Should Colleges promote/tolerate racial segregation in classes or campus events

[Mr. Reactionary]

Apparently, under radical SJW religious dogma, racial segregation is actually not always bad, as long as they are the ones doing the segregating. Should colleges allow campus groups to hold racially exclusive events on campus or promote segregation by designating minority specific campus housing?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25748/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/the-new-segregation/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://campusreform.org/?ID=7977

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://campusreform.org/?ID=7987

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://campusreform.org/?ID=7228

[LLR]

I haven't seen this much bold since a Californiadreaming post

[Antonio the Sixth]

[RaphaelDLG]

The third quote block is pretty horrifying.

I think self-segregation and subsequent calcification of socially constructed fictional racial identities (something that is ironically fostered by a lot of tumblr SJW crap) is highly lamentable. 

I don't think it's the absolute end of the world for students to meet in organizations centered around racial identity or even live together in a community (people will do the same thing with gender or religion and it seems mostly harmless), though again I think that that is counterproductive most of the time in building an integrated, prejudice-free world.

You're a law student, right - legally, what parts of this are unconstitutional vis-a-vis the 14th amendment?

[Associate Justice PiT]

The third quote block is pretty horrifying.

I think self-segregation and subsequent calcification of socially constructed fictional racial identities (something that is ironically fostered by a lot of tumblr SJW crap) is highly lamentable. 

I don't think it's the absolute end of the world for students to meet in organizations centered around racial identity or even live together in a community (people will do the same thing with gender or religion and it seems mostly harmless), though again I think that that is counterproductive most of the time in building an integrated, prejudice-free world.

You're a law student, right - legally, what parts of this are unconstitutional vis-a-vis the 14th amendment?

     I agree with this. One of the major problems with SJWism and the PC movement is that it suborns anti-white bigotry on the grounds that it's not dangerous since non-whites don't have power. An unsurprising consequence of this is this drive towards segregation that is now coming out of the black community. It is driving a wedge between the races that the classical opponents of racism such as Dr. King would have resented.

[ElectionsGuy]

Apparently, under radical SJW religious dogma, racial segregation is actually not always bad, as long as they are the ones doing the segregating it's not only white people.

Fixed

[Mr. Reactionary]

You're a law student, right - legally, what parts of this are unconstitutional vis-a-vis the 14th amendment?

Under the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment you need government discrimination, not just discrimination generally (Civil Rights Cases). Students self-segregating in off-campus housing most likely would not be a constitutional issue, and as long as the landlords are not discriminating in who they rent to, federal housing discrimination law would not apply. Public colleges on the other hand are the government, and under the 14th Amendment they may not discriminate on the basis of race unless there is a compelling reason to do so and the discriminatory policy is designed to be as neutral as is possible.

A public college is generally not said to be expressing the viewpoint of any of the student clubs it sanctions on campus, however if the college encourages racist acts from a club, this can be a government act (Rendell-Baker v. Kohn). The student clubs funded by mandatory student fees are protected by the Bill of Rights (Board of Regents v. Southworth; Rosenberger v. Rector). It is generally OK for a lawful group to limit its own membership to preserve the group's message (Hurley v. Irish-American GLB), however it is also OK for public colleges to require its clubs to have non-discriminatory membership policies (Christian Legal Society v. Martinez). Determining whether or not a public college is required to have such a policy under the 14th Amendment is unnecessary because there is probably a federal law violation.

If a student group was having any kind of open meeting where non-members were allowed in, and that meeting was on college property, then enforcing racial segregation would violate the Civil Rights Act. Title III of that law says State governments (and their proxies in college administration) cannot deny someone access to a public place on government property because of their race. So if a group reserved a public room to have an open-to-POC-only meeting, preventing white people from accessing this public place because of their race would be illegal. Assuming this was a public meeting on government property, then the 1st Amendment would not apply, because the organization was not acting to protect its message and instead was merely excluding potential listeners.

