Despite segregation being outlawed more than 50 years ago, some are aggressively trying to bring it back, particularly on college campuses. Confusingly, the most hyperactive voices advocating for a return to racial segregation are the actual beneficiaries of desegregation, black Americans — the same group hurt most by socio-economic marginalization for most of the 20th century.

During the past several years, black college students have protested alleged cases of oppression, racial intimidation, and discrimination by white administrators and students alike. One of the consensus cures for this ongoing, perceived racial prejudice is to demand racially-specific, so-called “safe spaces,” where only racial minorities- specifically blacks- can assemble, socialize, and reinforce their politicized identity without “fear” of social or racial reprisals. These spaces are created with the express intent of excluding whites for black wellbeing.

For example, at UCLA, the Afrikan Student Union is insisting upon an “Afrikan Diaspora floor” as well as an “Afro-house,” declaring, “black students lack the necessary spaces where they feel safe and comfortable.” Black supporters of this “Afrikan Diaspora floor” defend the need for this demand, claiming the floor is indispensable for black students to connect more to other black students, the Afrikan Student Union, and the African-American department.

Are we really at a point- after eight years of a black president and two black US Attorneys general, among other positions of black notoriety- where privileged black people- attending one of America’s top colleges- need a racially exclusive ‘safe space’ to talk to other black people?

As for the creation and support of a UCLA “Afro-house,” the student demands claim, “many Black students cannot afford to live in Westwood with the high rent prices. An Afro-house would provide a cheaper alternative housing solution for black students and serve as a ‘safe space’ for black Bruins to assemble and learn from each other.”

To be clear, these black UCLA students demand racialized rent control for black beneficiaries at the expense of a multiracial composite of tax-paying citizens. Specifically, they want rent-based affirmative action.

At UC Berkeley, the Black Student Union and other black student organizations demanded that Chancellor Nicholas Dirks and Provost Claude Steele implement institutional changes to address the “conditions” of black students at the university.

Some of these demands included increased “space” for black students, increased staffing for recruitment and retention of black students, support for black student-athletes, and recruitment of more black graduate students and faculty. The black student militants complain that admissions and enrollment rates of black undergraduate and graduate students at UC Berkeley are abysmal. These aggrieved black students also allege high levels of disrespect, diffusion of racial stereotypes, and promoting of an anti-black campus climate. One BSU member said, “This university has oppressed black people… the fact that we have to come up with demands for long-overdue support, to us, is a testament to our condition.”

Not… really.

That statement is a testament to the breadth of cognitive dissonance between hyperbolic racial rhetoric and real-life experience prevalent among black leftists. Those black students at UC Berkeley, of all places, can claim “oppression” and assert that black students lack “support” that gives evidence of their poor “condition”- and is serious about these claims- is a picture-perfect example of a profound lack of self-awareness.

Further, regarding admissions and enrollment, I would like to know how these black racial tyrants define abysmal.

Low numbers don’t necessarily equal abysmal. There are insufficient numbers of Asians and Asian Americans in the NBA, but one shouldn’t characterize those low numbers as abysmal. For example, more competitive professions examine the nexus between potential and talent with much higher scrutiny than other professions. As such, there aren’t enough players of Asian decent possessing the capability to prosper at the level required for entry into the NBA.

Therefore, are the rates of black admission and enrollment “abysmal” on their own merits, or are they “abysmal” in comparison to whites, Asian Americans, and Latinos? Indeed, in relation to their white and Asian American counterparts, there’s no question that these rates are low. The problem is that these black students wrongly insinuate, without corroborating evidence- that these low rates result from racial discrimination.

However, these racial radicals are partially correct, just not how they think.

Black student admission and enrollment rates are lower than they should be, not only at Berkeley but also at many top and mid-tier institutions of higher learning. Matriculation rates at the undergraduate and graduate level aren’t low because of racism, per se, but for several reasons, including the underperforming school system responsible for educating black children; academic underachievement among the black middle class in schools that have adequate teachers and resources; the lack of persistent emphasis on and prioritizing of academic excellence among blacks; the unstable and chaotic households that exist among too many black families that sabotage the pursuit of academic achievement; and the safety net of affirmative action that subsidizes, encourages, and rewards black academic mediocrity and incompetence.

All of this disproportionately affects blacks, but it’s not racial; instead, it’s cultural.

These racial militants have misdirected their revolutionary spirit to confront and condemn easy white targets for low black academic success and the lack of black faces on campus rather than confronting and blaming the problems that persistently subvert black intellectual accomplishment.

