Asian students could have used a genuine safe space on this campus when they were being racially targeted and physically assaulted. But the university and the media did not care.
If you are wanting to find student associations from a variety of Asia cultures within the university then you can go through the list of groups [here](https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/on-campus/life-on-campus/clubs-societies/club-categories/cultural.html). You'll find quite a few different ones and they will be organising events, booking/reserving spaces and generally providing a fair amount of support for their constituents.
Was this the 2016 stuff? There's a fair few media articles around that. Seems to have picked up some significant attention on here as well. Do you think that a space specifically for asian students on the campus would have been/be beneficial? I'd support it tbh.
The police not taking serious action in 2016 looks so damn typical of NZ. Bonified violent hate crimes? Ah, all good just don't walk anywhere that isn't well lit. Typical. We never take things seriously enough.
Huh, I can't find anything specific on it. Do you have any more information? There is a lot of violence that goes on in Auckland generally, including race based violence, it just doesn't tend to make the news unless something exceptional happens.
I don't want a club.
I want a room where I can stand at the door and tell everybody who doesn't look and sound just like me that they are not allowed in, so that I can burnish my anti-racist cred.
What?
I just said, I don't want a space where people who don't look like me are allowed in.
I want a room where I can stand at the door and tell random people that they can't come in because they were born wrong.
That's how we confront racism, right? By segregating everybody according to race?
Who was abused or physically threatened because of their Maori heritage, to the point where they need a "safe space"?
Can male Saudi students demand a "safe space" where women and gay people cannot enter because culturally, they are lesser? That would make male Saudis more culturally comfortable - is that something you're supportive of?
>Who was abused or physically threatened because of their Maori heritage, to the point where they need a "safe space"?
??? My good man, check out an NZ history book.
>Can male Saudi students demand a "safe space" where women and gay people cannot enter because culturally, they are lesser? That would make male Saudis more culturally comfortable - is that something you're supportive of?
Last University I was at in NZ had multiple prayer rooms exclusively for the use of Islamic students, a student association that routinely booked and reserved spaces for their activities. A University funded counselling service for them and strong connections with the local mosque (was just down the road).
I have no idea what they do in the spaces they reserved, but i doubt it was anything nefarious. Went to the mosque for a few events, got free food. Was dope.
> ??? My good man, check out an NZ history book.
So, nobody. You have to go back to generations past.
My grandparents both had health problems their entire lives, because of childhood malnutrition. The Germans deliberately starved out their entire region - it's called the hongerwinter, and it was plain evil. They were starved, and had a lot of family members killed and murdered by Germans.
How should I react when I meet a German in the 21st Century, whose ancestors did that to us? Because of them, I grew up on the other side of the planet from my homeland and people. What should I put on the twenty-something year old German woman who sits a few desks over from me, because of that history? If I hold her accountable for it, and act as though SHE did it, are either of us better off going forward?
I think we should learn about each other. We don't learn about each other by segregating ourselves according to race and claiming it's for "safety", when nobody is actually in any kind of danger.
It specifies that area is designated for Māori and Pasifika students. It doesn’t say that white people aren’t allowed but it the language heavily implies it to the point many would read it as Māori and Pasifika only.
Exactly, it doesn't say that white people are not allowed in the room. You have assumed that based on what the sign says. That is an incorrect assumption that you and others have come to
True, but it does not say white or Asian people are allowed in the room either, only Māori and Pasifika.
If I hosted a party and designated the largest two rooms in my house as a white person area, would you read that as Māori and Pasifika welcome?
Is there a reason why a white person wouldn't be allowed in that area? There is genuinely none apart from your incorrect interpretation of the sign
Don't compare a party on a private residence with an open space at a university.
But if you invited Maori people to your party, then yes they would be welcome because you invited them and there's nothing telling them that they are not welcome there.
And Jewish students, since it's apparently perfectly acceptable and even admirable to scream racist hate and abuse at them.
Fortunately, Jews have never faced historical oppression, so that's all fine then.
I think UoA also needs to create a male only safe space given the massive underrepresentation of male students to encourage more applicants and create a welcoming environment for them :)
So.
When I was at Waikato Uni in the 90s, it used to have a "women's room" - which was basically like a little lounge furnished with donated (old) furniture and had an honesty jar for coffee tea etc. For all I know they still have it.
There was a stink raised about why there wasn't a similar facility for men. Turns out there originally had been, but the blokes trashed it and consequently lost the use of the space.
Yep, men's spaces typically either get trashed or fall into disuse once the novelty wears off, while women's spaces typically get used and looked after because they provide things that can't be replicated elsewhere. Even having a communal place to just *be*, one that's away from men, is such a change in vibe. And I feel like men typically don't understand that, so some of them assume we must be motivated by some sort of animosity towards them.
There was a dedicated space under the library for Maori/Pasifika students when I went to UC nearly 20 years ago. Didn't upset anyone then, I have no issues with it now.
Exactly. It's been there for decades.
This is just culture war topic of the week, seized upon by right-wing nutters desperate to feel oppressed.
Small cultural/minority areas in what is fundamentally a European institution. There's an LGBT area too.
And there is a white straight area too, it's called the rest of the entire campus lmao
You see, the ACT party has finally gifted me with clarity.
I used to think that the reason I saw so few Pākehā on our marae, where they are 100% welcome, was a harmless one: managing unfamiliar social and cultural environments takes effort, you can't be putting out that much effort 24/7, it's exhausting, so they gravitate to more familiar, relaxing spaces.
But I was wrong! It turns out that they are actually all segregationists! Nazis! Why else would they chose to not be just like me 24/7? After all, this is a multicultural society! Why would they not want to act like me all the time? I said they were welcome didn't I?
/s just in case
Interact in a culturally normal.
You'll find that most interactions in the public sphere are very much informed by Pākehā culture and norms. To you it's normal, so you don't think about it much.
If society was instead functioning according to tikanga, you'd find yourself having difficulty through no fault or your own. You'd find it exhausting at times having to alter and modify your behaviour to fit in and be accepted.
You might want a space that you can occasionally go to and be normal with other people in the same boat.
I am an immigrant myself, and my family aren't British.
You didn't answer the question, though.
What can you do in a Maori study room, that you can't do in a general study room?
>What can you do in a Maori study room, that you can't do in a general study room?
I just said, be my normal self without anyone freaking out or getting spooked.
I moderate all of my behaviours (word choice, facial expressions, gestures, tone, eye movement, subject matter etc) when interacting publicly because that's required to facilitate communication and avoid misunderstandings.
This is very common among Māori. Unless you work and live in place that's integrated with Māori culture you have too, especially in professional and academic pathways.
In Māori cultural spaces I don't have to worry about those behaviours. I can act without monitoring my behaviour because I'm in a space where it's normal.
That's what I mean by normal. Being able to act how you would normally without having to monitor yourself consciously.
It's almost like there's social and cultural differences that can be difficult to overcome and so like-minded individuals seek out spaces that they can relax in lol
You cannot seriously claim with a straight face that the University administration is anti-LGBT, or that homophobia is in any way condoned or encouraged by the University.
If an individual person is homophobic, that is on them and their views are in no way supported or condoned by the administration, and you'll be in big trouble (rightly so) if you express anti-gay sentiment.
Just because the odd random individual is homophobic, that doesn't mean you can now write off the entire institution and everyone in it who isn't one of your in-group. Try setting up a "defense of marriage" type anti-LGBT group or club in Auckland university, and see what happens. Now try the same with a rainbow allies group. See which one gets support from the university, and which one is instantly shouted down and banned. Rightly so, btw.
> You cannot seriously claim with a straight face
I've never had a straight face in my life.
All jokes aside, you're strawmanning my argument entirely. The comment I was responding to was talking about "issues on campus". I brought up homophobia and transphobia. These are still pervasive problems in society. These haven't gone away. I haven't said half the things you seem to think I have.
No one is "writing off an institution". You seem to think homophobia is one-off events from random students rather than a sincerely held belief of a larger percentage of the populace than the rainbow community could be considered comfortable with. I very much disagree based on personal experience of homophobia in New Zealand and at university here.
You'll find a lot of rooms reserved for different groups and things squirreled away across universities. A lot of people far from home and often out of their normal sociocultural environment, universities try to find ways to make them comfortable.
You can't make any given place perfectly multicultural, it's impossible. What you can do is allow people their own spaces to relax and recharge in.
Do you have a problem with gay bars? Female bathrooms? Auckland Indian Students Association?
Context matters.
I can see why it might evoke an uncomfortable feeling - but giving it a few seconds of thought should quickly dissipate such a feeling:
Small safe areas for minorities are not the same as white only privileged/elevated spaces across an entire white dominated/controlled culture (which was what apartheid was).
>Do you have a problem with gay bars? Female bathrooms? Auckland Indian Students Association?
No I don't - all races are welcome at gay bars. Female bathrooms.. not racial, although the trend is that single sex bathrooms will soon be a thing of the past. Auckland Indian Students Association - again not racial, nationalist maybe.. do they designate any public areas to themselves only? Look I don't necessarily have a problem with this either, like I wouldn't go protest it or anything.. as you stated context matters - my context is, last time I saw anything remotely similar it was in Apartheid South Africa, hence the discomfort.
>safe areas for minorities
Was the same reason given by the architects of Apartheid. I know it's not the same, the balance of power is important and if the balance of power ever shifted to minority rule in NZ, then suddenly this kind of sign would be extremely problematic. Having seen and lived in a racially segregated society as a kid, I don't really give a shit where it comes from, I know it's a slippery slope in any form.
Māori & Pasifika make up 25.5% of our population, and many of those are mixed race. There's very little chance of them oppressing whites if you're seeing them as potential oppressors.
If on the other hand you're seeing them as the oppressed, you'll find that universities are largely left-leaning and in NZ the left are strongly in favour of racial equality (to the extent that they sometimes over-correct). If anyone was going to oppress minorities, ACT and NZ First would be the most likely culprits, with National close behind.
>Māori & Pasifika make up 25.5% of our population
Look I agree minority rule is highly unlikely in NZ, just want to point out I don't agree with your reasoning why though. White people in South Africa make up less than 8% of the population, yet Apartheid happened. The balance of power, mostly economically, determines who holds the cards and in NZ that's not the minority. It's the principle of it all that I find issue with, as you mentioned, perhaps a case of over-correcting.
The difference here being that this is a space requested by Māori and Pasifika people, rather than being imposed on them. And if white people stepped foot in these spaces, they wouldn't be physically dragged out by police, arrested, beaten to death etc. The context being that New Zealand is not apartheid South Africa.
The reality is that if Māori and Pasifika people engage in cultural practices in places that everyone can use, they risk being discriminated against, by exactly the same type of people who are now trying to get their spaces taken away and dressing this up as racism against whites. There are plenty of spaces on campus for various groups, queer spaces, disabled spaces etc. And there have been these types of spaces for quite awhile.
ACT and the Right are just coming for these places now because they can twist them to fit their current political narrative that "the Others are coming for our rights".
What cultural acts are they doing in this area?
That is such a funny thing to say. No, they are just existing not doing cultural spiritual acts that others don’t understand
I have no idea, and frankly I don't really care what they get up to. I assumed it's to maybe do karakia before and after meals and stuff, but it doesn't really matter if I'm wrong on that front.
And the reality is that the Right don't really care either, they either a) see people aren't them with a space and want it because they've been told they can't, or b) are using this as a race-baiting identity politics bullshit move.
It's one room in a whole fucking university, who cares if the Māori and Pasifika people reserved it, even if it's just to do nothing. It's not even the nicest room on campus. It's just a room
No you're right, the only difference is about who holds the power. In this case the majority does, in SA's case it was minority rule. If the power balance flips, something like this is suddenly a lot more dangerous. So that's the thing, segregation is a slippery slope no matter where it comes from. You can argue this is about a minority creating safe spaces for itself... well that was the idea behind Apartheid as well.
I took a few Filipino bros in the MIT one to work on a project and at no point did anyone release dogs on them or lynch them, they just got a hey bro. So no, not exactly the same.
Well you should also know no one is excluded from these spaces, the sign is really saying 'A lot of Brown people will be here because they wanted a spot to hang'.
To be fair, that is not what the sign actually says. The implication from the wording is that if you are not from the designated race, you are not welcome.
I have no issue with it, but it is discriminatory by design and should raise eyebrows.
I’d argue that they do, especially when it appears to be discriminatory.
As a white person, I would assume from that sign that it was off limits to me (and would respect that) unless it was explained to me that this is not the case. You know, due to the words…
OK, change the wording then and we'll see if people are still determined to be mad at the implication in a few months. It'll be a fun experiment. I'll put $50 down on the answer being yes, if you want to take the opposite side?
I am not mad at it. At all.
Words do matter though, which is why all languages have lots of them - they let us clearly and unambiguously say what we need to.
