How to caringly reject white people?

February 28, 2019 9:56 PM

I'm part of a community art studio space. It's a wonderful space, with lots of activity and friendly energy. We love it when people come by! But people want to join, we're trying to have the space be mostly PoC, and space is limited. How do I thoughtfully turn away white people who are friends and acquaintances?

Part of the core intent of the space is to have a healthy gender and racial balance. Currently the space is about 70% women, and 70% PoC, but we really want more of our black and brown friends in the space, because many of the PoC are asian-americans (myself included). Space is limited, so we can't just accept everyone.

However, I continually have friends or acquaintances who are white, who are interested. They're lovely and wonderful people! But if we accepted them all, then we'd be inundated with white folks. So we often need to gently turn them away or to say "not now, maybe later".

Rejecting or turning someone away doesn't mean a person isn't allowed in the space! People can come by as often as they want as guests and as friends; it just means non-members don't have their own space and keys to the building.

Maybe this sounds strange, like a form of "reverse racism". But first of all, "reverse racism" doesn't exist, and the default for community spaces is to be filled with white folks, and to have male voices dominate. And second - if we just operated without thinking about this, and had accepted every wonderful person in the order that they asked, then our space would be about 90% white and about 80% men.

Besides, we're based in NYC. And we do have many friends who are black and brown who are interested, but they're vastly outnumbered by friends who are white who are interested. So my question isn't "how to get more black and brown folks in the space", it's "how to caringly reject white folks and have them understand where we're coming from".

So. Folks of Metafilter! Thanks for your help!

Do you have any suggestions as to how / with what language I can best navigate this?

- If you're not white, what has worked for you in creating safe/brave/deliberate spaces for people of color, especially when it involves balancing the number of white folks in a space?

- If you're white and allied with my concerns, what suggestions do you have? How would you best receive someone turning you away because making the space more diverse is a priority?

posted by suedehead to Human Relations (32 answers total)

Best answer: Is your 'core intent' codified somewhere? Maybe that's a place to start.
posted by amtho at 9:59 PM on February 28, 2019 [10 favorites]

And we do have many friends who are black and brown who are interested, but they're vastly outnumbered by friends who are white who are interested

if this is all friends and friends-of-friends, could you not just make membership by invitation only? you don't have to overtly reject anyone if no applications (even informal ones) are allowed.
posted by queenofbithynia at 10:38 PM on February 28, 2019 [23 favorites]

Best answer: Here is language from Boomshake, a drumline in Oakland, that conveys what you're thinking about.

We prioritize and center the participation of people of color in this class, especially Black and Brown people. Spots for non-POC folks are currently full.

When I (a cishet white woman) first looked into their group and saw that, I was momentarily bummed I couldn't join right away but not really since it makes sense. One reason I like them is that they are active in racial justice events, and explicitly centering on people of color embodies that. I still get excited to see them in the community and support them.
posted by kendrak at 10:41 PM on February 28, 2019 [77 favorites]

Gonna add some suggested language to what kendrak said above --

"Since our direct participation space is limited, you can participate and promote bringing PoC to the forefront of our community art space through attending our events at [insert time/date/place here], contributing funding our space through [insert donation method here], and telling your friends about our events!"
posted by erst at 11:00 PM on February 28, 2019 [24 favorites]

Make it invite only.

I lived and worked in a place similar to what you are describing, in a rustbelt city in the 90s.
Anytime you have to reject people some will take it personally, and different people will be hurt by different reasons for the rejection. Understand in advence that, even if you were in an ethnically homogenous environment, some people will be hurt or angry, and some friendships may not survive. Hopefully most will. :)
posted by ethical_caligula at 11:21 PM on February 28, 2019 [5 favorites]

I think you need to balance making making it a more formal policy (so it's not a personal rejection but a conscious corporate/organisational/collective approach) and avoiding flagging it to people who will consider it reverse racism (in case they make trouble).