On the apparent claims of “disrespect, stereotypes, and anti-black campus climate,” these rebels never pause to consider how the arrogant, antagonistic racial theater performed by privileged, self-entered black students- that demand more social concessions- contributes to these feelings of resentment. I resent these racial zealots- and I’m black, so I can imagine students of various colors and ethnic backgrounds begrudging black students as they watch (likely) recipients of racial quotas demand more privileges predicated on affirmative action.

We cannot, and should not, discount or ignore the black contribution to increased racial resentment on college campuses. Actions have consequences.

Concerning the obnoxious student demands made at UC Berkeley, school administrators surrendered. A resource center – a “safe space” for black students, opened at the beginning of this past school year. Also, UC Berkeley plans to hire additional black staff members, and more outreach will be done to recruit black students to UC Berkeley (meaning inevitably accepting more academically unprepared black students via racial double standards). The university is also raising funds to provide $20 million for scholarships for black students in the future.

These symbolic gestures and socio-economic prostrations by school administrators are nonsense and do nothing for black development and achievement. In another case, the semblance of black power/racial justice exists only because of white guilt, the white fear of being slandered as a racist- or endorsing white supremacy and capitulation. Affirmative action-based demands, white guilt, and white racial acquiescence undermine the moral and racial credibility of both blacks and whites.

UC Santa Cruz is another example where racial petulance was rewarded. Last month the so-called Afrikan/Black Student Alliance held Kerr Hall hostage for several days insisting administrators accept their list of demands as a ransom for ending the occupation.

Like the safe space segregationists at UCLA, black students at UC Santa Cruz demanded the university purchase a racially-segregated “safe space” property- run and operated by the Black Student Alliance- to serve as a low-income housing cooperative for historically disadvantaged students (historically, not contemporarily). Students allege that limited and unaffordable housing options negatively impact African, black, and Caribbean-identified students, forcing affected students “to take leaves of absences [and] withdrawals” while “preventing some students from attending UCSC at all.”

The demands also called for four-year housing guarantees for all African, black, and Caribbean-identified students. This is another rent-based, ‘safe space’ special privilege for black students who hide behind their skin, claiming disadvantage.

Racial cupcakes at UC Santa Cruz also called for adequate lounge spaces, especially the (ironically named) Rosa Parks African American Theme House lounge- a place historically serving as a “safe space” for students of color. Students plan for the lounge house to resume its original purpose of helping “retain African, black and Caribbean-identified students [at UCSC].”

Like UC Berkeley, UC Santa Cruz administrators ceded victory to the racial belligerents, giving into each demand for racial separatism, including a commitment to paint the exterior of the Rosa Parks Theme House in the Pan-Afrikan colors red, gold and green. The cowards at UCSC also agreed to mandatory, in-person “racial diversity” competency training for all incoming UCSC students.

Another, more aggressive attempt to reinstitute a black, racially segregated “safe space” occurred at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. Since roughly the 1970s, Evergreen has kept an annual “Day of Absence” in which students and faculty of color meet off campus. The effect is to “[leave] white students to consider the importance of their fellow community members by sensing the real loss of their presence,” according to the school newspaper.

Such a bold, symbolic act!

This year, however, white students and staff were told to leave school, making Evergreen’s campus a “safe space” for black students and faculty. This change was due to emotionally fragile, non-white minorities who voiced concerns over “feeling… unwelcome on campus after the 2016 election.”

Biology professor Bret Weinstein refused this invitation to leave, rightly arguing that “on a college campus, one’s right to speak — or to be — must never be based on skin color.”

This is a sensible and moral proposition, which means all hell broke loose.

Weinstein- a white, self-identified progressive (who admitted voting for Bernie Sanders), has been threatened, falsely accused of being a “racist,” and blamed for supporting white supremacy. Mr. Weinstein had his biology class disrupted by racial totalitarians, forcing him to hold class in a park because the campus police chief claimed she couldn’t protect him on campus. College president George Bridges ordered campus police to stand down even as students grew increasingly aggressive in their threats and behavior toward Bret Weinstein.

This all happened because racial “minorities” self-serving demanded the campus be a racially segregated “safe space” for morally and intellectually unjustifiable reasons.

The resurgence of resegregation isn’t limited to black dorms, apartments, resource centers, and other racially exclusive, “safe spaces.”

Separate race and gender-based commencement ceremonies are now obligatory. Raced-based and segregated conferences and seminars encouraging racial coddling of “students of color” while condemning ‘white privilege’ or ‘white supremacy’ have become essential. Social gatherings only for “students who identify as a person of color” are also on the rise.