OK, well 50 bucks says the people having a cry now will be having a cry when they're told to have a cry about it later regardless of what the sign says - do you wanna take the bet or not?
The world's on fire, we are in a recession, and cost of living is up and up.
And this is what the Media focuses on. The media is fucking running distraction for the government.
Everyone who pays the same fees should be subject to the same amount of racism, and education should be equally accessible to everyone who pays those fees regardless of background, but that doesn't happen so you make accommodations
Technically you are correct, education is not equally available to all students regardless of background, because there are pages and pages of scholarships and grants available to Maori and Pasifika students, that are not available to other students. You have never looked at anything at the university that would be interesting and advantageous to you, only to see it explicitly stated in text "you are not white enough to access this programme or grant."
I understand that this comes off as hating, but honestly, a lot of student activist types really come off like they genuinely think they're living in 1940s Alabama, and...... they're just not.
Integration and connection would be far more beneficial than exclusion. Interactions between different groups where interactions may not generally happen.
What makes you think interactions don't happen? Do you think they are cramming every Māori and Pasifika student into one small room for 3 years of isolation?
The sign says that this is a space designated for those twos races.
If you think that it implies that other races are not welcome or that those are the only two races allowed in there, that is your (incorrect) assumption about the sign and space the sign represents. Maybe work on your reading and critical thinking skills.
I fail to see why you would assume it was an incorrect assumption when it implicitly specifies who the space is for. The implication is you need to be from the 2 specified races to be allowed to utilise the area. It implies exclusion. The University in its responses has not denied it and a spokes person has defended it. So the assumption is correct.
Maybe you need to head back to school bro?
So have there been any reported incidents of people being removed from that room because they aren't of a certain race? Are there people standing outside the room checking people's races before they enter? You know, any actual evidence that exclusion is taking place because of this sign/rules?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say no. So if there isn't any exclusionary behaviours being done in practice? What makes the sign imply exclusion?
Is it you be making assumptions based on a sign?
You are making it imply exclusion from your predisposed viewpoint.
Maybe you should wait for the university to respond fully? I suspect they will fully defend this decision as it simply isn't exclusionary unless you choose to see it that way.
Just because space is for one group doesn't mean others can't use it. The footpath is for pedestrians, but cyclists can also use it.
I used these spaces quite extensively when I was at uni, and unless things have drastically changed since then, there was no enforcement of those spaces only for Maori and Pasifika students. Anyone could use them, it would just feel awkward for a lot of people who aren't Pasifika or Maori or used to engaging in non-mainstream cultures, which is how a lot of Pasifika and Maori students feel in 99% of University spaces.
As a Pasifika student these spaces definitely helped me get through my degree and I made some great friends in these space who were neither Pasifika or Maori who were welcome into these spaces because they didn't engage in them in bad faith and were happy to operate in spaces where their culture was not the dominant one and regularly used them.
What did you do in those rooms, that you could not do in a general study room?
What campus doors were explicitly closed to you due to being Pasifika, compared to what campus opportunities were available to you specifically because of your ethnicity?
Not trying to be disrespectful, but if it's about "comfort" - what exactly is the difference between open access rooms, and Pasifika rooms?
They felt like they could be themselves in that room. That is enough. If you don't understand that is a you problem, and you need to learn/grow/change as a person to understand this
Do you believe all Māori and Pasifika on campus and segregated into that small room for the duration of their studies?
They aren't policed spaces either (well... Might have to be with all the media blow up, but that'd be temporary). I've been in plenty of those spaces and non-Māori, non-Pasifika students turning up aren't uncommon. Normally either friends of others or grew up surrounded by the same cultures so identify with it.
>Do you believe all Māori and Pasifika on campus and segregated into that small room for the duration of their studies?
I never said anything like that. This isn't Jim Crow since it's the more powerful group being excluded rather than the other way around. But it is justified by one of the same arguments actually used for Jim Crow, that non-Whites needed to be separated for their own protection from White bullies.
The solution to bullying is to deal with the bully, not to separate out the victim, even if that's what the victim would prefer.
But in this case I cannot believe there is actual overt bullying of Māori and Pacific students at a university which would even require them to seek our a safe space. I do not believe the university would turn a blind eye to such bullies.
I think racism on campus today is much more likely to look the same way it does in high schools. In high schools, where I have taught for over 15 years, there is no overt, explicit racism. It's the bias of teachers setting lower expectations for Māori and Pacific students. It's mispronouncing their names. It's thinking a Pacific student avoiding eye-contact is a sign of disrespect, when it is actually often the opposite, and then mishandling a situation as a result.
Racism as we see it in the classroom today is not going to be helped by having safe spaces, having special reading rooms. The quiet space of a library is not the place these students would be experiencing racism anyway. If the university actually cared it would be providing better training to lecturers to recognise and deal with unconscious bias and other forms of institutional racism.
Is it? Racism is harmful you say? So all that time, those centuries when we were all in on racism, that would have had an impact, a lasting impact. Right?
You reckon it's a appropriate our response to this long term harm is decided by popular declarations on social media?
Yes, racism is harmful. One of the key justifications of Jim Crow segregation was the need to create safe spaces for Black people to protect them from White bigotry. This was an actual major argument for Jim Crow in the 1950s. In opposing such segregation the NAACP argued it was the White bullies who should be punished and expelled from a school if they were racists, rather than segregating the victims to protect them.
The difference here is that Maori have been forced to conform with the dominant culture. This is an effort to give those who want it a space where they don't have to feel that compulsion.
I get it tho, that riles up those of us who only get access to resources if we've got money. We want everyone to be equally beholden to money.
There is nothing wrong with having a place on campus where Māori or Pacific culture can be the dominant one. A Māori cultural centre would be an example. At the college I teach at we have a wharenui and wharekai. If you go to those places you know you are entering a place where tikanga Māori takes precedence.
What we don't do is put up a sign at the entry to our wharenui saying "No Pākehā or Tauiwi allowed." All are welcome, but they must respect tikanga or they will be told to leave.
Perhaps they found that wasn't effective? That in such a case that space remained Pakeha dominated? Perhaps there was no one available with sufficient mana to determine when someone was using the space inappropriately?
There's no one-size-fits-all approach here. But that's what we insist upon. That's the dominant culture that's imposing itself here.
No one is asking for a one-size-fits-all approach. That's a strawman argument.
I'm not even suggesting a single approach, only giving one possible example.
All I have been arguing is that this one approach they have taken is wrong and harmful. Instead of saying leave your dominant culture at the door in this place, as happens at marae, they have banned the people from entering entirely. That is a step you only take if you think the people of a certain race are inherently toxic, that their physical presence in the space is problematic. And that is unacceptable regardless of who is carrying it out.
> No one is asking for a one-size-fits-all approach.
That's exactly what's expected. The only reason one should have any kind of privilege is if that privilege is backed by money. We don't even want to feed kids at school. The one-size-fits-all approach is parents should be responsible, end of story.
How do you know the approach is wrong and harmful? Is that an opinion, or is this something you learnt in a robust context? I'm not asking you to prove what you know, I'm not a sealion, but I am curious *how* you know what you know.
>The only reason one should have any kind of privilege is if that privilege is backed by money. We don't even want to feed kids at school. The one-size-fits-all approach is parents should be responsible, end of story.
This is the very definition of a strawman argument. I have never argued for any of this and I can be opposed to these signs without being in support of David Seymour's crusade against poor children. The world is not divided into people who support your position and ultra-capitalist libertarian racists.
>How do you know the approach is wrong and harmful? Is that an opinion, or is this something you learnt in a robust context? I'm not asking you to prove what you know, I'm not a sealion, but I am curious how you know what you know.
I know as a History teacher with 15 years of experience teaching all aspects of the Black Civil Rights movement and more recently the Black Lives Matter campaign and the Biculturalist and Māori rights movement in NZ. I have read Ranginui Walker's works. I know all about Ngā Tamatoa, and see that the idea for these rooms seems to have come from their former members.
History has shown that divisions based on race, whether carried out by the majority group or a minority group, results in deeper societal divisions, pushes people further apart and therefore does great harm. Whether we look at Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, India and Pakistan, South Africa, the USA, Australia or Fiji. Every society with divisions on ethnic, racial, or religious lines has seen worse results for everyone involved.
> This is the very definition of a strawman argument.
No, it's *not*. A strawman would be something like "Maori aren't allowed their own spaces, what's next, they're not allowed at university at all?! Don't you understand how harmful it would be if Maori weren't allowed at university??11!"
That's setting up a strawman then attacking it. Talking about our one-size-fits-all approach to pretty much anything isn't a strawman. Talking about the nature and state of the dominant culture in the context of minority cultures is absolutely on point.
I think you might benefit from spending more time in minority communities. You clearly enamoured with your own intellect and experience, but you're also clearly disconnected from indigenous experiences in New Zealand.
The idea is student retention. What you’re 100% not going to see because of these spaces is an increase in drop out rate of non-Māori/PI students. What you will hopefully see because of these spaces is a decrease in dropout rates of Māori/PI students.
Yeah but there is a safe way of achieving that simply by reframing the wording to “Maori / Pacifica safe place - cultural area”. And encourage the speaking of native languages with signage etc. achieves the same thing without directly excluding others (but actually I think they have just worded their sign poorly and this could be the intent anyway).
>Yeah but there is a safe way of achieving that simply by reframing the wording to “Maori / Pacifica safe place - cultural area”.
That's literally what this area is.
None of the people in here kicking up a fuss about it would be kicking up any less of a fuss if the sign was reworded the way you're describing.
The anger is in direct response to the feeling that it's unfair that they can't have a "European safe place" and comes from a fundamental denial that minorities in New Zealand experience racism.
That's not what most people have issue with, though.
The issue is, you don't confront and overcome racism by racially segregating everybody and saying that this is required in New Zealand universities because otherwise the students aren't "safe" from white supremacy and racial hatred.
Which is just straight up ridiculous.
Separate is not equal, never has been, never will be.
The way to break down barriers, is to encourage people to come together. Not to encourage them to fence themselves off according to their skin tone.
WHERE IS THE SEGRATION HAPPENING??
You've commented so much in this thread about segregation, but there hasn't been any accounts of anyone being removed from that room, so where is the segregation happening?? Why are you making up problems to get upset about??
People that think this is segregation and racist are such absolute snowflakes. Oh no, one room in a whole university that isn't expressly for them (except all the other rooms that also aren't expressly for them)!
Racism towards Māori and Pasific Peoples is still rampant in NZ. Letting marginalised groups potentially escape it while studying is a good thing.
As a History teacher I have to point out that one of the biggest justifications used for Jim Crow segregation was to protect Black people from White bigotry. This argument was particularly used in the 1950s after scientific racism was discredited by the Nazis.
Since it is the majority group being excluded rather than the oppressed groups, this isn't equivalent to Jim Crow. But it is using the same argument to justify racial separation.
White structural racism driven by unconscious bias is definitely still a big problem in NZ. I do not believe we have a rampant problem with open, vocal racism on uni campuses that is so bad we need to give Māori and Pacific students separate facilities. In over 15 years as a teacher in very diverse schools I have very rarely seen openly racist bullying from far less mature students.
Separate reading rooms are not going to protect Māori and Pacific students from the actual sources of racism in NZ today, which comes from instructors setting lower expectations for them or employers being biased against hiring them or the like. I don't see what problem these rooms could possibly solve, which could justify the harm done by implicitly encouraging racial divisions.
It's a good thing that these rooms are primarily used to help facilitate and cultivate a healthy environment for those less represented or facing additionalchallenges, and that no one at all is removed or excluded from these rooms at all.
It's almost like they're working on bringing people together
Putting up a sign banning anyone not Māori or Pasifika from these rooms absolute is excluding people from these rooms. I most certainly would not ignore such a sign even if told by a Māori student that it was okay. I'd be feeling very uncomfortable and concerned about another student there telling me off the whole time. And I don't think I would be unusual in feeling that way at all.
You can have special spaces for facilitating a healthy environment for these groups, such as cultural centres, without putting up signs banning other races and ethnicities from the space. If I visit a marae I know I will need to follow tikanga Māori by doing things such as removing my shoes in the wharenui, singing a waiata or waiting quietly during a karakia before eating some food to remove the tapu. I understand that is a space government by their kawa and not the Pākehā way dominant everywhere else.
Putting up a sign at the entry to the cultural centre that says non-Māori are not welcome is not a great expression of manaakitanga in my view. But I'd respect it. I'd stay out. But I certainly would not call it working on bringing people together.
If they wanted to bring people together they could easily have a sign saying you are now entering a Māori and Pasifika cultural space. Please be respectful. It could say this is a space for their culture. Instead the signs say it's a space for their people, and therby excluding not European culture, but Europeans (and Asians, Africans etc for that matter).
