Last month, University of Colorado alum Jessica Peck was barred from attending a campus workshop on racism because she is white. Segregated workshops were held by a student fee-funded group called Stop Hate on Campus. Peck, who is doing graduate work at Johns Hopkins, tried to attend the workshop for research purposes; she recounts her experience in an opinion piece in yesterday's Rocky Mountain News:

The "white" workshop focused on "white supremacy" and the assumption that white Americans, however unintentionally, benefit from a privilege that has come on the backs of racial minorities.

The other workshop, on "internalized racism," was designed to serve as a "safe space" for "people of color" to openly discuss how America's racist ways have affected their everyday lives. Organizers refused to allow white people, including myself, to attend the workshop, saying our presence would have prevented an "open and honest dialogue." Nothing like a little racial profiling to start the day.

The intent was clear - segregation for safety's sake - eerily similar to the argument of the segregationists of the 1950s and '60s who believed we would all be safer if the races were kept apart. It was a flawed argument then, just as it is today.

Peck was so appalled by what had happened that she contacted the CU regents, the chancellor of the Boulder campus, and the university president. Peck asked the university to issue an official statement condemning the workshops. The president ignored her, and the chancellor responded merely by directing his assistant to send an email "saying that he applauded the students efforts but suggested they employ tactics other than segregation to achieve their objectives." Peck was appalled by this, too.

Peck has had a lot to be appalled about lately: in March, she attended a campus workshop entitled "Unveiling White Privilege," in which she was taught that "all whites are racist even if we don't know we are. We have benefited from a system stacked against individuals of other races. We hold prejudices we may not even know exist. We have thrived in a nation built on the backs of hard-working and repressed 'people of color.'" When it came time for each person to share what came to mind when they heard the word "racism," Peck demonstrated her intractable racial insensitivity by saying "Jesse Jackson." Others had offered more acceptable associations, such as "Attorney General John Ashcroft," and "KKK."

In yesterday's article, Peck explains how naive she was to expect university administrators to speak out against Stop Hate on Campus' discriminatory tactics, noting that CU admins employ the same tactics among themselves. At the Chancellor's Diversity Summit, for example, "white men were segregated from everyone else so they could talk about racism and sexism without offending anyone." Peck goes on to point out that what is happening at CU amounts to a violation of both Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "As a federally funded institution," she reminds us, "CU has a responsibility to ensure that every door on each of its campuses remains open to individuals of all races."

Peck's argument could --and should--be applied to other campuses (even, arguably, private ones, since they, too receive a goodly amount of federal funding). It could--and should--also be applied to those other hallmark activities of our increasingly segregated campuses: for example, minority student orientations (I've written about those here, here, and here), or the minority graduations I wrote about yesterday.

I think that Peck's comment about "Jesse Jackson" is a bit over-the-top. Few would argue that she should have been denied entry to the consciousness-raising seminars, but did she go in a spirit of openess and exploration, or was she hoping to be turned away to get some publicity? Was this funded by the Weekly Standard? Did anyone see the column by the amateur linguist in there recently which started questioning the literary value of Beloved? And to think that I have friends who claim that the Standard is low-brow.

Is it your assertion that Jesse Jackson is not a con man who trades on race?

Or that racism is not properly associated with Jesse Jackson?

It's just as appropriate as associating John Ashcroft with racism, rather than asshattedness.

I've yet to see any evidence of Ashcroft's apparent (to you and others, anyway) racism. Yes, he's a jerk and a holier--than-thou travesty as Atty. Gen'l, but his record on race is far less tarnished than the Reverend's.

Just plain weird.

The rest of the world has moved far beyond the campus. In Jersey City, interracial couples are the norm. I walked past Hamilton Park today, and Asian Indians, Jamaicans, whites, Filipinos and a whole mess that I couldn't identify were out walking their dogs and stopping to talk with one another.

Got to work, where I work with a room full of Asian Indian programmers. The tech staff is largely Japanese, Filipino and Chinese. The white folks are here, too.

What kind of time warp are the protagonists of this story living in? Why do they want to continue to insist that America has not moved on to better things?

And this scenario is not isolated to NYC. No, my little home town of 5,000 in Illinois is full of Central American immigrants working at the entry level jobs. Interracial marriage between Asians and whites is commonplace.

The people who are running these segregated classes are not interested in peace or segregation. I worked in the civil rights movement. I'm very proud of what America has accomplished. Americans are great people. Show them a real injustice and they will not rest until they fix it. God bless America.

I don't recall saying anything about Ashcroft. In fact, I don't criticize Ashscroft on the Internet because I don't want to end up in Camp X-Ray.
It's one thing to say that Jesse Jackson uses race issues to gain political capital, but it's quite another to say that he's racist.
I approve of the market correction that the H1B program has caused in the (for a period) vastly overinflated technical sector, where workers with quite modest skills were earning salaries far in excess of many academics.
Again, without some more information on Peck's motivation here, I have to regard this report with skepticism.