Offering opportunities to people to contribute and further what you do without being members might assuage the blow. Although will it affect what you are trying to create if you have lots of white&male people dropping by all the time, will they outnumber the members in practice? I think you'd have identified that as a problem if you thought it likely but it may be worth considering.

I'm not sure of the laws in your area, is there any risk you may fall foul of them in doing this? Might be worth finding out (particularly in case someone does get very offended).
posted by plonkee at 1:36 AM on March 1, 2019 [4 favorites]

Best answer: Language framing I might suggest is something like

"we're trying to provide opportunities for people who traditionally haven't had access to these kinds of spaces"

If pressed further, talk about how there's fewer barriers for white artists to get studio space in all kinds of other places in NYC, and how cool it could be if those wonderful people who could get studio space somewhere else maintained their connection to your community in and helped advocate and expand opportunities for PoC artists in what would otherwise be de-facto white spaces through collaboration.
posted by Jon_Evil at 2:51 AM on March 1, 2019 [5 favorites]

Best answer: Copy pasting from Artists Up website:
'ARTISTS UP is a collaborative effort between 4Culture, the Seattle Office of Arts & Culture and ArtsWA. Our work: Improve and expand capacity, networks, and opportunities for ALL artists in our region, with a specific focus on artists of color, artists with disabilities,…'

Having a mission - which you do - for POC and non-cis-men (I never know how to articulate that) should make it easier to just let the white folks know - thanks for the interest/keep coming over and participating/but studio membership ain't gonna happen for you. They should get it. They probably just want to be part of the awesome thing. And they can be. Just no keys/studios for them.
posted by PistachioRoux at 4:08 AM on March 1, 2019 [3 favorites]

Best answer: If you're white and allied with my concerns, what suggestions do you have? How would you best receive someone turning you away because making the space more diverse is a priority?

If I (a white man) was interested in becoming a member, and you told me "we're trying to provide opportunities for people who traditionally haven't had access to these kinds of spaces" I'd say "That's fucking awesome. Right on." My second question would probably be something along the lines of "How do I get on the list so that when you do have space for a member like me, I would be considered?" If you have some sort of process you can articulate - even if it is as simple is putting my name on a waiting list - I would feel better about being turned away for the moment.
posted by Rock Steady at 4:34 AM on March 1, 2019 [18 favorites]

Don't make it invite only, for all kinds of reasons. But do make an explicit policy like the one jointly composed by kendrak and erst, which is great.
posted by DarlingBri at 6:15 AM on March 1, 2019 [1 favorite]

White person echoing the suggestions of a mission statement as well as a policy about prioritizing POC/Black and Brown artists. I really like the "Spots for non-POC folks are currently full" statement on kendrak's comment.

I really think, in general, you're worrying too much and may be coming across as overly apologetic. Keep it matter of fact, and obnoxious white people will be less likely to argue with you about it. Non-obnoxious white people should, as Rock Steady points out, be thrilled at the mission statement and immediately support your goal. Obnoxious white people may outnumber non-obnoxious white people, but I think it would be helpful to remember that any white person who's aggressively upset (as opposed to mildly disappointed) by the policy is the one being obnoxious, not you.
posted by lazuli at 6:24 AM on March 1, 2019 [4 favorites]

Just say what you said here: You're very concerned about racial and gender balance, and if you accepted every white person who's interested, that balance would be upset, so you're limiting white membership. People who agree with your goals will understand, and people who are unhappy - well, you don't want them around anyway. If someone is going to cry "reverse racism!" about wanting to be inclusive, I think it's a safe bet there those people aren't going to be doing a lot to promote the goals of your organization in the first place.
posted by kevinbelt at 7:05 AM on March 1, 2019 [3 favorites]

However you do it, you might want to run it by a lawyer before putting it into practice to ensure that you're not violating any laws. The Metafilter sample set is not representative of people as a whole and you don't want to inadvertently give someone the ability to make your lives miserable with a lawsuit.
posted by Candleman at 7:20 AM on March 1, 2019 [22 favorites]