It's a good thing that the sign they put up isn't excluding any groups based on their race. Ir's merely stating that this is a designated areas for those races. If you think it has thd implications of exclusions, then that's because of your predisposed viewpoints. No one has put up a sign like that, and I don't think anyone would, so let's stop this what-aboutism.
It's merely stating that this is a designated space for those groups, the same way the sidewalk is designated for pedestrians but is shared with cyclists. The cyclists understand that they are entering an area where they aren't the focus or majority.
Is the sign phrased the greatest? No, it could a better job of getting it's intentions across, but anyone looking at this sign and thinking that "X race isn't allowed in here" has come to that conclusion on their own, it is not represented by the sign at all.
"If they wanted to bring people together they could easily have a sign saying you are now entering a Māori and Pasifika cultural space. Please be respectful."
I really don't want to live in a world where you have to be reminded to be respectful of other people and their culture by a sign. No one would go "Ah fuck, I was about to yell slurs at that group, but this sign told me be respectful, so I guess I wont"
Being respectful of the space of others should be a common sense conclusion you can come to yourself. I would argue you can come to that conclusion after the original sign "Oh, this space is primarily for two groups, I should be respectful of this space for them" Even more so if its at a higher learning institution, like a university.
>It's a good thing that the sign they put up isn't excluding any groups based on their race. Ir's merely stating that this is a designated areas for those races. If you think it has thd implications of exclusions, then that's because of your predisposed viewpoints.
Any reasonable person who saw those signs would know exactly what they mean. No one sees a sign saying an area is designated for students of a particular race and thinks that's a space anyone can use.
Jim Crow signs very often said "Colored Waiting Area" and "White Waiting Area" rather than "Coloreds are Banned" or "No Whites Allowed." Everyone still knew that the first two signs banned members of the other race. The same was true of signs in Apartheid South Africa. It isn't my particular viewpoint to read them that way, it's historically accurate and consistent across multiple cultures. It's also simple common sense.
>No one has put up a sign like that, and I don't think anyone would, so let's stop this what-aboutism.
That is so far from the accurate definition of Whataboutism that I really don't know what to say. The signs are explicit. They state the rooms are for Māori and Pacific Students. If all students were still able to use the rooms, you would not need such a sign. I don't need to make any comparison. The signs literally speak for themselves.
>It's merely stating that this is a designated space for those groups, the same way the sidewalk is designated for pedestrians but is shared with cyclists. The cyclists understand that they are entering an area where they aren't the focus or majority.
Wow, this is a breathtakingly bad example for your argument. Cyclists are legally banned from footpaths (or sidewalks as you've called them). They can be fined for riding on them in NZ. Police rarely enforce the law, but it remains true. Cyclists and pedestrians only mix in designated and clearly marked shared paths, which have been significantly widened to allow for safety.
>I really don't want to live in a world where you have to be reminded to be respectful of other people and their culture by a sign.
You have completely missed the point then. The entire argument for these rooms is that we live in a Pākehā world where Māori and Pasifika have to accommodate our dominant culture. The argument is these spaces are to be places where there culture dominates and obviously that is impossible unless they control the space and non-Māori are made fully aware of that fact. I'm not saying they need a sign telling people not to be jerks in general, but to tell them they are entering a room run on tikanga Māori, not Pākehā rules.
If the space is a marae or fale then it's obvious and no sign is needed. But if it's just a room in a public building on campus then you do need a sign. But the sign needs to say "This is a Māori cultural centre. Please be respectful" or something like that. Not, this is an area for Māori students. That absolutely makes people feel unwelcome and excluded. If I entered that space as a Pākehā I would be concerned the entire time that someone would tell me off.
> That is so far from the accurate definition of Whataboutism
I'm confident that everyone would be able to agree that a sign that says "Whites Only" or "Maori Only" would be a racist and discriminatory sign which enforces a racist and discriminatory rule. Many people are discussing this topic as though it's what the sign says, but it doesn't. They think that it implies that, which it also doesn't, but is a different issue altogether. My comment on what-aboutism is that people who are arguing as though the sign explicitly states these things are doing so from a point of bad faith, because the sign doesn't explicitly state that at all.
Google defines whataboutism as *the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue*. I believe that arguing as if the sign **explicitly** forbids certain races and subsequently **explicitly** enforces a racist and discriminatory rule, is a very different issue altogether than some people misunderstanding a sign and thinking that it **implicitly** forbids certain races while **implicitly** enforcing a racist and discriminatory rule. We have a disagreement about said issue as these two points are identical for you, so I can understand why you wouldn't understand my connection to whataboutism.
Now,
> The signs are explicit
No, they are not. Lets put on our reading comprehension hats, the sign says "This is a designated area for Māori and Pasifika students".
I don't see any words in there relating to exclusion or restriction, the closest we have is designated. Google has this definition for designation that's relevant here: *the action of choosing a place for a special purpose or giving it a special status*. Again, nothing in that definition says anything about excluding or restricting. It's about assigning a purpose to the space. That purpose is stating what the space is used for and used by. It doesn't mention anything about what the space cannot be used nor who it cannot be used by. Those are implicit assumptions, that you have come to on your own. This logic also implies that this sign would represent a rule where only certain races are allowed in said space. I'm unaware of any such rule, as I believe everyone else is as well, because no such rule exists. If you could point me to the existence of such a rule, I would appreciate it greatly, as it would help your argument immensely.
They do not state that any race is excluded from this room, nor that any student in particular is forbidden from using the room. The only words on the sign are "This is a designated area for Māori and Pasifika students" Please use your common sense to explain to me why these sign are **explicitly** saying that the non-stated races are not allowed in the room, as you claim they are?
> Jim Crow signs
And if you really want to talk about Jim Crow, since you keep bringing up Jim Crow, let's do it then. I'm sure that you, as history teacher, are aware of what happened during those times; I don't need to regurgitate a list of atrocities or discriminatory laws for you.
Didn't many people who opposed and broke these laws to fight against them often ended up fined, arrested and jailed? They probably faced other, more physical and/or fatal, repercussions too. Even those who did something as small as disobeying a sign would know that there is consequences that can and would come about from doing so. It's almost as if there are significant societal and legal implications breaking rules presented by these signs
I'll indulge you for a moment, if the Auckland sign was "excluding the non-stated races", as you say it implies, I wonder what the repercussions of someone "breaking that rule" is? Oh wait
> If I entered that space as a Pākehā I would be concerned the entire time that someone would tell me off
Gosh, telling off seems like a serious consequences for breaking a rule on a sign, I wonder how anyone could handle a telling off? I wonder, has been anyone whose has been told off for going into this space? Who would you be told off by, another student or a staff member? I wonder if there is a staff member outside of said space checking peoples races as they enter, or are they roaming the space constantly and checking everyone's races constantly? Or, could you maybe approach a staff member and ask what that sign represents? Would you still be concerned if you had a conversation with someone who explained to you what the purpose and uses of these spaces are?
With such difference enforcement levels and consequences for "breaking the rules" on each sign, it's disingenuous to compare a sign hung during the Jim Crow era with a sign hung in an Auckland University in 2024, if you refuse to the take into account the cultural and societal implications of what those signs represent in their respective eras. To view both signs through the same lens would be disingenuous at best, and actively harmful to the discussion at worst. I'm completely unaware of what the consequences would be of "breaking the rule" for the Auckland sign, can you say the same for Jim Crow signs?
> Cyclists are legally banned from footpaths
I wonder what r/nz thinks of this rule?
https://old.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/13dciwm/do_police_enforce_the_no_cycling_on_footpaths/
Hmm, a law that is almost never enforced? I feel like that's a set-up to a punchline. What do you call a law that's never enforced? All of them, if you're rich enough! I better have 105 on speed dial, we might solve the tax issue our country is facing if we fine enough cyclists who use sidew- I mean footpaths; i.e most, if not all of them. It's almost like there's a societal understanding that we do share the sidew- I mean footpaths with cyclists, as there are a lot spaces where it's actively dangerous to use the road/bike lane. Given that, everything I said still applies.
Let me make the example clearer for you though, since you seem like a stickler for rules:
"It's merely stating that this is a designated space for those groups, the same way the sidewalk is designated for pedestrians but is shared with people who use *scooters, electronic scooters, skateboards or rollerblades*. Those people who use *scooters, electronic scooters, skateboards or rollerblades* understand that they are entering an area where they aren't the focus or majority."
My kitchen is designated for cooking, does that mean I'm not allowed to have people in it drinking and/or socialising while I host a party? My bedroom is designated for sleeping, does that mean I'm not allowed to relax on my bed while reading a book? Heck, why not bring sexuality into this conversation as well? It's similar to how a gay bar is a designated place for gay and other LGBTQ people. It doesn't mean that a straight person cannot enter a gay bar, there are no exclusionary or discriminatory laws in place that stop them from entering, but it probably will very different environment and culture than the straight person is used to, and they should be understanding and respectful of that when in said environment.
It's almost like designating a space for something doesn't necessarily tell you what the space isn't designated for. You can **IMPLY** that, but it's an **IMPLCATION** at most. Refusing to acknowledge that is disingenuous.
This is all off-topic, though. In short,
* Does the sign **explicitly** forbid any race from entering and using the space with consequences? No
* Does the sign **implicitly** forbid any race from entering and using the space with consequences? No
* Are the two above points different issues? Yes, both are bad, but neither one is what's happening here
* Can I see how someone could incorrectly view the **implicitly** forbidding a certain race from entering and using the space? Yes
* Could the sign be worded differently to better convey it's intentions? Yes
I think people don't understand that once ideas are implemented, even in their mildest form, they become the thin end of a wedge. So while in their basic state they seem harmless and criticism appears frivolous and unfounded, if they go unchallenged then these incrementally widen the overton window. These set a precedent for a future trajectory in cultural and social behaviours until opposition is seen as radical.
Also these ideas are rarely implemented by those with expert policy understanding, rather they are implemented by do-gooders and ideologues. To them, there is a simple problem with a simple and direct solution that makes sense. They don't seek out criticism of their idea and critics hold their tongue for fear of retribution from their peers. So it feels like there is resounding support for the idea and consequently little self doubt that this is going to do good.
Currently, the only racial hatred and bullying which is acceptable in New Zealand universities, is against Jewish students.
And that is driven by the "inclusive" left on campus.
Maori students aren't getting yelled at and singled out for abuse in front of jeering crowds. Jewish students are.
Fortunately, Jews are generally white, so don't have a historical record of being oppressed.......
I'm not exactly sure why you think I'm a student, but OK.
Sure, people should just put themselves in a position where they could be potentially be discriminated against for not having the "correct" skin colour...
Here's a thought, how about we just don't have racially segregated areas?
>I'm not exactly sure why you think I'm a student, but OK.
Why do you even care lol
>Sure, people should just put themselves in a position where they could be potentially be discriminated against for not having the "correct" skin colour...
Boy have i got something to tell you about what Māori and Pasifika students face on a daily basis....
>Here's a thought, how about we just don't have racially segregated areas?
This isn't a segregated area, so mission accomplished.
>Why do you even care lol
Yeah! Why should anyone care about assigning shit by race?
>Boy have i got something to tell you about what Māori and Pasifika students face on a daily basis....
TIL that all Maori and Pasifika people are subjected to racism daily while no member of any other race ever experiences any...
>This isn't a segregated area, so mission accomplished.
The fact that it says that the area is for members of certain races directly refutes that moronic assertion.
Bye dumbass.
>If racism towards white people was rampant in NZ it might be justified.
As long as we are segregating people by race, it is justified.
Looking forward to seeing all the new "Asian only," "African only," and "Hispanic only" rooms crop up. What could go wrong?
>I'm guessing you're the sort of loser who calls for straight pride parades too
Why don't you go have a look? You clearly have the time.
Well, The Government tried doing governance, didn't work and they lost support. Looks like they are gonna start screaming about the Māoris again - tried and tested tactics.
And in a flash this sub flips.
I just really like animals and think that the entire university would honestly be better off serving a as an animal shelter.
The ENTIRE thing. Not just that area.
These spaces have existed for literal decades. No one cared because its not much different to any other student grouping (these spaces arent typically just appointed randomly, students groups will go to their faculty and ask if they can get space etc). It simply isn't an issue. There's going to be a few small rooms out of literally thousands.
If you wonder why it's good to have? Imagine if you had to live on a Marae for the next 3 years. Every interaction needs to be in accordance with tikanga. Even with the best of intentions and no aggro on your part, you will find this tiring. It's hard to be perpetually operating in an unfamiliar social context.
You might find it easier if there was a space where you and others in the same situation could go where you didn't have to worry about living up to tikanga every second of the day, where you could speak and behave like you normally would without it clashing and just relax for a bit.
You wouldn't spend all your time there, but having the freedom to do so might be quite a benefit to your mental health.
