Why Berkeley Protestors were Misguided in Advocating Exclusivity for POC

Selected Journal Responses

Original post:

The article, in my opinion associated the protesters and existence of multicultural spaces as a means of racial segregation, which is not the case. This reminds me of the youtube video we watched in class of the POC students asking the White students to leave their space because they had Trump stickers on their laptops. This type of resistance to the White culture comes from minority groups wanting to provide and preserve safe spaces, usually referred to as multicultural spaces. These spaces are created for students of color to utilize without facing issues that tend to arise with interactions with White students. The concept of "whiteness" is connected to this idea of racial hierarchy, to power, and privilege. Being White has been associated to elite status, where they don't have to take accountability for their privilege. I will dissect this concept further.

The POC students started to post eviction notices around campus that ends with a warning: “If you fail to vacate immediately, community action will continue to escalate with the goal of eliminating any revenue generation.” This is an act of resistance towards the "whiteness" on campus.

The article should have discussed more background info on prior incidents on campus that arose which led to the POC students resisting. It easy to criticize POC compared to those who are "White" because race has become a social constructed notion attributed to whats good and whats bad. If you are not White, then you were denied freedoms, denied respect, and are treated differently. Why do the POC students have to take accountability for their actions on the campus, meanwhile White students can assume this victim mentality because POC students are being "aggressive" and "radical." Different races are not held to the same standards. i don't find the students actions surprising because racial tensions are growing through out the years because of political strife, and policies. Also, many POC students grow up in certain communities, not in affluent White communities, so their experiences with race has always been challenging, and painful.

In the article, it says, "This isn’t the first time college students have asked for racial segregation on campus." This gives a negative connotation towards the intentions of POC students. I don't think anyone wants to revert back to the practices prior to Civil Rights movements, of segregated schools, or slavery or segregated bathrooms etc... It also reminds me of Whites moving to inner cities, gentrifying them, forcing POC to move out by increasing rents, forcing them to sell their properties, inflation, and housing discrimination practices. This is currently occurring in NYC. Many neighborhoods are changing, racially. But, Whites are not saying oh its because they want to promote racial segregation. The news is not reporting on this issue. It is just accepted into society as a "natural" thing. However, when it comes to analyzing the actions of POC students on campus, we look at it through a negative light. Why can't POC students be allowed to have spaces solely for their community? I think we have to recognize race matters in America, race is pervasive in this society. it is entrenched in how our institutions function. Outside of campuses, the prison system is disproportionately Black and Brown people. Do people recognize it as a means of racial segregation, by targeting a certain race in order to elevate another... no. People just try to justify it through tough on crime policies. I think POC students are justified for having their own spaces on campus. it is similar to having a church and mosque on campus, these are spaces for people to feel safe practicing their religion. Why can't we interpret it as students who are protecting their community, and as an attempt to uplift heir voices. For centuries, Black voices never mattered. Black voices were silenced.

The concept of whiteness also encompasses Asians in American society. Let's be clear, whiteness comes from American history, and its roots during the slave trade and colonial government systems. Asians are a part of this privileged group because Asians were not slaves in America, they were not targeted by the KKK, they were not considered three fifths of a person, they were not victims of police brutality... Whiteness- alludes to those who are white- passing and that could be Asians and certain Latino groups. These people are white- passing therefore, can enjoy the benefits of white - privilege. The POC students excluded them from their center because they wanted to send out a bigger message, that whiteness, white-passing pervades American society, inside and outside of schools, and it is why the racial hegemony exists in America. In no way, I am undermining the Asian experience in America because they also have faced exclusion from mainstream society, however i discussing how this racial group is sometimes coupled with whiteness because their experience does not mirror the Black experience in America. There are stark differences in the historical challenges these two racial groups have faced. Also, it could be possible, Asian students on that campus were treated differently then POC students which led to the resistance as well. Whiteness is bigger than the individual because it is a concept, a concept alluded to White privilege, and white supremacy which is attributed to every aspect of American life and has a negative influence of those who are Black and Brown.

The article, in my opinion associated the protesters and existence of multicultural spaces as a means of racial segregation, which is not the case. This reminds me of the youtube video we watched in class of the POC students asking the White students to leave their space because they had Trump stickers on their laptops. This type of resistance to the White culture comes from minority groups wanting to provide and preserve safe spaces, usually referred to as multicultural spaces. These spaces are created for students of color to utilize without facing issues that tend to arise with interactions with White students.

Response:

There is a slippery slope involved when people start talking about special treatment of any type due to skin pigmentation. The Berkeley protestors had a valid complaint concerning the historical manner in which POC have been treated, but advocating for explicitly segregated spaces because “there were too many white students in classrooms” risks undermining the core principles of equality and inclusion that the civil rights movement fought to achieve. In fact, the protestors’ chant, “Whose university? Our university!,” highlights the hypocrisy of a protest that seeks to expand exclusivity on a public campus. After all, the white and Asian students that they targeted and prevented from using a popular pathway were their peers, even if they refused to concede the point.

Indeed, an even slippier slope exists with respect to justify one type of discriminatory behavior by citing another. This type of “what-about-what-they-did?” approach is insufficient rationale to invoke yet more segregation. This is not to say, though, that the post did not make some important points about the very real challenges and painful experiences many students of color face on college campuses. In fact, historical and ongoing racial inequities, microaggressions, and feelings of isolation or marginalization deserve serious attention and concrete solutions. The response of establishing separate spaces defined by race, though, is problematic for several reasons that should be taken into account.