Yeah I would write a formal policy, but I'd have that policy vetted by a lawyer and also make sure it's consistent with wherever you're getting your funding from. There are definitely people who will sue you over this, and if they can't get you directly that way, they might go for your sponsors/funding stream, both via litigation and through the media. (I mean, imagine the Fox News headline.) Everybody involved had better be ready to defend the policy against charges of racism.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:53 AM on March 1, 2019 [4 favorites]

Coming in to say the same thing. Since you control a physical space, to avoid legal issues I would definitely want to confirm that you weren't a public accommodation.

You should also draft any written statements on this with the utmost of care, so as not to give any random Internet assholes free chances to make you a cause celebre.

As a longer-term consideration, my understanding is that usually people come into these kinds of art spaces via their social networks, and most people's social networks are still predominantly their own race. If your population is majority POC, it's curious that you're being so bombarded with white folks. More effectively targeting your outreach may help reduce the problem at the source.
posted by praemunire at 8:41 AM on March 1, 2019 [4 favorites]

You are providing a public accommodation and it may be illegal to make race a factor. You may be able to craft a mission/ policy that addresses the issue. I would go Invitation Only for a start. If you give the space/ collaborative a name that indicates that it is intended to be for the promotion of Art by Artists of Color, that will help. IANAL
posted by theora55 at 9:27 AM on March 1, 2019 [1 favorite]

I'm not well attuned to the potential legal issues here but I think from a PR standpoint it works much better to explicitly brand yourself as a PoC art space rather than rejecting individual white people in a manner that might come across as arbitrary. Making it invite-only would be an added layer of protection.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:03 AM on March 1, 2019 [1 favorite]

There are pro bono legal services offered for artists in a variety of locations, and some are listed at the MeFi Wiki Get a lawyer page.
posted by Little Dawn at 10:06 AM on March 1, 2019

Your situation is unique but also has key similarities to job search and apartment search where employers and landlords need to pick from too many applicants, to reject applicants that there is nothing wrong with, and to be sensitive throughout the process so as to avoid damaging their own reputation and/or inviting legal trouble.

What employers/landlords typically do is set a deadline by which they will announce their decision. They never ever explain how they will make their decision and they especially avoid getting into anything that can be debated (and as a white person, oh lordy, do some white people like to debate reverse discrimination, especially amongst themselves). So basically you say "this is what we are offering, these are the minimum qualifications we require, this is how to apply, this is when you will know if you've been accepted". If people keep pushing for explanations (read: debate), you mentally thank them for revealing that they are exactly the type of person you don't want in your space and you move on.

When the deadline comes, you reject and select. First you reject people that seem like trouble: pushy, flaky or disorganized, weirdly paranoid or confrontational, and so on... always trust your gut! After that it's easy to select from the rest. Then you let those selected know that they've been selected, and inform the rest that your space has been filled. Don't say "maybe later" - people use that as a softening language but it's actually less pleasant to hear than a simple "no".

That's it! You really don't need to over-complicate this - keep trusting your gut and keep reminding yourself that explaining your reasoning only invites the debaters, and you will never win with debaters.
posted by rada at 11:54 AM on March 1, 2019 [1 favorite]

If you give your group a name that makes your goal clear, e.g. "Minority Arts Alliance", you won't have to reject white people because they'll stop applying.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2019

Best answer: I run a space that would be 100% white men if I went first-come-first-served. The language we use is something along the lines of: to protect the diversity of the membership we pull from a pool rather than a queue of interested applicants and that anyone is welcome to tender an application and we will be in touch if/when.
posted by J.R. Hartley at 12:36 PM on March 1, 2019 [13 favorites]

You should create a formal submission/application process (with deadlines, official announcements, and other trappings of officialdom), and then, within that process, you should accept who you prefer using whatever metric you like. And you should not make the metric of who specifically is selected transparent, so that, as rada says, you don't have a line of angry white people coming in to argue their case about why they deserve it more.