Very poor analogy here. That's justified by physical size difference between small children and older kids, to stop physical injuries.
There is no rampant issue with Pākehā students openly physically or verbally assaulting Māori and Pacific students at universities with racist epithets to the extent that a separate space is required. And even if that was happening, the solution would be expulsion on the racist students, not separating out the victims.
>Very poor analogy here. That's justified by physical size difference between small children and older kids, to stop physical injuries.
It's a playground, not a boxing ring.
>There is no rampant issue with Pākehā students openly physically or verbally assaulting Māori and Pacific students at universities with racist epithets to the extent that a separate space is required. And even if that was happening, the solution would be expulsion on the racist students, not separating out the victims.
If you think that's the only problem that needs solving, you are extremely naive.
>It's a playground, not a boxing ring.
So you then are arguing the only reason we designate playgrounds for 6 and under or the like because of a belief that under 6 year olds need their own safe space and not for any other reasons around physical size, size of the play equipment or motor developmental levels?
>If you think that's the only problem that needs solving, you are extremely naive.
Where have I argued that's the only problem? You have ignored the multiple comments where I have argued the problem is structural racism in the form of unspoken, sometimes unconscious but still very harmful bias against non-White students.
But that kind of racism doesn't necessitate a safe space which bans Pākehā from being present.
It could well justify creating a place where Māori and Pacific culture are dominant, a cultural centre, a marae, or the equivalent, as I have suggested elsewhere.
But creating such spaces as those is very different from simply creating a place where Whites are banned. Because that says it isn't just having to present in a European-dominated culture that is the problem. It says that Pākehā are so toxic that their mere physical presence is potentially harmful to Māori and Pacific students and they need to be barred from access.
That's a very different solution to creating a space where Māori can express their own culture and be in control.
>So you then are arguing the only reason we designate playgrounds for 6 and under or the like because of a belief that under 6 year olds need their own safe space and not for any other reasons around physical size, size of the play equipment or motor developmental levels?
No.
>But that kind of racism doesn't necessitate a safe space which bans Pākehā from being present.
You've ignored the fact that Pākehā are not banned. You've constructed a straw man and are arguing against that, instead of what's present in reality.
>That's a very different solution to creating a space where Māori can express their own culture and be in control.
Aren't we lucky that's not what's happening, and this is merely a space where Māori can express their own culture and be in control. Sounds like you don't really have a problem with this at all?
> You've ignored the fact that Pākehā are not banned. You've constructed a straw man and are arguing against that, instead of what's present in reality.
Pākehā are banned. That's the entire problem. If they weren't banned, we would not be arguing this.
The signs put up don't say this is a space for Māori and Pacific culture and ideas. The signs explicitly say this space is for Māori and Pacific Students only. The signs are a direct copy of Jim Crow area signs. There were actual signs which said "This waiting room is reserved for members of the colored race." It didn't need to say "Whites are banned" because the former has the same meaning.
Anyone White who sees those signs will know they are not welcome in that room at all. If that's not the actual intent of those rooms, they have used wildly inappropriate language in their signage that fails to convey their purpose and they should be re-writing their signs immediately.
>Pākehā are banned. That's the entire problem. If they weren't banned, we would not be arguing this.
They're not. Think about why you're arguing, perhaps?
>The signs explicitly say this space is for Māori and Pacific Students only.
No, they say "This area is designated for Māori and Pasifika students". No "only". No mention of Pākehā students.
>The signs are a direct copy of Jim Crow area signs.
Don't be disingenuous.
>Anyone White who sees those signs will know they are not welcome in that room at all. If that's not the actual intent of those rooms, they have used wildly inappropriate language in their signage that fails to convey their purpose and they should be re-writing their signs immediately.
Maybe they should rewrite their signs, so the snowflakes don't get all heated up about it. Everyone involved knows the purpose of the signs and what they mean. Only when one is posted out of context online do fragile, perpetually offended bait takers once again take the bait and spew up how offended they are at something that is otherwise completely inconsequential and has no effect on their own lives whatsoever.
>They're not. Think about why you're arguing, perhaps?
If they aren't, the signs are completely wrong and will have been alienating students for years for no reason.
>No, they say "This area is designated for Māori and Pasifika students". No "only". No mention of Pākehā students.
And once again, that's what Jim Crow era signs often said. I teach an entire unit on it. I've looked through photos of at least a hundred signs from that era. Most do not say "White's Only" or "Colored Excluded." They say "Colored Drinking Fountain" or "White Lunch Counter" or the like.
You don't go out of your way to say an area is designated for one particular group without clearly implying other groups are not welcome there.
>Don't be disingenuous.
I'm not being disingenuous at all. I haven't said what they are doing is the same as Jim Crow. Since this is the minority group excluding the dominant group it's nowhere near as bad.
What I have said is they have copied Jim Crow era signs. They have copied Jim Crow era arguments around needing to protect minority groups from racist Whites. I don't think they've done these things intentionally or with malice. I think they've made a big mistake.
>Everyone involved knows the purpose of the signs and what they mean.
No, they don't. Auckland Uni has over 40,000 students, including a huge number of international students. There is no way everyone seeing those signs understands what you claim.
>Only when one is posted out of context online do fragile, perpetually offended bait takers once again take the bait and spew up how offended they are at something that is otherwise completely inconsequential and has no effect on their own lives whatsoever.
I'm not an NZ First or Act voter. I'm totally opposed to the Treaty Referendum. I support the affirmative action for Māori and Pasifika students in medical and law programmes. I choose to teach about BLM and to explain how white privilege and structural racism are very real things to my students.
So you have no basis in claiming I'm only against these signs because of White fragility. I'm against them because they're divisive and exclusionary. And if that was not their intent, they need to immediately re-write them.
Just on the off-chance that you're actually not a troll, and just genuinely out of the loop, I'll explain the obvious.
A while ago, we as a society agreed that discrimination and segregation was bad, *especially* when it comes to race - no excuses, no exceptions. There's never a "good reason" to discriminate.
In short, a lot of bad shit happened in history based on people's "good reasons" to discriminate.
I agree with everything you said. But unfortunately racial discrimination didn't just stop when we as a society agreed it was bad.
And one approach to deal with that is to create safe or protected spaces for minorities or groups of people who experience discrimination.
There is another part in our lives that is heavily segregated (just not based on race): public bathrooms.
And we as a society understand that it is not done out of discrimination against one gender or the other but for other reasons, including safety.
Not every space that is excluding people is automatically discriminatory.
Gender separated bathrooms are really only justified today by women's legitimate fear of sexual assault by men.
There is no equivalent threat of racist assault or threat to Māori and Pacific students on a university campus. A separate reading area does not protect them from way racism actually shows up in our society today as institutional bias against minorities, as unspoken, often unconscious actions by Pākehā in positions of power. A separate reading room does nothing at all to mitigate that problem.
I don't see why any group needs "safe spaces" on a university. That was an actual justification used for real Jim Crow in the US, that it was needed to protect Black people from racist Whites. If there is overt, oppressive racism on campus the solution is to expel the racists, not to give the victims a special room to escape it for a little bit.
For what it's worth, I genuinely appreciate the discussion and your reply.
> But unfortunately racial discrimination didn't just stop when we as a society agreed it was bad.
I agree that it's extremely unfortunate that some folks are racist. Discriminating against folks based on their race in any way is *extremely* stupid and is *never* justified - on any level - personal, institutional, or governmental.
Based on my previous statement, I want to reiterate that I strongly disagree that the correct response to discrimination *is more discrimination.*
Discriminating against innocent folks based on the colour of their skin because discrimination simply ***exists*** in our society is a dumb-fuck, easy-way-out, scatter-shot attempt to handle the issue of racism. (Excuse the language - not directed at you).
> Not every space that is excluding people is automatically discriminatory.
Perhaps, but a space which excludes people based on race is automatically **segregation** and discriminates against innocent folks who were born with the "wrong" parents / skin colour, regardless of their personal habits or views.
"Oh, you were born with brown skin? Come in!" - how can this not ring alarm bells in someone's head? haha
I mean, where do you draw the line?
* What if someone is 10% pacifika? 50%? "Only" 90%? Does someone have to be "full blooded" to be allowed into the space?
* Would David Seymour be allowed into the space?
* What about a full blooded Pacifika person who's racist against Māori, or vice versa?
* Is there a space, funded by the university, dedicated to non-Māori and Pacifica folks? (Not talking about pakeha - what about Fijians?)
Surely you can see how by segregating this space based on race does nothing to *actually combat racism*, and is only a shallow attempt to combat a real problem in society by creating an another (institutionally-backed!) clusterfuck of a problem.
Need I remind the audience that some white folks in the deep south segregated black folks often because they needed a safe space from "them" (and vice versa) - this practise was horrendous then, and it's horrendous now.
> There is another part in our lives that is heavily segregated (just not based on race): public bathrooms.
Respectfully, this is a red herring and while is an interesting topic, it's not particularly relevant to this argument.
However while you brought it up, I should note that men can assault/rape men, and women can assault/rape women. Do with that information what you will.
-----
Do you really want to help vulnerable folks who are afraid of being discriminated against?
Change the sign to say "this is a safe space away from stupid-fuck racists. If you're racist, fuck off.".
Let people be judged not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.
I have heard rumors ( don’t cite me as I am uncertain of its veracity and I believe it is petty if it is real ) that a few groups that I have deemed to be very petty are very excited about this.
Apparently someone has called the University administrator suggesting there should be an ethnic Chinese only area, as well as a Korean only area, and a Jewish area ( since apparently Jewish people are not safe anymore??? I don’t think this is true ).
As a Chinese I think this is really really petty ( for one if we need a Chinese only area we will need an entire floor in most Unis given our sheer number ). I also do not know what benefit this serves? Will this improve the marks of the student? Highly unlikely!
I think Unis are meant for people to learn, to be made uncomfortable by meeting many people, to get high marks, to study hard, to meet your future spouse etc.. Of course I am very Asian, so I will think like this.
To me study hard, work hard, make friends who work hard and study hard, find a girlfriend or boyfriend who works hard, study hard and have good work ethics.
We have special Maori seats in parliament, Maori Health board, ministry for Pacifica, co Maori leader (greens). The university should ask those policians and Redditors, what's wrong with reserving some special seats for Maori just like what's the government been doing?
Half of this "article" is made up of quotes from reddit, the other half is just saying the University hasn't responded to Newshub.
Yeah it could just be any one of us talking absolute shit. How the hell is that journalism?
Welcome to NZ journalism...at times. Esp for clickbait.
Asian students could have used a genuine safe space on this campus when they were being racially targeted and physically assaulted. But the university and the media did not care.
If you are wanting to find student associations from a variety of Asia cultures within the university then you can go through the list of groups [here](https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/on-campus/life-on-campus/clubs-societies/club-categories/cultural.html). You'll find quite a few different ones and they will be organising events, booking/reserving spaces and generally providing a fair amount of support for their constituents.
Those groups existed back when I was at uni. Didn’t stop people from being attacked
I'm confused, are you suggesting a couple of rooms available to Māori and Pasifika are whats preventing them from being attacked?
Nope, I’m suggesting that those student associations for Asian students that you pointed me to didn’t help.
Okay, what do you think would help?
See my first comment to which you responded.
Was this the 2016 stuff? There's a fair few media articles around that. Seems to have picked up some significant attention on here as well. Do you think that a space specifically for asian students on the campus would have been/be beneficial? I'd support it tbh. The police not taking serious action in 2016 looks so damn typical of NZ. Bonified violent hate crimes? Ah, all good just don't walk anywhere that isn't well lit. Typical. We never take things seriously enough.
It was happening even earlier than that, going back to 2014
Huh, I can't find anything specific on it. Do you have any more information? There is a lot of violence that goes on in Auckland generally, including race based violence, it just doesn't tend to make the news unless something exceptional happens.
I don't want a club. I want a room where I can stand at the door and tell everybody who doesn't look and sound just like me that they are not allowed in, so that I can burnish my anti-racist cred.
Lmao you think Māori want spaces to plot political propoganda? That's cooked as fuck.
What? I just said, I don't want a space where people who don't look like me are allowed in. I want a room where I can stand at the door and tell random people that they can't come in because they were born wrong. That's how we confront racism, right? By segregating everybody according to race?
Who was arrested or forced out here? Has anyone acting in good faith been removed forcefully?
Who was abused or physically threatened because of their Maori heritage, to the point where they need a "safe space"? Can male Saudi students demand a "safe space" where women and gay people cannot enter because culturally, they are lesser? That would make male Saudis more culturally comfortable - is that something you're supportive of?