Examples of these kinds of irrationality go on and on.

The irony is that racial minorities in college complain about being discriminated against by being treated differently- or unfairly- based on their race and then self-righteously demand to be treated differently and unfairly based on their race. Blacks and other minorities want to have it both ways and give no time to question the intellectual inconsistency between theory and practice or the consequences.

The effect is that black students and their white “allies,” facilitated by moral cowards and fuzzy thinkers in academia, now define social and racial justice, in part, as pursuing racial resegregation. This negates the civil rights movement’s aspirations of racial neutrality, freedom, equality, and conciliation goals. And it’s being undone in the name of “safe spaces.”

In many respects, it shouldn’t be surprising that the party and ideology that fought hard to maintain historical segregation would be the party and ideology attempting to reinstitute it contemporarily. If racially segregated ‘safe spaces’ can be defined as “justice” by any measure of the word and are considered socially acceptable or necessary, the civil rights movement was literally for nothing.

We are treating people differently based on skin complexion used to be called racism. But the Left has corrupted clear thinking. It’s appropriated a reprehensible social sin and called it a virtue.

For example- if one is center right, culturally or politically, and treats people differently and contemptuously based on race, one is a racist. If one is on the Left and does the same thing, it’s called “racial justice.” Or, a conservative demanding that blacks be subjected to universal standards of morality, hard work, merit, delayed gratification, and civility- in other words, treating blacks as equals- s/he is slandered as a racist or a bigot. If one treats blacks condescendingly as permanent, helpless victims who require ‘safe spaces’ because of a racial disability resulting from being black, one is called compassionate and a justice warrior.

And one can go down the list, parsing all the divisions the Left has thrust upon American culture, and one will see that one-time universally accepted social evils are now reinterpreted as social virtues the Left exalts.

This is the logical conclusion of identity politics. The ideological nature of the Left is to divide- segregate- the country based on resentment and superficial identities and sub-identities predicated on race, class (social or economic), and gender.

Incidentally, I think it’s one of the reasons that the idea of intersectionality was created. Intersectionality is a sociological theory that says an individual can face multiple threats of discrimination when their identities overlap several minority classes, such as race, gender, age, ethnicity, health, and other characteristics of victimhood. Leftists have been so successful in separating and isolating people along trivial and one-dimensional identities they needed a way to bring people back together- hence, intersectionality. It’s a way for victimized groups to revel and collaborate in being victims.

This is the kind of emotional dysfunction that characterizes the postmodern college experience. Groups of people are deliberately differentiated by skin color, sexual and gender preference, and many other trendy, one-dimensional identities. They all demand to be treated differently because they’re “victims” and hold a felt need for a therapeutic “safe space.” As a result, it’s exceedingly difficult for sane students, faculty, and administrators to be voices of reason and sanity against the morally and politically unsound idea of racial segregation on college campuses.

Regardless of how it’s defined, racial segregation disservices all parties involved.

Racially segregated safe spaces persist in treating blacks as the collective and frowned upon “other.” Segregation- however, justified by its defenders, reinforces the idea that blacks are to be treated only as a monolithic group rather than diverse individuals. It supports the idea that racial identity is paramount to self/group definition- as opposed to values and culture-defining personal character. Regardless of who defends it, racial segregation reinforces a racial inferiority complex in blacks, which sabotages current and future accomplishments by restricting competition and exposure to challenging people, ideas, beliefs, and environments. It’s an enemy to integration, and it excuses blacks from full participation in the college experience previously seen as one medium to adulthood. Segregation says the blacks are still not equal, despite the ‘safe space’ veneer.

The moral antidote is biblical anthropology- recognizing that people, despite appropriating radical or countercultural identities, are created in God’s image and should be treated in a reciprocal manner of love, decency, and respect. This moral instruction is found in the Judeo-Christian value system. Specifically, it’s located in Christianity. But in the moral and intellectual wilderness of college campuses, the Bible, the Judeo-Christian value system, and Christianity are all considered agents of (insert Marxist modifier) oppression and are rebuked and ignored.

The political antidote, in my opinion, is rightly-applied conservatism- a race-neutral worldview and lifestyle that respects the remnants of free enterprise and traditional values that transcend the limiting, distracting, cosmetic tribal identities people apply to self-definition. Ideological conservatism is also considered an unacceptable corrective to the moral, emotional, and intellectual confusion that pervades college campuses because of Leftism.

And so, moral darkness and racially segregated safe spaces will continue. The cultural consequences and predictable social divisions along racial fault lines will also be with us for the foreseeable future.

Is there a safe space from that?








Leave a Reply