The segregated on-campus housing is troublesome, as is the segregated class. Here we are actually dealing with a policy endorsed by the public college. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits Federal money given to State governments from being used in racially discriminatory ways. Assuming any of the funds which paid for the dorms was federal, then it seems like discrimination here would also be illegal and would result in the college losing its federal funding. Plus it could also be a violation of Title III, since it entails limiting access to a government service on the basis of race. Here you probably could argue the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment as well. If you are arguing that "Separate but equal" services in public colleges are OK, you must consider every intangible factor imaginable which would likely defeat any segregated housing plan (Sweatt v. Painter). Plus there is no evidence that there is a compelling interest for creating segregated housing, and even if there were the college would also have to show that the program is as inoffensive as was possible.

So in conclusion, I think public colleges would be stupid to promote racial segregation, because these policies violate the Civil Rights Act, and probably the 14th Amendment as well. I find it alarming that some fringe campus crusaders would support technocratic Jim Crow, and the fact that some smaller colleges are buying into it is worse. 

[Wells]

If both parties consent to it unanimously, them it could be allowed.

[White Trash]

If both parties consent to it unanimously, them it could be allowed.

That was initially the idea of separate but equal kinda..

[Cory]

Typical SJW response. No nuance, no actual rebuttal. You might as well have posted some sh**ttytumblrgif.

[Wells]

If both parties consent to it unanimously, them it could be allowed.

That was initially the idea of separate but equal kinda..

But then some of the people being separated didn't agree with it anymore, and so it wasn't okay.

[White Trash]

If both parties consent to it unanimously, them it could be allowed.

That was initially the idea of separate but equal kinda..

But then some of the people being separated didn't agree with it anymore, and so it wasn't okay.

That's the point I'm trying to illustrate. Such an idea could never work in practice because it requires constant, unanimous support in order to work in the slightest.

[Mr. Reactionary]

If both parties consent to it unanimously, them it could be allowed.

That was initially the idea of separate but equal kinda..

But then some of the people being separated didn't agree with it anymore, and so it wasn't okay.

That's the point I'm trying to illustrate. Such an idea could never work in practice because it requires constant, unanimous support in order to work in the slightest.

Plus the Supreme Court says you have to consider intangible factors when determining if something is "equal" or not. Even assuming everyone agrees to segregated housing, locating that housing creates so many potential problems. This group's building is closer to useful buildings, or the other group's is too close to noise or traffic or fertilizer or powerlines. Plus you'd need identical room dimensions and identical services. I mean, we might as well just draw a line down the roads and have one lane for blacks and one for whites. 

[RI]

If both parties consent to it unanimously, them it could be allowed.

That was initially the idea of separate but equal kinda..

But then some of the people being separated didn't agree with it anymore, and so it wasn't okay.

I really don't think that lack of consent was why racial segregation was wrong.

[Associate Justice PiT]

If both parties consent to it unanimously, them it could be allowed.

That was initially the idea of separate but equal kinda..

But then some of the people being separated didn't agree with it anymore, and so it wasn't okay.

I really don't think that lack of consent was why racial segregation was wrong.

     There were many other ethical issues informing public discourse on the issue, but the point he's getting at is the libertarian idea that consent to an action is the fundamental determiner of the morality of the action. Something that we would generally recognize as being bad might be tolerated if all parties involved consent to it. It's related to social contract theory, but it is more radical.

[Green Line]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s

God, as usual, sums up the problem with race relations in our country.

[RI]

If both parties consent to it unanimously, them it could be allowed.

That was initially the idea of separate but equal kinda..

But then some of the people being separated didn't agree with it anymore, and so it wasn't okay.

I really don't think that lack of consent was why racial segregation was wrong.

     There were many other ethical issues informing public discourse on the issue, but the point he's getting at is the libertarian idea that consent to an action is the fundamental determiner of the morality of the action. Something that we would generally recognize as being bad might be tolerated if all parties involved consent to it. It's related to social contract theory, but it is more radical.

I realize this and strongly disagree with it.