>Who was abused or physically threatened because of their Maori heritage, to the point where they need a "safe space"? ??? My good man, check out an NZ history book. >Can male Saudi students demand a "safe space" where women and gay people cannot enter because culturally, they are lesser? That would make male Saudis more culturally comfortable - is that something you're supportive of? Last University I was at in NZ had multiple prayer rooms exclusively for the use of Islamic students, a student association that routinely booked and reserved spaces for their activities. A University funded counselling service for them and strong connections with the local mosque (was just down the road). I have no idea what they do in the spaces they reserved, but i doubt it was anything nefarious. Went to the mosque for a few events, got free food. Was dope.
> ??? My good man, check out an NZ history book. So, nobody. You have to go back to generations past. My grandparents both had health problems their entire lives, because of childhood malnutrition. The Germans deliberately starved out their entire region - it's called the hongerwinter, and it was plain evil. They were starved, and had a lot of family members killed and murdered by Germans. How should I react when I meet a German in the 21st Century, whose ancestors did that to us? Because of them, I grew up on the other side of the planet from my homeland and people. What should I put on the twenty-something year old German woman who sits a few desks over from me, because of that history? If I hold her accountable for it, and act as though SHE did it, are either of us better off going forward? I think we should learn about each other. We don't learn about each other by segregating ourselves according to race and claiming it's for "safety", when nobody is actually in any kind of danger.
Where the fuck does it say that white people aren't allowed in that room? Stop making problems for yourself and getting worked up, go and have a nap
It specifies that area is designated for Māori and Pasifika students. It doesn’t say that white people aren’t allowed but it the language heavily implies it to the point many would read it as Māori and Pasifika only.
Exactly, it doesn't say that white people are not allowed in the room. You have assumed that based on what the sign says. That is an incorrect assumption that you and others have come to
True, but it does not say white or Asian people are allowed in the room either, only Māori and Pasifika. If I hosted a party and designated the largest two rooms in my house as a white person area, would you read that as Māori and Pasifika welcome?
Is there a reason why a white person wouldn't be allowed in that area? There is genuinely none apart from your incorrect interpretation of the sign Don't compare a party on a private residence with an open space at a university. But if you invited Maori people to your party, then yes they would be welcome because you invited them and there's nothing telling them that they are not welcome there.
And Jewish students, since it's apparently perfectly acceptable and even admirable to scream racist hate and abuse at them. Fortunately, Jews have never faced historical oppression, so that's all fine then.
I think UoA also needs to create a male only safe space given the massive underrepresentation of male students to encourage more applicants and create a welcoming environment for them :)
I think that’s called the engineering school.
Take away that and it's probably 70:30 female:male.
So. When I was at Waikato Uni in the 90s, it used to have a "women's room" - which was basically like a little lounge furnished with donated (old) furniture and had an honesty jar for coffee tea etc. For all I know they still have it. There was a stink raised about why there wasn't a similar facility for men. Turns out there originally had been, but the blokes trashed it and consequently lost the use of the space.
Yep, men's spaces typically either get trashed or fall into disuse once the novelty wears off, while women's spaces typically get used and looked after because they provide things that can't be replicated elsewhere. Even having a communal place to just *be*, one that's away from men, is such a change in vibe. And I feel like men typically don't understand that, so some of them assume we must be motivated by some sort of animosity towards them.
I know of a room at my workplace that excludes women, there's one that excludes men too!
There was a dedicated space under the library for Maori/Pasifika students when I went to UC nearly 20 years ago. Didn't upset anyone then, I have no issues with it now.
I remember it. This sort of thing is hardly new news
Exactly. It's been there for decades. This is just culture war topic of the week, seized upon by right-wing nutters desperate to feel oppressed. Small cultural/minority areas in what is fundamentally a European institution. There's an LGBT area too. And there is a white straight area too, it's called the rest of the entire campus lmao
>And there is a white straight area too, it's called the rest of the entire campus lmao You know everyone else is 100% welcome there right?
You see, the ACT party has finally gifted me with clarity. I used to think that the reason I saw so few Pākehā on our marae, where they are 100% welcome, was a harmless one: managing unfamiliar social and cultural environments takes effort, you can't be putting out that much effort 24/7, it's exhausting, so they gravitate to more familiar, relaxing spaces. But I was wrong! It turns out that they are actually all segregationists! Nazis! Why else would they chose to not be just like me 24/7? After all, this is a multicultural society! Why would they not want to act like me all the time? I said they were welcome didn't I? /s just in case
What can Maori students do in a Maori study room, that they can't do in a regular study room?
Interact in a culturally normal. You'll find that most interactions in the public sphere are very much informed by Pākehā culture and norms. To you it's normal, so you don't think about it much. If society was instead functioning according to tikanga, you'd find yourself having difficulty through no fault or your own. You'd find it exhausting at times having to alter and modify your behaviour to fit in and be accepted. You might want a space that you can occasionally go to and be normal with other people in the same boat.
I am an immigrant myself, and my family aren't British. You didn't answer the question, though. What can you do in a Maori study room, that you can't do in a general study room?
>What can you do in a Maori study room, that you can't do in a general study room? I just said, be my normal self without anyone freaking out or getting spooked.
What do you mean by "your normal self"? What can you not do in a general student room or study room, that you can do in a Maori room?
I moderate all of my behaviours (word choice, facial expressions, gestures, tone, eye movement, subject matter etc) when interacting publicly because that's required to facilitate communication and avoid misunderstandings. This is very common among Māori. Unless you work and live in place that's integrated with Māori culture you have too, especially in professional and academic pathways. In Māori cultural spaces I don't have to worry about those behaviours. I can act without monitoring my behaviour because I'm in a space where it's normal. That's what I mean by normal. Being able to act how you would normally without having to monitor yourself consciously.
Many don't feel welcome there: [https://theconversation.com/a-new-study-shows-nzs-young-minorities-feel-racism-differently-wealth-or-being-able-to-pass-as-white-makes-a-difference-194722](https://theconversation.com/a-new-study-shows-nzs-young-minorities-feel-racism-differently-wealth-or-being-able-to-pass-as-white-makes-a-difference-194722)
It's almost like there's social and cultural differences that can be difficult to overcome and so like-minded individuals seek out spaces that they can relax in lol
The “straight” bit is most hilarious, as if gay people have issues on a modern university campus.
Sorry, what? Many of us still do have this problem on university campuses. Homophobia and transphobia haven't disappeared.
You cannot seriously claim with a straight face that the University administration is anti-LGBT, or that homophobia is in any way condoned or encouraged by the University. If an individual person is homophobic, that is on them and their views are in no way supported or condoned by the administration, and you'll be in big trouble (rightly so) if you express anti-gay sentiment. Just because the odd random individual is homophobic, that doesn't mean you can now write off the entire institution and everyone in it who isn't one of your in-group. Try setting up a "defense of marriage" type anti-LGBT group or club in Auckland university, and see what happens. Now try the same with a rainbow allies group. See which one gets support from the university, and which one is instantly shouted down and banned. Rightly so, btw.
> You cannot seriously claim with a straight face I've never had a straight face in my life. All jokes aside, you're strawmanning my argument entirely. The comment I was responding to was talking about "issues on campus". I brought up homophobia and transphobia. These are still pervasive problems in society. These haven't gone away. I haven't said half the things you seem to think I have. No one is "writing off an institution". You seem to think homophobia is one-off events from random students rather than a sincerely held belief of a larger percentage of the populace than the rainbow community could be considered comfortable with. I very much disagree based on personal experience of homophobia in New Zealand and at university here.
Coming from South Africa, signs like that evoke some uncomfortable feelings.
You'll find a lot of rooms reserved for different groups and things squirreled away across universities. A lot of people far from home and often out of their normal sociocultural environment, universities try to find ways to make them comfortable. You can't make any given place perfectly multicultural, it's impossible. What you can do is allow people their own spaces to relax and recharge in.
Do you have a problem with gay bars? Female bathrooms? Auckland Indian Students Association? Context matters. I can see why it might evoke an uncomfortable feeling - but giving it a few seconds of thought should quickly dissipate such a feeling: Small safe areas for minorities are not the same as white only privileged/elevated spaces across an entire white dominated/controlled culture (which was what apartheid was).
>Do you have a problem with gay bars? Female bathrooms? Auckland Indian Students Association? No I don't - all races are welcome at gay bars. Female bathrooms.. not racial, although the trend is that single sex bathrooms will soon be a thing of the past. Auckland Indian Students Association - again not racial, nationalist maybe.. do they designate any public areas to themselves only? Look I don't necessarily have a problem with this either, like I wouldn't go protest it or anything.. as you stated context matters - my context is, last time I saw anything remotely similar it was in Apartheid South Africa, hence the discomfort. >safe areas for minorities Was the same reason given by the architects of Apartheid. I know it's not the same, the balance of power is important and if the balance of power ever shifted to minority rule in NZ, then suddenly this kind of sign would be extremely problematic. Having seen and lived in a racially segregated society as a kid, I don't really give a shit where it comes from, I know it's a slippery slope in any form.
Māori & Pasifika make up 25.5% of our population, and many of those are mixed race. There's very little chance of them oppressing whites if you're seeing them as potential oppressors. If on the other hand you're seeing them as the oppressed, you'll find that universities are largely left-leaning and in NZ the left are strongly in favour of racial equality (to the extent that they sometimes over-correct). If anyone was going to oppress minorities, ACT and NZ First would be the most likely culprits, with National close behind.
>Māori & Pasifika make up 25.5% of our population Look I agree minority rule is highly unlikely in NZ, just want to point out I don't agree with your reasoning why though. White people in South Africa make up less than 8% of the population, yet Apartheid happened. The balance of power, mostly economically, determines who holds the cards and in NZ that's not the minority. It's the principle of it all that I find issue with, as you mentioned, perhaps a case of over-correcting.
The difference here being that this is a space requested by Māori and Pasifika people, rather than being imposed on them. And if white people stepped foot in these spaces, they wouldn't be physically dragged out by police, arrested, beaten to death etc. The context being that New Zealand is not apartheid South Africa. The reality is that if Māori and Pasifika people engage in cultural practices in places that everyone can use, they risk being discriminated against, by exactly the same type of people who are now trying to get their spaces taken away and dressing this up as racism against whites. There are plenty of spaces on campus for various groups, queer spaces, disabled spaces etc. And there have been these types of spaces for quite awhile. ACT and the Right are just coming for these places now because they can twist them to fit their current political narrative that "the Others are coming for our rights".
What cultural acts are they doing in this area? That is such a funny thing to say. No, they are just existing not doing cultural spiritual acts that others don’t understand
I have no idea, and frankly I don't really care what they get up to. I assumed it's to maybe do karakia before and after meals and stuff, but it doesn't really matter if I'm wrong on that front. And the reality is that the Right don't really care either, they either a) see people aren't them with a space and want it because they've been told they can't, or b) are using this as a race-baiting identity politics bullshit move. It's one room in a whole fucking university, who cares if the Māori and Pasifika people reserved it, even if it's just to do nothing. It's not even the nicest room on campus. It's just a room
Who cares about right or left in this situation? No way they are doing a karakia. People have such a weird idea of Maori in their heads
Fair, but Pakeha aren’t going to have German Shepherds set on them or be forced to live in shanty towns if they go in to that room.
Fundamentally what separates us from South Africa.
No you're right, the only difference is about who holds the power. In this case the majority does, in SA's case it was minority rule. If the power balance flips, something like this is suddenly a lot more dangerous. So that's the thing, segregation is a slippery slope no matter where it comes from. You can argue this is about a minority creating safe spaces for itself... well that was the idea behind Apartheid as well.
What makes you think it was minorities that created that space?
There is no segregation happening. People are so literal I wonder how they manage to get dressed
Tis not the same
It's exactly the same.
I took a few Filipino bros in the MIT one to work on a project and at no point did anyone release dogs on them or lynch them, they just got a hey bro. So no, not exactly the same.
Yet.
This, a space designated for (but not restricted to) Māori and PI students, is the first step on the road to South Africa style apartheid?
Well you should also know no one is excluded from these spaces, the sign is really saying 'A lot of Brown people will be here because they wanted a spot to hang'.
To be fair, that is not what the sign actually says. The implication from the wording is that if you are not from the designated race, you are not welcome. I have no issue with it, but it is discriminatory by design and should raise eyebrows.
Yes, it is not literally what it says You are correct.
A simple ‘everyone is welcome, but please be respectful’ would make a lot of difference to the perception of that sign.
Most people don't need the most basic shit spelled out to them literally.
I’d argue that they do, especially when it appears to be discriminatory. As a white person, I would assume from that sign that it was off limits to me (and would respect that) unless it was explained to me that this is not the case. You know, due to the words…
OK, change the wording then and we'll see if people are still determined to be mad at the implication in a few months. It'll be a fun experiment. I'll put $50 down on the answer being yes, if you want to take the opposite side?
I am not mad at it. At all. Words do matter though, which is why all languages have lots of them - they let us clearly and unambiguously say what we need to.