I just recently applied for a similar arts thing that I did not get. The institution surrounding this arts thing is striving to be better at diversity, and I noticed that a lot more people of color got accepted this year. Which is fantastic! The institution, however, did not actually come out and say "we're not picking any white people" or "we chose the people we chose because diversity". That way they avoid the appearance of "reverse racism" (ugh), and additionally, they avoid giving the impression that POC who were accepted "only" got in because of affirmative action. Which is the other side to this particular coin. When the reality is that a lot of extremely talented people apply every year. Enough to where, if the institution wanted to, it could absolutely fill the available slots with only extremely talented POC.
posted by the milkman, the paper boy at 1:57 PM on March 1, 2019 [1 favorite]

Your situation is unique but also has key similarities to job search and apartment search

I have no idea how the law applies to your organization (i.e. you should talk to a lawyer with competence in the area! or at least pick the brains of other organizations with a similar mission), but the behavior that rda describes as a positive example is almost certainly illegal when applied to employment and housing if the criteria being used to accept or reject is race or another protected class, even if it is sufficiently obfuscated by other factors to give plausible deniability and make make getting sued much less likely and any case brought more difficult for a rejected applicant to win. I know that landlords and employers do this sort of thing all the time, but that doesn’t actually make it legal.

Your goal is laudable, and your desired outcome is probably reachable legally if you go about it the right way, but using a model of illegal housing or employment discrimination is probably not the best way to begin.
posted by Quinbus Flestrin at 6:15 PM on March 1, 2019 [3 favorites]

the behavior that rda describes as a positive example is almost certainly illegal when applied to employment and housing

This is not an employment or housing situation, however, so that doesn't seem to be relevant.

OP, please do consult someone local to you who's qualified to advise you on the legalities, rather than relying on underinformed advice from non-qualified people. (Like me. But since my advice is "find someone who knows what they're talking about" I feel okay about offering it.)
posted by Lexica at 9:19 PM on March 1, 2019 [2 favorites]

Lexica: "This is not an employment or housing situation, however, so that doesn't seem to be relevant."

Maybe not in federal law, but NYC law hits closer to home here:

Place or provider of public accommodation. The term "place or provider of public accommodation" includes providers, whether licensed or unlicensed, of goods, services, facilities, accommodations, advantages or privileges of any kind, and places, whether licensed or unlicensed, where goods, services, facilities, accommodations, advantages or privileges of any kind are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available. Such term does not include any club which proves that it is in its nature distinctly private. A club is not in its nature distinctly private if it has more than 400 members, provides regular meal service and regularly receives payment for dues, fees, use of space, facilities, services, meals or beverages directly or indirectly from or on behalf of non-members for the furtherance of trade or business.

[...]

4. Public accommodations.
a. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person who is the owner, franchisor, franchisee, lessor, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place or provider of public accommodation:

1. Because of any person's actual or perceived race, creed, color, national origin, age, gender, disability, marital status, partnership status, sexual orientation, uniformed service or alienage or citizenship status, directly or indirectly:
(a) To refuse, withhold from or deny to such person the full and equal enjoyment, on equal terms and conditions, of any of the accommodations, advantages, services, facilities or privileges of the place or provider of public accommodation; or
(b) To represent to any person that any accommodation, advantage, facility or privilege of any such place or provider of public accommodation is not available when in fact it is available; or

2. Directly or indirectly to make any declaration, publish, circulate, issue, display, post or mail any written or printed communication, notice or advertisement, to the effect that:
(a) Full and equal enjoyment, on equal terms and conditions, of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any such place or provider of public accommodation shall be refused, withheld from or denied to any person on account of race, creed, color, national origin, age, gender, disability, marital status, partnership status, sexual orientation, uniformed service or alienage or citizenship status; or
(b) The patronage or custom of any person is unwelcome, objectionable, not acceptable, undesired or unsolicited because of such person's actual or perceived race, creed, color, national origin, age, gender, disability, marital status, partnership status, sexual orientation, uniformed service or alienage or citizenship status.