Wasn't the remark Jackson made about NYC being "hymietown" somewhat racist? Still, instead of mentioning Jesse Jackson I would have offered Al Sharpton as an example of somebody who exploits race for political and personal reasons.

Good heavens! Questioning the literary value of Beloved? My world has been turned upside down!

Her motives don't matter. The objective fact that she was turned away because of the color of her skin matters.

Dr. Let Em - why does it matter what Peck's motivations were? It doesn't change what happened to her. The only way her motivations matter is if she went with the intent to disrupt the meetings and the organizers new about it. But from Erin's post it seems like Peck was turned away in the same way any white person, regardless of motivation, would have been turned away.

Would it make a difference to you if Peck went to confess her guilt of being white and received the same treatment? Doesn't either scenario tell us equally about the organizers of the event?

The facts of this appear to be that one workshop in a larger program was limited to people of a particular race (I hope I have this correctly). You might be able to file suit over that one workshop, or possibly over the program that contains the workshop, but of course the whole thing would be long over by the time the first papers reached the judge. Or am I wrong in this?

If there were an ongoing program that did this, the legal remedy might be more appropriate. However, I would guess that if a white student applied to live in a dormitory presumably reserved for blacks, this would be allowed. I would assume the same policies would apply to fraternities. While there seem to have been occasional cases where students weren't allowed to enroll in "interest group" courses because they weren't in the group involved, I doubt if a university would try to sustain that kind of policy long enough to be sued over it.

So the instance cited here is extreme and, as far as I can see, unusual. This doesn't detract from the point of the last two posts, that many universities are sponsoring very unpleasant sorts of racial attitudes, but the problem is that these probably by and large can escape direct legal challenge. So I repeat my question to Erin, because I don't think you can sue over most of these cases: what constructive recommendtions can be made to real-world administrators? It isn't enough to post "ain't it awful" head-shaking. This is the behavior of, in UK English, "wankers", a word recently introduced to the blogosphere!

"It's one thing to say that Jesse Jackson George Wallace uses race issues to gain political capital, but it's quite another to say that he's racist."

Ah, I get it now.

Dr. Lo,

Short of attacking US forces with grenades and automatic rifles, I doubt you have any reason to worry about being detained in Camp XRay. Can you offer any examples of internet critics now residing at Gitmo?

As to academics who do not earn as much as some software engineers, ever hear of career change? No one is forcing anyone to be an academic. If it doesn't pay enough, they're hiring at Home Depot.

"It's one thing to say that George Wallace uses race issues to gain political capital, but it's quite another to say that he's racist."

The irony here is that, although you probably aren't aware of this, kb, this is actually a perfectly valid point to make. If you study Wallace's career in any detail, you will learn that Wallace's racial stands were in fact motivated almost entirely by opportunism. Wallace started out in Alabama politics as a protege of Big Jim Folsom, who was as much of a liberal as you could be in Alabama back then and still survive. Only when he lost a gubernatorial primary did he decide he was "never going to be out-niggered again" and adopt segregationist stands.

I'd suggest that if you're interested, you read Dan Carter's excellent book "The Politics of Rage."

My oldest son graduated from CU in May 2002 and my younger son has just completed his sophomore year at CU. Based upon what both of them have told me from time to time, which has been corroborated by their roommates and friends, the stuff that Peck writes about is part of the landscape, albeit appalling, but routine at CU nonetheless.

The students I have talked to about this stuff tell me that every white student they know just tries to keep his head below the horizon on these issues. They are well aware of administration's viewpoint and intolerance of dissent, and the need to maintain a politically correct posture to avoid trouble. These kids just want to enjoy their college experience. They think the administration and the racial pimps are just a bunch of pygmies who won't matter a whit in the real world. I suppose we should all take some comfort in their nonchalance.

As for Mr. Lo, methinks we've attracted another troll or an aka for Polo Boy.

stephen - are you saying that race is not an issue off-campus? or that it should not be an issue? the claim that blacks are better off since the civil rights movement is not universally held - one of the main arguments is that segregated black institutions fostered an empowered environment which quickly disappeared when blacks were forced into white schools (not vice versa), for example.

as far as Peck is concerned - what about the near universal university segregation of men from women in sports, housing, and locker rooms? how about the atheletes that make "the cut" versus those that do not? how about courses that must be applied to for admission? how about any advanced level coursework? how about financial aid? how about admission? the entire university system is built upon different types of sifting. whether sex, race, class, physical qualities, mental qualities, etc. how about a hetero-man walking in on Peck taking a shower after a jog - is this a safe space she would defend? what is the difference?

JB, you are correct in pointing out that an issue may be moot if the event is over before the commencement or conclusion of litigation. This does poses a jurisdictional problem.

However, in matters asserting constitutional violations (which would be applicable if the group is acting with Univeristy funds and if the University is an agency or instrumentality of the state) if an event is capable of repetition the jurisdictional hurdle may be overcome. A matter of precise pleading.

jonk,

The difference is, assuming CU is a state school or recieves funds from the government thereby making it an agent of the government, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race.