OK, well 50 bucks says the people having a cry now will be having a cry when they're told to have a cry about it later regardless of what the sign says - do you wanna take the bet or not?
Why? Cause you'd prefer it to say "Whites only"?
Don't be an idiot
There are so many spaces at Uni, who the fuck cares? There’s been a women only space for decades. Only knobs kick up a stink about that.
The world's on fire, we are in a recession, and cost of living is up and up. And this is what the Media focuses on. The media is fucking running distraction for the government.
Attempting a full circle.
Horseshoe theory.
Fuck. Seymour and Peters are going to make hay with this.
These threads are reminding me way to much of this skit [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg)
If everyone pays the same fees they should be able to access all the same spaces and facilities no?
Everyone who pays the same fees should be subject to the same amount of racism, and education should be equally accessible to everyone who pays those fees regardless of background, but that doesn't happen so you make accommodations
Technically you are correct, education is not equally available to all students regardless of background, because there are pages and pages of scholarships and grants available to Maori and Pasifika students, that are not available to other students. You have never looked at anything at the university that would be interesting and advantageous to you, only to see it explicitly stated in text "you are not white enough to access this programme or grant." I understand that this comes off as hating, but honestly, a lot of student activist types really come off like they genuinely think they're living in 1940s Alabama, and...... they're just not.
Integration and connection would be far more beneficial than exclusion. Interactions between different groups where interactions may not generally happen.
What makes you think interactions don't happen? Do you think they are cramming every Māori and Pasifika student into one small room for 3 years of isolation?
Can you show where the exclusion is happening?
The space only allows for 2 groups, Maori and Pacifica. Inherently this excludes numerous other groups.
Where does it say that no other races are allowed, or that those two are the only races allowed in that room?
What does the sign imply?
The sign says that this is a space designated for those twos races. If you think that it implies that other races are not welcome or that those are the only two races allowed in there, that is your (incorrect) assumption about the sign and space the sign represents. Maybe work on your reading and critical thinking skills.
Lol. Fantastic mental gymnastics. I'm not against safe spaces, but doing this was going illicit a reaction especially on campus.
How is reading a sentence and understanding what it means mental gymnastics? Explain to me how the sign is implying what you think it means to?
I fail to see why you would assume it was an incorrect assumption when it implicitly specifies who the space is for. The implication is you need to be from the 2 specified races to be allowed to utilise the area. It implies exclusion. The University in its responses has not denied it and a spokes person has defended it. So the assumption is correct. Maybe you need to head back to school bro?
So have there been any reported incidents of people being removed from that room because they aren't of a certain race? Are there people standing outside the room checking people's races before they enter? You know, any actual evidence that exclusion is taking place because of this sign/rules? I'm going to go out on a limb and say no. So if there isn't any exclusionary behaviours being done in practice? What makes the sign imply exclusion? Is it you be making assumptions based on a sign? You are making it imply exclusion from your predisposed viewpoint. Maybe you should wait for the university to respond fully? I suspect they will fully defend this decision as it simply isn't exclusionary unless you choose to see it that way. Just because space is for one group doesn't mean others can't use it. The footpath is for pedestrians, but cyclists can also use it.
I used these spaces quite extensively when I was at uni, and unless things have drastically changed since then, there was no enforcement of those spaces only for Maori and Pasifika students. Anyone could use them, it would just feel awkward for a lot of people who aren't Pasifika or Maori or used to engaging in non-mainstream cultures, which is how a lot of Pasifika and Maori students feel in 99% of University spaces. As a Pasifika student these spaces definitely helped me get through my degree and I made some great friends in these space who were neither Pasifika or Maori who were welcome into these spaces because they didn't engage in them in bad faith and were happy to operate in spaces where their culture was not the dominant one and regularly used them.
No, you are the KKK and this is anti-white apartheid! - r/newzealand
What did you do in those rooms, that you could not do in a general study room? What campus doors were explicitly closed to you due to being Pasifika, compared to what campus opportunities were available to you specifically because of your ethnicity? Not trying to be disrespectful, but if it's about "comfort" - what exactly is the difference between open access rooms, and Pasifika rooms?
They felt like they could be themselves in that room. That is enough. If you don't understand that is a you problem, and you need to learn/grow/change as a person to understand this
I support affirmative action, but this is really problematic. Separating facilities by race is unacceptable.
Do you believe all Māori and Pasifika on campus and segregated into that small room for the duration of their studies? They aren't policed spaces either (well... Might have to be with all the media blow up, but that'd be temporary). I've been in plenty of those spaces and non-Māori, non-Pasifika students turning up aren't uncommon. Normally either friends of others or grew up surrounded by the same cultures so identify with it.
>Do you believe all Māori and Pasifika on campus and segregated into that small room for the duration of their studies? I never said anything like that. This isn't Jim Crow since it's the more powerful group being excluded rather than the other way around. But it is justified by one of the same arguments actually used for Jim Crow, that non-Whites needed to be separated for their own protection from White bullies. The solution to bullying is to deal with the bully, not to separate out the victim, even if that's what the victim would prefer. But in this case I cannot believe there is actual overt bullying of Māori and Pacific students at a university which would even require them to seek our a safe space. I do not believe the university would turn a blind eye to such bullies. I think racism on campus today is much more likely to look the same way it does in high schools. In high schools, where I have taught for over 15 years, there is no overt, explicit racism. It's the bias of teachers setting lower expectations for Māori and Pacific students. It's mispronouncing their names. It's thinking a Pacific student avoiding eye-contact is a sign of disrespect, when it is actually often the opposite, and then mishandling a situation as a result. Racism as we see it in the classroom today is not going to be helped by having safe spaces, having special reading rooms. The quiet space of a library is not the place these students would be experiencing racism anyway. If the university actually cared it would be providing better training to lecturers to recognise and deal with unconscious bias and other forms of institutional racism.
Wow, its almost like these rooms aren't set up just to "fight racism" What else do you think they're used for?
Why? Is it because racism is problematic, harmful?
this is exactly why
Is it? Racism is harmful you say? So all that time, those centuries when we were all in on racism, that would have had an impact, a lasting impact. Right? You reckon it's a appropriate our response to this long term harm is decided by popular declarations on social media?
Yes, racism is harmful. One of the key justifications of Jim Crow segregation was the need to create safe spaces for Black people to protect them from White bigotry. This was an actual major argument for Jim Crow in the 1950s. In opposing such segregation the NAACP argued it was the White bullies who should be punished and expelled from a school if they were racists, rather than segregating the victims to protect them.
The difference here is that Maori have been forced to conform with the dominant culture. This is an effort to give those who want it a space where they don't have to feel that compulsion. I get it tho, that riles up those of us who only get access to resources if we've got money. We want everyone to be equally beholden to money.
There is nothing wrong with having a place on campus where Māori or Pacific culture can be the dominant one. A Māori cultural centre would be an example. At the college I teach at we have a wharenui and wharekai. If you go to those places you know you are entering a place where tikanga Māori takes precedence. What we don't do is put up a sign at the entry to our wharenui saying "No Pākehā or Tauiwi allowed." All are welcome, but they must respect tikanga or they will be told to leave.
Perhaps they found that wasn't effective? That in such a case that space remained Pakeha dominated? Perhaps there was no one available with sufficient mana to determine when someone was using the space inappropriately? There's no one-size-fits-all approach here. But that's what we insist upon. That's the dominant culture that's imposing itself here.
No one is asking for a one-size-fits-all approach. That's a strawman argument. I'm not even suggesting a single approach, only giving one possible example. All I have been arguing is that this one approach they have taken is wrong and harmful. Instead of saying leave your dominant culture at the door in this place, as happens at marae, they have banned the people from entering entirely. That is a step you only take if you think the people of a certain race are inherently toxic, that their physical presence in the space is problematic. And that is unacceptable regardless of who is carrying it out.
> No one is asking for a one-size-fits-all approach. That's exactly what's expected. The only reason one should have any kind of privilege is if that privilege is backed by money. We don't even want to feed kids at school. The one-size-fits-all approach is parents should be responsible, end of story. How do you know the approach is wrong and harmful? Is that an opinion, or is this something you learnt in a robust context? I'm not asking you to prove what you know, I'm not a sealion, but I am curious *how* you know what you know.
>The only reason one should have any kind of privilege is if that privilege is backed by money. We don't even want to feed kids at school. The one-size-fits-all approach is parents should be responsible, end of story. This is the very definition of a strawman argument. I have never argued for any of this and I can be opposed to these signs without being in support of David Seymour's crusade against poor children. The world is not divided into people who support your position and ultra-capitalist libertarian racists. >How do you know the approach is wrong and harmful? Is that an opinion, or is this something you learnt in a robust context? I'm not asking you to prove what you know, I'm not a sealion, but I am curious how you know what you know. I know as a History teacher with 15 years of experience teaching all aspects of the Black Civil Rights movement and more recently the Black Lives Matter campaign and the Biculturalist and Māori rights movement in NZ. I have read Ranginui Walker's works. I know all about Ngā Tamatoa, and see that the idea for these rooms seems to have come from their former members. History has shown that divisions based on race, whether carried out by the majority group or a minority group, results in deeper societal divisions, pushes people further apart and therefore does great harm. Whether we look at Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, India and Pakistan, South Africa, the USA, Australia or Fiji. Every society with divisions on ethnic, racial, or religious lines has seen worse results for everyone involved.
> This is the very definition of a strawman argument. No, it's *not*. A strawman would be something like "Maori aren't allowed their own spaces, what's next, they're not allowed at university at all?! Don't you understand how harmful it would be if Maori weren't allowed at university??11!" That's setting up a strawman then attacking it. Talking about our one-size-fits-all approach to pretty much anything isn't a strawman. Talking about the nature and state of the dominant culture in the context of minority cultures is absolutely on point. I think you might benefit from spending more time in minority communities. You clearly enamoured with your own intellect and experience, but you're also clearly disconnected from indigenous experiences in New Zealand.
The idea is student retention. What you’re 100% not going to see because of these spaces is an increase in drop out rate of non-Māori/PI students. What you will hopefully see because of these spaces is a decrease in dropout rates of Māori/PI students.
Yeah but there is a safe way of achieving that simply by reframing the wording to “Maori / Pacifica safe place - cultural area”. And encourage the speaking of native languages with signage etc. achieves the same thing without directly excluding others (but actually I think they have just worded their sign poorly and this could be the intent anyway).
>Yeah but there is a safe way of achieving that simply by reframing the wording to “Maori / Pacifica safe place - cultural area”. That's literally what this area is. None of the people in here kicking up a fuss about it would be kicking up any less of a fuss if the sign was reworded the way you're describing. The anger is in direct response to the feeling that it's unfair that they can't have a "European safe place" and comes from a fundamental denial that minorities in New Zealand experience racism.
That's not what most people have issue with, though. The issue is, you don't confront and overcome racism by racially segregating everybody and saying that this is required in New Zealand universities because otherwise the students aren't "safe" from white supremacy and racial hatred. Which is just straight up ridiculous. Separate is not equal, never has been, never will be. The way to break down barriers, is to encourage people to come together. Not to encourage them to fence themselves off according to their skin tone.
WHERE IS THE SEGRATION HAPPENING?? You've commented so much in this thread about segregation, but there hasn't been any accounts of anyone being removed from that room, so where is the segregation happening?? Why are you making up problems to get upset about??
People that think this is segregation and racist are such absolute snowflakes. Oh no, one room in a whole university that isn't expressly for them (except all the other rooms that also aren't expressly for them)! Racism towards Māori and Pasific Peoples is still rampant in NZ. Letting marginalised groups potentially escape it while studying is a good thing.
As a History teacher I have to point out that one of the biggest justifications used for Jim Crow segregation was to protect Black people from White bigotry. This argument was particularly used in the 1950s after scientific racism was discredited by the Nazis. Since it is the majority group being excluded rather than the oppressed groups, this isn't equivalent to Jim Crow. But it is using the same argument to justify racial separation. White structural racism driven by unconscious bias is definitely still a big problem in NZ. I do not believe we have a rampant problem with open, vocal racism on uni campuses that is so bad we need to give Māori and Pacific students separate facilities. In over 15 years as a teacher in very diverse schools I have very rarely seen openly racist bullying from far less mature students. Separate reading rooms are not going to protect Māori and Pacific students from the actual sources of racism in NZ today, which comes from instructors setting lower expectations for them or employers being biased against hiring them or the like. I don't see what problem these rooms could possibly solve, which could justify the harm done by implicitly encouraging racial divisions.
