Instead of that prompting self-reflection, you went right into battle mode.  Again.

I started the thread.  I get to decide its scope and general contours.

And again, you are trying to personalize this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, rpn said:

I think the segregation on colleges for Black Dorm and a Asian Dorm is counter productive.  

I agree.

25 minutes ago, rpn said:

But I'm not in a category who fears for their live regularly (whether or not you believe that is a rational fear), either:  many of our fellow travelers do not even feel safe  in their skins.   

They feel threatened by . . . whom?

Is is that feeling reasonable?  Rational?  If a white person said "I need a 'safe space' because all black people make me feel unsafe," would we accommodate that?

25 minutes ago, rpn said:

I think the approach ought to better trying to find commonality, particularly in our shared divine heritage and humanity.  

I quite agree.

25 minutes ago, rpn said:

And working on critically thinking and hearing each other and rejecting what needs to be rejected, while trying to reconcile or alternative different preferences.  

I agree that we need to listen to each other.  

25 minutes ago, rpn said:

And as wonderful as a cultural setting is for church,  I'm thinking that for polynesians we might be better supporting them with integretation.

The Polynesian wards in Utah County are, as I understand it, significantly more successful that regular wards.  By pretty much every metric.  I'll do some digging and see if that's so.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Prepare for and welcome the further separation.

I don't think we should do that.  I think we should figure out how to get along and integrate together.

24 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Advocate a complete severance of church and state, where qualifying religions are considered to be soverign, like the Holy See. 

Not sure what you mean here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

This☝️ is scary. Who decides when  one is shown to be unjust?

Usually we use the courts to decide that.  Common sense can go a long ways too.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Chum said:

Links about US white experiences that have strong commonalities with

centuries of enslavement

I'm not suggesting a symmetry between the examples I cited and "centuries of enslavement."

19 minutes ago, Chum said:

horrific reconstruction-era violence and intimidation

No symmetry here, either.

19 minutes ago, Chum said:

generations of ceaseless, life-altering overt discrimination

This is where we start to part ways a bit.  I think we've made significant progress in racial harmony and righting past wrongs.

19 minutes ago, Chum said:

will help me understand how "discrimination against white folks" is so endemic that it rates a place at this table.

Help me understand what sort of metric you use.  How bad does discrimination need to become before its targets are entitled to "a place at the table?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Anything on this topic that includes "what about whites?" is just never going to work.  It doesn't matter how logical the question is or how reasonably it is meant or how unfair any white person thinks it is.  You will always get pushback until you can remove the "what about whites?" from the discussion.

You have to heal the hurt before you can come at the topic with logic or reason.   And there is no way to heal the hurt when the group who caused/is causing it keeps trying to interject themselves into the conversation.

There's a lot of wisdom in this.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

One thing that I think we can do is to allow and support segregated spaces unless or until one is shown to be unjust in some way. 

Didn't we decide some time ago that race-based segregation was inherently "unjust?"  That "separate but equal" didn't really work?

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Where real harm has occurred, safe places make sense. 

They do?  How?  If a white woman is sexually assaulted by a black man, "real harm has occurred."  Is she thereafter entitled to exclude all black men from her vicinity?  How does that "make sense?"

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And we may not want to admit it but white people have done plenty of real harm to minorities.

But isn't reducing individuals to a mere racial identity part of the problem?  Particularly in 2021, decades after the Civil Rights Act and the dismantling of "systemic" racism?

Moreover, what are your thoughts about this:

P1-BH636_murder_G_20120817182109.jpg

The biggest threat to black people is . . . other black people.  And the biggest threat to white people is . . . other white people.

I'm not saying that racism isn't a real and serious problem.  It really is.  But I don't think we improve things by pigeon-holing people into racial categories and then treating those categories differently.

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In that sense, I don't see some black people wanting a place without white people any different than some women wanting a place without men, and we don't usually have problems seeing 'women only' gyms as discrimination, for example.

Yes, I've wondered why I'm okay with "women only" spaces, but not okay with "whites only" spaces.

I'll think on that.

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Dr. Phil (bless his heart) had a saying that he used a lot when counseling married people where one had committed adultery, and the say was (not quoting word for word) that you don't try to fix the harm you caused for a specific amount of time, you fix it "until".  Until the person you hurt says its been fixed.  That might be a year or it might be 5 years.  But the important thing to remember is that you don't get to dictate the timeline.