Jonk,

Isn't your before and after civil rights example an either or proposition? In other words, if a person thinks blacks are not better off since civil rights, musn't they by definition believe that blacks were better off before civil rights? Many things aren't universally held. In fact, almost nothing is universally held. I suppose it isn't universally held that the earth is round. Just because 100% of people don't believe in something doesn't make the 70% or 80 % or 95% who do believe in something suddenly wrong. "I disagree" is not evidence.

I think the complaint or problem seen with these sorts of situations is the double-standard, or hypocrisy within the practitioners. If segregation is evil, then it's evil. If diversity is good, then it's good. But to say some kinds of segregation (mainly the kinds I don't like) are evil, and some kinds of segregation (mainly the kinds I do like) are good is ridiculous. It's even worse because in this case, they're forbidding entrance to an educational forum precisely the people who are creating the need for the forum in the first place. If Evil Whitey is causing all your problems, wouldn't you want to invite Evil Whitey to your reeducation session to be politically correctionalized into this generation's Howell Raines?

John Bruce,

Is there any sort of "pattern of behavior" standard? Let's say Marcia sexually harrasses her secretary for one minute each day. Marcia is a clever person, and never makes an inappropriate comment or caress of the same body part twice. A person might argue that once the sixty seconds are up, the harrassment is over. The harassment isn't ongoing because the same area is never offended twice.

Or perhaps a better analogy would be Marcia and Sally and Jane who do the harassing, taking one turn each with every subordinate in the company. Ultimately, isn't Donna the CEO and the company as a whole (aka the university) responsible for the promoting, and even paying for, of the sexual harassment (aka civil rights violations) behaviors of Marcia and Sally and Jane (aka clubs and groups that put on these activities)?

Am I off base here? I'm not a legal scholar, so please educate me.

Well, for starters, I'm not sure if this is in the right comments section for the sexual harassment post (I got tired of the other one and stopped looking). Beyond that, my knowledge is as an interested observer who has access to the sort of matierial that any interested observer can obtain; I am not a lawyer.

But you are talking with CEOs and secretaries about a workplace, not an academic situation, so this may be off topic as well. Touching people, brushing against them, etc., can be harassing behavior if deliberate; if someone were able to show it was being done deliberately in a different place (but at the same time?) each day, or by a different person each day (sounds like a sign-up sheet someplace) you might have sexual harassment, but I suspect you would have a great many other things as well, and if the CEO were involved I would look to retire on the proceeds of the lawsuit. But this is relevant neither to the thread nor the subject of affairs between students and profs.

I guess what I was wondering is that it seemed like you were saying that because the rights-violating activity would be over before the situation was addressed in the courts, there was nothing that could be done about it. Am I reading too much into it to think that this is the same as saying that you could have ten or thirty or fifty rights-violating activities, or as many as you want, over a period of weeks or months or years, as long as each individual activity ended before legal redress could be sought. Even if these separate activities were put on by various clubs or groups, wouldn't use of university funds or general student body funds to support these activities put the university in the position of supporting/promoting a pattern of rights-violating activities? While a specific activity might have ended, would the pattern of behavior be subject to legal remedy? Sorry for being off-topic before, hope this is more relatable to the original post about race-based violations.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I say, that this happened at CU-Boulder...oh wait, no I'm not, it's just par for the course there.

Having lived in Boulder twice as a 'civilian', I can tell you that there is much fun to be had as a white male tweaking the noses of the PC orthodoxy that holds sway in that town.

Were I a student, I'd have found it chilling. As a prankster with no formal connection to the University, I had a ball.

My friends and I viewed a place that took itself so seriously as prime for radical street theatre, and were not disappointed. Imagine, for example, 2 Jewish (but nordic looking :-) men, in black military clothes, singing the bad old National Socialist anthem of Germany. There are few things in this world I've seen scare frat-boys AND hippies.

Anyone who thinks we were seriously in favor of the Nazi's gets an F in humor appreciation, and an A in sensitivity training, and should move to Boulder.

Is our goal to escape opression to turn it's eye on another race? I think some minorities forget to realize that without the help of the sympathetic majorities who believed in their cause many of the minorities voices might not have been heard(not implying that they wouldn't have been heard at all, but everybody knows it's good to have the help of people in high places, no matter what color) Creating hate to escape hate seems a little contridictory don't you think? I am an outspocken activist for the Hiphop Movement and it so happens to be a minority domenant culture, however we musn't forget that in ghettos where minorities are the majority and whites the minority they face the same racial conflict and expiriences. Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you... I dont consider myself to be a religious fenatic, but rather a logical one. A large amount of influential white brothers are not concerned with our cause, does that mean we should step to their level and do wronge to them like they did to us. Or can We minorities(soon to be Majorities) Do better by the grace of knowlege and understanding to preach unity because in the end isn't what we want just to be treated fairly and given the same oppurtunities despeit the the type of skin I was born with; which was a mutation of pigement cells that helped my ancestors and me deal with the climate I originated from and not an undeserved stamp of ignorance.(don't just picture a white man, but rather a person of curcumstances)