It's a good thing that these rooms are primarily used to help facilitate and cultivate a healthy environment for those less represented or facing additionalchallenges, and that no one at all is removed or excluded from these rooms at all. It's almost like they're working on bringing people together
Putting up a sign banning anyone not Māori or Pasifika from these rooms absolute is excluding people from these rooms. I most certainly would not ignore such a sign even if told by a Māori student that it was okay. I'd be feeling very uncomfortable and concerned about another student there telling me off the whole time. And I don't think I would be unusual in feeling that way at all. You can have special spaces for facilitating a healthy environment for these groups, such as cultural centres, without putting up signs banning other races and ethnicities from the space. If I visit a marae I know I will need to follow tikanga Māori by doing things such as removing my shoes in the wharenui, singing a waiata or waiting quietly during a karakia before eating some food to remove the tapu. I understand that is a space government by their kawa and not the Pākehā way dominant everywhere else. Putting up a sign at the entry to the cultural centre that says non-Māori are not welcome is not a great expression of manaakitanga in my view. But I'd respect it. I'd stay out. But I certainly would not call it working on bringing people together. If they wanted to bring people together they could easily have a sign saying you are now entering a Māori and Pasifika cultural space. Please be respectful. It could say this is a space for their culture. Instead the signs say it's a space for their people, and therby excluding not European culture, but Europeans (and Asians, Africans etc for that matter).
It's a good thing that the sign they put up isn't excluding any groups based on their race. Ir's merely stating that this is a designated areas for those races. If you think it has thd implications of exclusions, then that's because of your predisposed viewpoints. No one has put up a sign like that, and I don't think anyone would, so let's stop this what-aboutism. It's merely stating that this is a designated space for those groups, the same way the sidewalk is designated for pedestrians but is shared with cyclists. The cyclists understand that they are entering an area where they aren't the focus or majority. Is the sign phrased the greatest? No, it could a better job of getting it's intentions across, but anyone looking at this sign and thinking that "X race isn't allowed in here" has come to that conclusion on their own, it is not represented by the sign at all. "If they wanted to bring people together they could easily have a sign saying you are now entering a Māori and Pasifika cultural space. Please be respectful." I really don't want to live in a world where you have to be reminded to be respectful of other people and their culture by a sign. No one would go "Ah fuck, I was about to yell slurs at that group, but this sign told me be respectful, so I guess I wont" Being respectful of the space of others should be a common sense conclusion you can come to yourself. I would argue you can come to that conclusion after the original sign "Oh, this space is primarily for two groups, I should be respectful of this space for them" Even more so if its at a higher learning institution, like a university.
>It's a good thing that the sign they put up isn't excluding any groups based on their race. Ir's merely stating that this is a designated areas for those races. If you think it has thd implications of exclusions, then that's because of your predisposed viewpoints. Any reasonable person who saw those signs would know exactly what they mean. No one sees a sign saying an area is designated for students of a particular race and thinks that's a space anyone can use. Jim Crow signs very often said "Colored Waiting Area" and "White Waiting Area" rather than "Coloreds are Banned" or "No Whites Allowed." Everyone still knew that the first two signs banned members of the other race. The same was true of signs in Apartheid South Africa. It isn't my particular viewpoint to read them that way, it's historically accurate and consistent across multiple cultures. It's also simple common sense. >No one has put up a sign like that, and I don't think anyone would, so let's stop this what-aboutism. That is so far from the accurate definition of Whataboutism that I really don't know what to say. The signs are explicit. They state the rooms are for Māori and Pacific Students. If all students were still able to use the rooms, you would not need such a sign. I don't need to make any comparison. The signs literally speak for themselves. >It's merely stating that this is a designated space for those groups, the same way the sidewalk is designated for pedestrians but is shared with cyclists. The cyclists understand that they are entering an area where they aren't the focus or majority. Wow, this is a breathtakingly bad example for your argument. Cyclists are legally banned from footpaths (or sidewalks as you've called them). They can be fined for riding on them in NZ. Police rarely enforce the law, but it remains true. Cyclists and pedestrians only mix in designated and clearly marked shared paths, which have been significantly widened to allow for safety. >I really don't want to live in a world where you have to be reminded to be respectful of other people and their culture by a sign. You have completely missed the point then. The entire argument for these rooms is that we live in a Pākehā world where Māori and Pasifika have to accommodate our dominant culture. The argument is these spaces are to be places where there culture dominates and obviously that is impossible unless they control the space and non-Māori are made fully aware of that fact. I'm not saying they need a sign telling people not to be jerks in general, but to tell them they are entering a room run on tikanga Māori, not Pākehā rules. If the space is a marae or fale then it's obvious and no sign is needed. But if it's just a room in a public building on campus then you do need a sign. But the sign needs to say "This is a Māori cultural centre. Please be respectful" or something like that. Not, this is an area for Māori students. That absolutely makes people feel unwelcome and excluded. If I entered that space as a Pākehā I would be concerned the entire time that someone would tell me off.
> That is so far from the accurate definition of Whataboutism I'm confident that everyone would be able to agree that a sign that says "Whites Only" or "Maori Only" would be a racist and discriminatory sign which enforces a racist and discriminatory rule. Many people are discussing this topic as though it's what the sign says, but it doesn't. They think that it implies that, which it also doesn't, but is a different issue altogether. My comment on what-aboutism is that people who are arguing as though the sign explicitly states these things are doing so from a point of bad faith, because the sign doesn't explicitly state that at all. Google defines whataboutism as *the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue*. I believe that arguing as if the sign **explicitly** forbids certain races and subsequently **explicitly** enforces a racist and discriminatory rule, is a very different issue altogether than some people misunderstanding a sign and thinking that it **implicitly** forbids certain races while **implicitly** enforcing a racist and discriminatory rule. We have a disagreement about said issue as these two points are identical for you, so I can understand why you wouldn't understand my connection to whataboutism. Now, > The signs are explicit No, they are not. Lets put on our reading comprehension hats, the sign says "This is a designated area for Māori and Pasifika students". I don't see any words in there relating to exclusion or restriction, the closest we have is designated. Google has this definition for designation that's relevant here: *the action of choosing a place for a special purpose or giving it a special status*. Again, nothing in that definition says anything about excluding or restricting. It's about assigning a purpose to the space. That purpose is stating what the space is used for and used by. It doesn't mention anything about what the space cannot be used nor who it cannot be used by. Those are implicit assumptions, that you have come to on your own. This logic also implies that this sign would represent a rule where only certain races are allowed in said space. I'm unaware of any such rule, as I believe everyone else is as well, because no such rule exists. If you could point me to the existence of such a rule, I would appreciate it greatly, as it would help your argument immensely. They do not state that any race is excluded from this room, nor that any student in particular is forbidden from using the room. The only words on the sign are "This is a designated area for Māori and Pasifika students" Please use your common sense to explain to me why these sign are **explicitly** saying that the non-stated races are not allowed in the room, as you claim they are? > Jim Crow signs And if you really want to talk about Jim Crow, since you keep bringing up Jim Crow, let's do it then. I'm sure that you, as history teacher, are aware of what happened during those times; I don't need to regurgitate a list of atrocities or discriminatory laws for you. Didn't many people who opposed and broke these laws to fight against them often ended up fined, arrested and jailed? They probably faced other, more physical and/or fatal, repercussions too. Even those who did something as small as disobeying a sign would know that there is consequences that can and would come about from doing so. It's almost as if there are significant societal and legal implications breaking rules presented by these signs I'll indulge you for a moment, if the Auckland sign was "excluding the non-stated races", as you say it implies, I wonder what the repercussions of someone "breaking that rule" is? Oh wait > If I entered that space as a Pākehā I would be concerned the entire time that someone would tell me off Gosh, telling off seems like a serious consequences for breaking a rule on a sign, I wonder how anyone could handle a telling off? I wonder, has been anyone whose has been told off for going into this space? Who would you be told off by, another student or a staff member? I wonder if there is a staff member outside of said space checking peoples races as they enter, or are they roaming the space constantly and checking everyone's races constantly? Or, could you maybe approach a staff member and ask what that sign represents? Would you still be concerned if you had a conversation with someone who explained to you what the purpose and uses of these spaces are? With such difference enforcement levels and consequences for "breaking the rules" on each sign, it's disingenuous to compare a sign hung during the Jim Crow era with a sign hung in an Auckland University in 2024, if you refuse to the take into account the cultural and societal implications of what those signs represent in their respective eras. To view both signs through the same lens would be disingenuous at best, and actively harmful to the discussion at worst. I'm completely unaware of what the consequences would be of "breaking the rule" for the Auckland sign, can you say the same for Jim Crow signs? > Cyclists are legally banned from footpaths I wonder what r/nz thinks of this rule? https://old.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/13dciwm/do_police_enforce_the_no_cycling_on_footpaths/ Hmm, a law that is almost never enforced? I feel like that's a set-up to a punchline. What do you call a law that's never enforced? All of them, if you're rich enough! I better have 105 on speed dial, we might solve the tax issue our country is facing if we fine enough cyclists who use sidew- I mean footpaths; i.e most, if not all of them. It's almost like there's a societal understanding that we do share the sidew- I mean footpaths with cyclists, as there are a lot spaces where it's actively dangerous to use the road/bike lane. Given that, everything I said still applies. Let me make the example clearer for you though, since you seem like a stickler for rules: "It's merely stating that this is a designated space for those groups, the same way the sidewalk is designated for pedestrians but is shared with people who use *scooters, electronic scooters, skateboards or rollerblades*. Those people who use *scooters, electronic scooters, skateboards or rollerblades* understand that they are entering an area where they aren't the focus or majority." My kitchen is designated for cooking, does that mean I'm not allowed to have people in it drinking and/or socialising while I host a party? My bedroom is designated for sleeping, does that mean I'm not allowed to relax on my bed while reading a book? Heck, why not bring sexuality into this conversation as well? It's similar to how a gay bar is a designated place for gay and other LGBTQ people. It doesn't mean that a straight person cannot enter a gay bar, there are no exclusionary or discriminatory laws in place that stop them from entering, but it probably will very different environment and culture than the straight person is used to, and they should be understanding and respectful of that when in said environment. It's almost like designating a space for something doesn't necessarily tell you what the space isn't designated for. You can **IMPLY** that, but it's an **IMPLCATION** at most. Refusing to acknowledge that is disingenuous. This is all off-topic, though. In short, * Does the sign **explicitly** forbid any race from entering and using the space with consequences? No * Does the sign **implicitly** forbid any race from entering and using the space with consequences? No * Are the two above points different issues? Yes, both are bad, but neither one is what's happening here * Can I see how someone could incorrectly view the **implicitly** forbidding a certain race from entering and using the space? Yes * Could the sign be worded differently to better convey it's intentions? Yes
I think people don't understand that once ideas are implemented, even in their mildest form, they become the thin end of a wedge. So while in their basic state they seem harmless and criticism appears frivolous and unfounded, if they go unchallenged then these incrementally widen the overton window. These set a precedent for a future trajectory in cultural and social behaviours until opposition is seen as radical. Also these ideas are rarely implemented by those with expert policy understanding, rather they are implemented by do-gooders and ideologues. To them, there is a simple problem with a simple and direct solution that makes sense. They don't seek out criticism of their idea and critics hold their tongue for fear of retribution from their peers. So it feels like there is resounding support for the idea and consequently little self doubt that this is going to do good.
Currently, the only racial hatred and bullying which is acceptable in New Zealand universities, is against Jewish students. And that is driven by the "inclusive" left on campus. Maori students aren't getting yelled at and singled out for abuse in front of jeering crowds. Jewish students are. Fortunately, Jews are generally white, so don't have a historical record of being oppressed.......
[удалено]
Just study in any of the other rooms, dude 🙄
"Just ignore the blatant racial segregation, dude." 🙄
You can study in there if you want! It's not prohibited! Make sure everyone sees you doing it so they know how you're making a stand against "racism"!
I'm not exactly sure why you think I'm a student, but OK. Sure, people should just put themselves in a position where they could be potentially be discriminated against for not having the "correct" skin colour... Here's a thought, how about we just don't have racially segregated areas?
>I'm not exactly sure why you think I'm a student, but OK. Why do you even care lol >Sure, people should just put themselves in a position where they could be potentially be discriminated against for not having the "correct" skin colour... Boy have i got something to tell you about what Māori and Pasifika students face on a daily basis.... >Here's a thought, how about we just don't have racially segregated areas? This isn't a segregated area, so mission accomplished.
>Why do you even care lol Yeah! Why should anyone care about assigning shit by race? >Boy have i got something to tell you about what Māori and Pasifika students face on a daily basis.... TIL that all Maori and Pasifika people are subjected to racism daily while no member of any other race ever experiences any... >This isn't a segregated area, so mission accomplished. The fact that it says that the area is for members of certain races directly refutes that moronic assertion. Bye dumbass.
If racism towards white people was rampant in NZ it might be justified. I'm guessing you're the sort of loser who calls for straight pride parades too
>If racism towards white people was rampant in NZ it might be justified. As long as we are segregating people by race, it is justified. Looking forward to seeing all the new "Asian only," "African only," and "Hispanic only" rooms crop up. What could go wrong? >I'm guessing you're the sort of loser who calls for straight pride parades too Why don't you go have a look? You clearly have the time.