So, no racial discrimination in public accommodations in NYC, but this may or may not be applicable based on the exact size and nature of the organization. Definitely talk to a lawyer first (and be prepared for nuisance lawsuits and hostile media scrutiny even if you find firm legal ground).
posted by Rhaomi at 10:37 PM on March 1, 2019 [1 favorite]

New York State Human Rights Law has effectively the same language in its §296 as well. It also has this bit in its definition of public accomodations, among other provisions:

Such term shall not include...any institution, club or place of accommodation which proves that it is in its nature distinctly private. In no event shall an institution, club or place of accommodation be considered in its nature distinctly private if it has more than one hundred members, provides regular meal service and regularly receives payment for dues, fees, use of space, facilities, services, meals or beverages directly or indirectly from or on behalf of a nonmember for the furtherance of trade or business.

An institution, club, or place of accommodation which is not deemed distinctly private pursuant to this subdivision may nevertheless apply such selective criteria as it chooses in the use of its facilities, in evaluating applicants for membership and in the conduct of its activities, so long as such selective criteria do not constitute discriminatory practices under this article or any other provision of law.

The law in this area reflects the need to crack down on restricted country clubs and other racist social clubs, discrimination in Boy Scouts, etc, which winds up posing problems with associational freedoms for minority clubs. This is a student note in a law review that's already twenty years old — so there may very well be more recent case law — but it might be helpful for its background, and the discussion of NYC Commission on Human Rights v. United African Movement:

For Blacks Only: the Associational Freedom of Private Minority Clubs

In reviewing the applicability of New York's Human Rights Act to the United African Movement, the City of New York Commission on Human Rights recognized that the UAM's weekly meetings were "'considered by many to be the premiere marketplace in this country for the free exchange of African-centered ideas.'

As such, the Commission stated that "[t]here is no dispute that UAM is an organization that is 'in its nature distinctly private,'...and therefore not subject to [the New York Act]...Nevertheless, the Commission found the UAM's weekly meetings to constitute a "public accommodation' and thus to fall within the purview of the New York Act on two grounds.

First, UAM failed to exercise any exclusivity or selectivity beyond a "skin test" in admitting individuals to its forums...[O]rganizations, to be exempted from...the definition of "public accomodation," must demonstrate that they are "organized 'soley for the benefit of their members.'" Secondly, the UAM made open invitations soliciting "the public's interest and participation in the forums, without regard to UAM membership. Specifically, the phrase 'Admission is free' [as used in sample UAM advertisement examined by the Commission] implies that the forum is open to all who wish to attend, without limitation."

In the words of the judge, the UAM, "[Having made [these] 'choices,' . . . [is] subject to the provisions of the Code which prohibit race discrimination-regardless of the fact that they are organized by a 'distinctly private' organization and held on private property and paid for by private funds."


So, some potential problems there. But, the remedy was to require UAM to change it's public communications to comply with the law, and the Commission observed "[t]his tribunal would concur with [the UAM's] argument of a constitutional violation if the relief sought by the Bureau required that UAM either admit Caucasians to its forums, or cease to organize its weekly events."

I agree with others above that you should talk to a NYC lawyer familiar with this stuff, and I'd ask other similar organizations if they can refer you to anyone they've used and liked.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:09 AM on March 2, 2019 [2 favorites]

Response by poster: Thank you everyone! This has been incredibly helpful!!

1)

The legal aspect is helpful. Thanks for everyone who brought this to my attention. However, we are not a public accommodation, as we do not offer any services to the public. it looks like we would very solidly fall under being a “distinctly private club” from a legal standpoint as we “[limit] the use of the facilities and services of the organization to members and bona fide guests of members”., and we don’t have that many members.

