I have noticed issues around race and racism, among other systems of oppression, arising in the ASUO
Senate in the past few months. There will be conflicts in any organization where people of a wide range of
experiences come together, 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 it becomes a crime to call
someone a racist or to point out the racism influencing a decision. I recall several occasions 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.
It is important to recognize that racism does indeed exist. It’s such a strong, widespread system that it is impossible to not 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 seen many in the ASUO attempt to maintain their viewpoint neutrality through a simple assertion that they have no biases and abstain 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 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.
Uninformed does not equal 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 only when we identify 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 interest only apply when someone is receiving financial compensation from the budget they are voting on. Quiroz 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.
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. 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. As a student government, and as a campus population, we need to be engaging in this conversation.

Toby Hill-Meyer is a student senator