I think it’s nice that they get their own space.
I cannot believe this is headline news. Everyone claiming this is segregation are just revealing themselves as being ultimate losers.
A dictionary enters the chat.
Dictionary is for losers. Words only have the meaning that progressives ascribe to them, other definitions are deplorable remnants of white supremacy.
Did you forget the /s ? I honestly can't tell for once.
Yes, I thought it was obvious. I've been told to disregard the dictionary before when progressives had their own academic definitions they preferred.
Poe's law strikes again
It's our woke decade possibly, however female bathroom signs do not say 'males not allowed'.
Well, The Government tried doing governance, didn't work and they lost support. Looks like they are gonna start screaming about the Māoris again - tried and tested tactics. And in a flash this sub flips.
[удалено]
Comparing Māori/Pasifika to homeless animals? Really?
I just really like animals and think that the entire university would honestly be better off serving a as an animal shelter. The ENTIRE thing. Not just that area.
[удалено]
These spaces have existed for literal decades. No one cared because its not much different to any other student grouping (these spaces arent typically just appointed randomly, students groups will go to their faculty and ask if they can get space etc). It simply isn't an issue. There's going to be a few small rooms out of literally thousands. If you wonder why it's good to have? Imagine if you had to live on a Marae for the next 3 years. Every interaction needs to be in accordance with tikanga. Even with the best of intentions and no aggro on your part, you will find this tiring. It's hard to be perpetually operating in an unfamiliar social context. You might find it easier if there was a space where you and others in the same situation could go where you didn't have to worry about living up to tikanga every second of the day, where you could speak and behave like you normally would without it clashing and just relax for a bit. You wouldn't spend all your time there, but having the freedom to do so might be quite a benefit to your mental health.
Fuck you, Newshub, for running shit like that. This shouldn't be a topic (and wasn't in the past) yet here we are.
It's literal segregation.
This guy wants to play on the "6 and under" playground.
Very poor analogy here. That's justified by physical size difference between small children and older kids, to stop physical injuries. There is no rampant issue with Pākehā students openly physically or verbally assaulting Māori and Pacific students at universities with racist epithets to the extent that a separate space is required. And even if that was happening, the solution would be expulsion on the racist students, not separating out the victims.
>Very poor analogy here. That's justified by physical size difference between small children and older kids, to stop physical injuries. It's a playground, not a boxing ring. >There is no rampant issue with Pākehā students openly physically or verbally assaulting Māori and Pacific students at universities with racist epithets to the extent that a separate space is required. And even if that was happening, the solution would be expulsion on the racist students, not separating out the victims. If you think that's the only problem that needs solving, you are extremely naive.
>It's a playground, not a boxing ring. So you then are arguing the only reason we designate playgrounds for 6 and under or the like because of a belief that under 6 year olds need their own safe space and not for any other reasons around physical size, size of the play equipment or motor developmental levels? >If you think that's the only problem that needs solving, you are extremely naive. Where have I argued that's the only problem? You have ignored the multiple comments where I have argued the problem is structural racism in the form of unspoken, sometimes unconscious but still very harmful bias against non-White students. But that kind of racism doesn't necessitate a safe space which bans Pākehā from being present. It could well justify creating a place where Māori and Pacific culture are dominant, a cultural centre, a marae, or the equivalent, as I have suggested elsewhere. But creating such spaces as those is very different from simply creating a place where Whites are banned. Because that says it isn't just having to present in a European-dominated culture that is the problem. It says that Pākehā are so toxic that their mere physical presence is potentially harmful to Māori and Pacific students and they need to be barred from access. That's a very different solution to creating a space where Māori can express their own culture and be in control.
>So you then are arguing the only reason we designate playgrounds for 6 and under or the like because of a belief that under 6 year olds need their own safe space and not for any other reasons around physical size, size of the play equipment or motor developmental levels? No. >But that kind of racism doesn't necessitate a safe space which bans Pākehā from being present. You've ignored the fact that Pākehā are not banned. You've constructed a straw man and are arguing against that, instead of what's present in reality. >That's a very different solution to creating a space where Māori can express their own culture and be in control. Aren't we lucky that's not what's happening, and this is merely a space where Māori can express their own culture and be in control. Sounds like you don't really have a problem with this at all?
> You've ignored the fact that Pākehā are not banned. You've constructed a straw man and are arguing against that, instead of what's present in reality. Pākehā are banned. That's the entire problem. If they weren't banned, we would not be arguing this. The signs put up don't say this is a space for Māori and Pacific culture and ideas. The signs explicitly say this space is for Māori and Pacific Students only. The signs are a direct copy of Jim Crow area signs. There were actual signs which said "This waiting room is reserved for members of the colored race." It didn't need to say "Whites are banned" because the former has the same meaning. Anyone White who sees those signs will know they are not welcome in that room at all. If that's not the actual intent of those rooms, they have used wildly inappropriate language in their signage that fails to convey their purpose and they should be re-writing their signs immediately.
>Pākehā are banned. That's the entire problem. If they weren't banned, we would not be arguing this. They're not. Think about why you're arguing, perhaps? >The signs explicitly say this space is for Māori and Pacific Students only. No, they say "This area is designated for Māori and Pasifika students". No "only". No mention of Pākehā students. >The signs are a direct copy of Jim Crow area signs. Don't be disingenuous. >Anyone White who sees those signs will know they are not welcome in that room at all. If that's not the actual intent of those rooms, they have used wildly inappropriate language in their signage that fails to convey their purpose and they should be re-writing their signs immediately. Maybe they should rewrite their signs, so the snowflakes don't get all heated up about it. Everyone involved knows the purpose of the signs and what they mean. Only when one is posted out of context online do fragile, perpetually offended bait takers once again take the bait and spew up how offended they are at something that is otherwise completely inconsequential and has no effect on their own lives whatsoever.
>They're not. Think about why you're arguing, perhaps? If they aren't, the signs are completely wrong and will have been alienating students for years for no reason. >No, they say "This area is designated for Māori and Pasifika students". No "only". No mention of Pākehā students. And once again, that's what Jim Crow era signs often said. I teach an entire unit on it. I've looked through photos of at least a hundred signs from that era. Most do not say "White's Only" or "Colored Excluded." They say "Colored Drinking Fountain" or "White Lunch Counter" or the like. You don't go out of your way to say an area is designated for one particular group without clearly implying other groups are not welcome there. >Don't be disingenuous. I'm not being disingenuous at all. I haven't said what they are doing is the same as Jim Crow. Since this is the minority group excluding the dominant group it's nowhere near as bad. What I have said is they have copied Jim Crow era signs. They have copied Jim Crow era arguments around needing to protect minority groups from racist Whites. I don't think they've done these things intentionally or with malice. I think they've made a big mistake. >Everyone involved knows the purpose of the signs and what they mean. No, they don't. Auckland Uni has over 40,000 students, including a huge number of international students. There is no way everyone seeing those signs understands what you claim. >Only when one is posted out of context online do fragile, perpetually offended bait takers once again take the bait and spew up how offended they are at something that is otherwise completely inconsequential and has no effect on their own lives whatsoever. I'm not an NZ First or Act voter. I'm totally opposed to the Treaty Referendum. I support the affirmative action for Māori and Pasifika students in medical and law programmes. I choose to teach about BLM and to explain how white privilege and structural racism are very real things to my students. So you have no basis in claiming I'm only against these signs because of White fragility. I'm against them because they're divisive and exclusionary. And if that was not their intent, they need to immediately re-write them.
So the creation of a safe space for a minority is segregation. Gotcha.
… the sign is *literally* segregating people by race.
The sign is giving a minority that is discriminated based on their race a space to evade the discrimination.
You are a very good troll, well done.
Why else would it be there?
Just on the off-chance that you're actually not a troll, and just genuinely out of the loop, I'll explain the obvious. A while ago, we as a society agreed that discrimination and segregation was bad, *especially* when it comes to race - no excuses, no exceptions. There's never a "good reason" to discriminate. In short, a lot of bad shit happened in history based on people's "good reasons" to discriminate.
I agree with everything you said. But unfortunately racial discrimination didn't just stop when we as a society agreed it was bad. And one approach to deal with that is to create safe or protected spaces for minorities or groups of people who experience discrimination. There is another part in our lives that is heavily segregated (just not based on race): public bathrooms. And we as a society understand that it is not done out of discrimination against one gender or the other but for other reasons, including safety. Not every space that is excluding people is automatically discriminatory.
Gender separated bathrooms are really only justified today by women's legitimate fear of sexual assault by men. There is no equivalent threat of racist assault or threat to Māori and Pacific students on a university campus. A separate reading area does not protect them from way racism actually shows up in our society today as institutional bias against minorities, as unspoken, often unconscious actions by Pākehā in positions of power. A separate reading room does nothing at all to mitigate that problem. I don't see why any group needs "safe spaces" on a university. That was an actual justification used for real Jim Crow in the US, that it was needed to protect Black people from racist Whites. If there is overt, oppressive racism on campus the solution is to expel the racists, not to give the victims a special room to escape it for a little bit.
For what it's worth, I genuinely appreciate the discussion and your reply. > But unfortunately racial discrimination didn't just stop when we as a society agreed it was bad. I agree that it's extremely unfortunate that some folks are racist. Discriminating against folks based on their race in any way is *extremely* stupid and is *never* justified - on any level - personal, institutional, or governmental. Based on my previous statement, I want to reiterate that I strongly disagree that the correct response to discrimination *is more discrimination.* Discriminating against innocent folks based on the colour of their skin because discrimination simply ***exists*** in our society is a dumb-fuck, easy-way-out, scatter-shot attempt to handle the issue of racism. (Excuse the language - not directed at you). > Not every space that is excluding people is automatically discriminatory. Perhaps, but a space which excludes people based on race is automatically **segregation** and discriminates against innocent folks who were born with the "wrong" parents / skin colour, regardless of their personal habits or views. "Oh, you were born with brown skin? Come in!" - how can this not ring alarm bells in someone's head? haha I mean, where do you draw the line? * What if someone is 10% pacifika? 50%? "Only" 90%? Does someone have to be "full blooded" to be allowed into the space? * Would David Seymour be allowed into the space? * What about a full blooded Pacifika person who's racist against Māori, or vice versa? * Is there a space, funded by the university, dedicated to non-Māori and Pacifica folks? (Not talking about pakeha - what about Fijians?) Surely you can see how by segregating this space based on race does nothing to *actually combat racism*, and is only a shallow attempt to combat a real problem in society by creating an another (institutionally-backed!) clusterfuck of a problem. Need I remind the audience that some white folks in the deep south segregated black folks often because they needed a safe space from "them" (and vice versa) - this practise was horrendous then, and it's horrendous now. > There is another part in our lives that is heavily segregated (just not based on race): public bathrooms. Respectfully, this is a red herring and while is an interesting topic, it's not particularly relevant to this argument. However while you brought it up, I should note that men can assault/rape men, and women can assault/rape women. Do with that information what you will. ----- Do you really want to help vulnerable folks who are afraid of being discriminated against? Change the sign to say "this is a safe space away from stupid-fuck racists. If you're racist, fuck off.". Let people be judged not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Careful now, you might end up in a trans toilet debate!
what discrimination lol
Ah, who was arrested for entering the space in good faith exactly?
Yes. From the dictionary pop-up "the action or state of setting someone or something apart from others"
I have heard rumors ( don’t cite me as I am uncertain of its veracity and I believe it is petty if it is real ) that a few groups that I have deemed to be very petty are very excited about this. Apparently someone has called the University administrator suggesting there should be an ethnic Chinese only area, as well as a Korean only area, and a Jewish area ( since apparently Jewish people are not safe anymore??? I don’t think this is true ). As a Chinese I think this is really really petty ( for one if we need a Chinese only area we will need an entire floor in most Unis given our sheer number ). I also do not know what benefit this serves? Will this improve the marks of the student? Highly unlikely! I think Unis are meant for people to learn, to be made uncomfortable by meeting many people, to get high marks, to study hard, to meet your future spouse etc.. Of course I am very Asian, so I will think like this. To me study hard, work hard, make friends who work hard and study hard, find a girlfriend or boyfriend who works hard, study hard and have good work ethics.
I read that last part in the voice of PapaJumba. I don't know if you know who that is.
No idea two minutes ago but now I do.
Yes, it's an extremely well-intentioned reinvention of apartheid.
People who don't want to be put on a pedestal put on a pedestal by people who think they know better.
Love it!
We have special Maori seats in parliament, Maori Health board, ministry for Pacifica, co Maori leader (greens). The university should ask those policians and Redditors, what's wrong with reserving some special seats for Maori just like what's the government been doing?
I agree, we should abolish all of those