I have noticed issues around race and racism, among other systems of oppression, arising in the ASUO Senate in the past few months.  In any organization where people of a wide range of experiences come together there will be conflicts, but I don’t think we have been doing enough to examine these conflicts or how institutional systems of oppression are influencing them.

Dealing with race and racism can be quite stressful for those who have not dealt with it in any significant capacity before.  I have been told by some white members of the senate that they have a strong fear that they might be called a racist.  But there is so much fear around issues of racism that a dynamic has arisen where it becomes a crime to call someone a racist or to point out the racism influencing a decision.  I recall several occasions within our campus when someone was called to task for bringing up issues of racism.  The one who points out racism becomes the target of the debate for making “inappropriate personal attacks,” and any racism, real or imagined, goes unexamined.  Under such a dynamic we remain blind to whatever racism may truly exist.

And it is important to recognize that racism does exist.  It’s such a strong widespread system that it is impossible to not to be affected by it.  Even having spent years confronting issues of racism myself, I can still see where I am affected by it.  We need to start with the assumption that we all, as individuals and as a student government, have been affected by racism.  Under such an assumption, we need to seek out how we have been influenced by racism and account for it instead of simply pretending it isn’t there.

This has important implications for how we address viewpoint neutrality, which we are all mandated to maintain in our work.  I’ve been concerned about how I’ve seen many in the ASUO attempt to maintain their viewpoint neutrality through a simple assertion that they have no biases and abstaining from voting when they are paid by the group being voted on.  This concerns me because it is simply not possible to have no biases.  While being a part of a group is a bias, never having been to that group’s meetings is also a bias.  People are pressured to reject any specific knowledge they have in order to attain neutrality, but that knowledge might be important to making an informed decision and uninformed does not equate neutral.

The belief that one can have no biases is the most dangerous bias of all.  We cannot leave our biases at the door. (It is unclear what you men by this sentence, do you mean “It is not possible to leave our biases at the door?” This statement is an argument many believe, so if you use it you need to immediately and thoroughly disprove it by saying it is impossible, misleading or whatever.) It is only when we seek out our biases, acknowledge them, and account for them, that we can achieve viewpoint neutrality.  Accounting for a bias may mean abstaining from a vote, but it could just as easily mean acknowledging that we’re not the experts in a certain area. 

An unfortunate event that happened recently highlights the need to acknowledge we all have our own biases.  A member of PFC, Mason Quiroz, was confronted during his office hours about his supposed conflict of interest regarding voting on the Multicultural Center’s budget.  The official rules set aside for addressing conflicts of interests only apply when someone is receiving financial compensation from the budget they are voting on.  Mason was still accused of having a conflict of interest, even though he doesn’t, and never has, worked for the MCC.  His supposed conflict wasn’t even that he held an official capacity there, it was solely based upon the fact that he has been associated with the communities that organize around the MCC. 

From this perspective, the only people capable of being neutral toward the MCC would be those who have never attended a meeting, never been to a meeting of any student union, and have no connection to campus communities of color.  Essentially, the only neutral perspective is the white perspective. (What are the implications of this? What does this mean? Be more explicit why this is stupid and bad for those not up on race issues or who were involved) And that is what happens when we do not seek out and address our own biases.  We try to achieve a “neutral” perspective without examining exactly what “neutral” consists of.  Yet when taking race into account it becomes apparent that there is no neutral race and there cannot be a “race neutral” perspective.  The perspective that is often assumed to be “race neutral” is generally a white perspective.  Race will influence any perspective, but we must explore how it influences our perspectives and account for that, instead of simply pretending it has no effect.  There is much more to explore around maintaining viewpoint neutrality.  And as a student government, and as a campus population, we need to be engaging in this conversation.