I think that's pretty applicable in this case.  

A fair point.  I just question whether "blacks only" spaces and the like are doing more harm than good, if they are perpetuating, rather than healing, racial discord.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Anything on this topic that includes "what about whites?" is just never going to work. 

I think that needs to be part of the discussion.  Replacing one form of ugliness with another is not the way to go.

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It doesn't matter how logical the question is or how reasonably it is meant or how unfair any white person thinks it is. 

You would never say this to a black person.  Or a hispanic or Jewish person.

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You will always get pushback until you can remove the "what about whites?" from the discussion.

I won't.  It's a legitimate point.

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You have to heal the hurt before you can come at the topic with logic or reason.   

I disagree.  I think logic and reason should always be a part of the resolution of a problem, not an afterthought.

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And there is no way to heal the hurt when the group who caused/is causing it keeps trying to interject themselves into the conversation.

Imagine a woman who is sexually assaulted by a black man.  Can she thereafter say that "the group" (all black men everywhere) are culpable for her injury, and that they therefore cannot be a part of any conversation?  Not because of anything they have done, but simply because they share attributes with a wrongdoer (skin color and gender)?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is where we start to part ways a bit.  I think we've made significant progress in racial harmony and righting past wrongs.

I think this is true. I believe we can upgrade 'overt' to subtle, ingrained and chronic.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

There are three things we can do as individuals and as members of the Church to begin to correct the systemic racism that leads to the initiatives that are so laughably framed above as segregation and as discrimination against white folks:

 

1. Set aside our blithe and unthinking defense of the nation's systemic power asymmetries that serve our interests over and against those of minorities.

2. Stop insisting our perspectives are the default or the ruling perspectives and actually give space to the consensus of minorities regarding those systemic power asymmetries.

3. Stop confusing right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and colorblind racial ideology for the gospel. 

When the people whose cause you apparently champion join forces throughout the world, in fulfillment of Book of Mormon prophecy, to destroy the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in response to the assertions that will be made by the critical race theorists that the scriptures of the restored Church of Christ are “racist,” and unacceptably in support of the “systemically racist white power structure” due to the claims in the Doctrine and Covenants that the Founding Fathers of the United States were inspired of God when they established US Constitution on whose side are you going to stand, the critical race theorists or the prophets, seers and revelators of God? Or do you envision that you and others will play the role of enlightened referees who will defuse the violent persecutions of the saints and usher in a new age of world peace and prosperity without the need for the establishment of Zion or the prophesied outpouring of God’s just judgements of destruction upon a world fully ripened in iniquity?

12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.
13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God. (1 Nephi 14)

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Chum said:

There's a lot of wisdom in this.

It is wise for a man to learn how a woman thinks in an attempt to understand her thought processes.  @bluebell gave an example that illustrated how a woman feels and thinks after she has been hurt by a man by what she perceives as some type of abuse.  She said the woman feels the need to be the one in charge of deciding when that hurt has been healed, not the man.  And that hurt will continue for her until she decides or determines that hurt has been healed, regardless of what the man does or says to try to atone for the hurt that he caused her.  Reasoning with her is not the solution.  Asking her to forgive may not and probably will not result in automatic instant forgiveness at the moment the man asks to be forgiven.  She alone will decide when and if that hurt has been healed and there is no guarantee that someday she will totally forgive that man for the hurt she believe he caused her, or actually did cause her if he actually did hurt her.

The mind of a woman is a wonder to behold, and things can get very complicated at times, but women are usually worth it, in my opinion.  Every man should have at least one as a wife, I believe. 

As hard as it may be to live with them at times, I would not want to live my life without mine.

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think we should figure out how to get along and integrate together.

There's a reason people live near other people of a similar background, culture, heritage, langauge. Big cities have thier China towns, Korean areas, some have Little Russia areas, some have Tongan, Samoan, etc. THere's nothing wrong with this. THere is strength in numbers. 

Remember what happened w/ forced busing? 

Advocating for integration - sounds nice but never really works becuase one group is always seen as the "Haves" which must endlessly give of resources to the "Have Nots." This leads the "Haves" to simply exit like the Herbivore men in Japan

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...