Ethnic Minorities Deserve Safe Spaces Without White People

I will be referring a-lot to this article, since it was the initial news story that sparked my interest: . http://www.ryersonian.ca...And this article (where I got the title) : . http://www.huffingtonpost.ca...Definition:1) Racism: hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)Neg CASE:Argument 1) -Discrimination based on race is racism: This may seem silly to say, but a vast majority of people seem to feel differently. I say again: If I am race A and you are race B, and I disallow you to eat, drink, enter, sit, stand, stay in an area, or make any other restriction based on you being race B, that is RACISM. Argument 1a) There is no scenario in which this is "permissible": There seems to be a growing feeling of "Whites were racist for years, so it is ok for there to be prejudices against them now". Any prejudice or mistreatment based on race is RACISM and is wrongArgument 2) -Pure logic defies the resolution: "Ethnic Minorities Deserve Safe Spaces Without White People""Safe zone" in this scenario is being used in the way of thinking of the original use by the minorities: "Marginalized groups have a right to claim spaces[safe zones] in the public realm where they can share stories about the discrimination they have faced without judgment and intrusion from anyone else. "So basically, a "Safe zone" is an area where racism is quelled in an attempt to hold a discussion about previous encounters with racism. How then, logically, should the zone then be allowed to turn away whites? ? Logically, if a zone is supposed to do something, is marketed to do something, and everyone SAYS it will do something, but then it does the opposite, how is that allowable? Even had the meetings been marketed as "Minority only", that STILL would be wrong, but for a meeting to be held in a public place and two students be asked to leave because of their race is outrageous. This is not something that should be allowed, nor is it something that minorities deserve. There once were "SAFE PLACES" for minorities. It was called the back of the bus, and you know what we CHANGED that because it was WRONG. People fought against slavery and segregation. Whites AND blacks. They fought it because it was wrong, and to allow or suggest minorities re-create the very thing that was fought against is wrong. Its childish. If you're meeting to promote understanding and acceptance, but you do EXACTLY what you're fighting against, then your "safe zone" has become a pitty party, and is accomplishing nothing for society. Which brings me to my next point. Argument 3) -What we are really debating here is "Is it right for minorities to be openly racist? ":RSC(Racialized Students’ Collective) claims to “oppose(s) all forms of racism and work towards community wellness for students,” that they focus on “building an anti-racist network” and “fostering an anti-racist environment through campus-wide services, campaigns and events. ”See they SAY that, but when the opportunity presents itself, what happens, Racism. Turning someone away because thy are white and aren't "racialized". .. Even if we are GOING with the logic that whites aren't racialized in society, by turning them away "for not being racialized", that racializing them! The debate is bigger than this one fixed issue, but it is important to note a few key facts about this case: 1) This was advertised as a public meeting2) Held in a public place3) Was marketed as a racism free zoneTo sway my opponent from following the rabbit trail of the lawyers coming out saying the students "had the right to ask them to leave". This isn't about the rights of the press at public meetings. The issue at hand here, is that two students were turned away from a public meeting because they "aren't racialized". .That's like telling someone they cant attend the "Cowboy hats only" convention and the giving them a cowboy hat! The mere act of assuming something about a person because of their skin and denying them entrance IS racializing and is racism. Argument 4)-Allowing these sorts of meeting promotes racism, and is only prolonging the struggle our world faces:We live in a racist world, and a racist country. Racist jokes are funny, peoples parents grain it in them, and it never stops. The only way FOR it to stop is for YOU to stop it, And attending a meeting like this, setting up a meeting like this, or condoning a meeting like this (such as a University or organization) is making racism a standard. Imagine if I walked into a restaurant and asked to rent the business seating area for a company meeting, and told the manager only whites would be allowed to attend, and asked a waitress to keep an non-whites out. That would be outrageous, and most likely would be denied. But when Universities and campuses allow these meetings, they are allowing RACISM! Now, had the meeting taken place as advertised, great. But, when the game changed and racism started occurring, that is where ANYONE'S rights end. "When asked about Hewitt and Knope’s incident, RSU coordinator Vajdaan Tanveer confirmed they couldn’t attend the meeting because they were white. "RECAP: -Racism is racism, regardless of what race is receiving it, and is wrong all the times, in every scenario. -Minorities sectioning themselves away from whites is counter productive and is wrong-There is a flaw in the logic of the resolution, because allowing racism is wrong and no-one deserves the right to be racist-Allowing these meetings to turn away whites is being counter productive to the "race less" and racism free world we are trying to createI would like to thank my opponent again for this debate, and look forward to hearing their views and to the next round! May th debate begin!