(IANAL, I recognize that a website does not constitute legal advice , and we may eventually run this by a lawyer)

2)

There are so many spaces in NYC that don’t think about race or whiteness. Not surprisingly, they are predominantly white spaces that maintain or amplify whiteness, sometimes without even knowing it. They are often founded, staffed, and patronized by mostly white people.

These spaces do not have to think about the law in regards to race, since they didn’t do anything about race. They can just transparently continue or amplify the ambient racial norms and expectations of whiteness of the field.

Or, in other words:

Being “neutral” and not doing anything about race is totally legal.
Doing something about race is potentially not legal.

When the perceived ”default” is whiteness, that means:
Continuing whiteness is totally legal, and dealing with whiteness is potentially not legal.


Thanks a bunch to those who brought the legal aspect to my attention - and I hope you also recognize how the law doesn’t apply for those creating implicitly white spaces.

3)

Thanks to everyone who answered about language. Kendrak’s language was really helpful, in addition to Rock Steady’s point about having a waiting list, and the point about having a clear mission is really on point also! It’s time we revisited our mission.

And PistachioRoux’s point about “they probably just want to be part of the awesome thing” really made me see it differently and realize that one of the real issues is that people want to feel part of an extended community. I can already imagine ways for people to feel part of it without being a member per se (being part of the community forum, being invited regularly, for example) and how that may really help.

Thanks so much (and would love more suggestions / thoughts if you have them)!
posted by suedehead at 10:08 AM on March 2, 2019 [3 favorites]

To add to my previous comment and adress the second part of your question. I am a white person and would likely really want to be involved in your space because of the diversity. I am probably not alone in being sick of being in predominantly white spaces. I have minority identities not related to my ethnicity and where I can choose to do so I prefer to spend time with people who also have intersectional identities (for want of a better phrase).
posted by J.R. Hartley at 11:30 AM on March 2, 2019 [1 favorite]

Idk, man. I am white and all you would have to tell me is that you're building a POC membership base. White people need to understand that not everything is for them, regardless of their personal preference for diverse spaces.
posted by jessca84 at 8:34 PM on March 2, 2019 [5 favorites]

I would not worry about being especially caring. White people who get it will understand immediately. White people who don't get it would not have been a good fit with the space anyway.
posted by hworth at 11:27 AM on March 3, 2019 [4 favorites]

Why do you have to tell them anything at all? The fact is, even for woke white people, being informed you have been denied something based on an immutable characteristic (race) can sting. I would just write down your selection criteria to mirror what colleges are permitted to do in admissions -- use race as one factor in admissions, given that diversity is a legitimate goal.
posted by schwinggg! at 7:33 AM on March 4, 2019

‘For Us, by Us’: Inside the New Social Spaces for People of Color (NYT)

In New York, the law states that any public establishment must allow full and equal access to people irrespective of race, as well as “color, religion, or national origin.” Alicia McCauley, Deputy Press Secretary of the New York City Commission on Human Rights, says, “NYC Human Rights Law protects against racial discrimination in any form, including in public accommodations such as social clubs. However, social clubs can be centered around certain experiences as long as the membership policy is not discriminatory based on race, religion, national origin, or any one of the other 22 protected categories in NYC.”

The NYT also reports:

[...] The Gentlemen’s Factory charges $150 a month for membership. Prospective members must fill out an application and be interviewed and screened by a committee. If a white man wanted to join, Mr. Lindor says, “We don’t discriminate. He’ll just have to know that all of the content is still going to speak about the black and brown male experience.”

[...] Last October, Austin created an Instagram page for Ethel’s Club — a name honoring her grandmother. The following day, 600 people had signed up for the wait list on the accompanying site. [...] While Ms. Austin will not disclose the amount of money she’s received in fund-raising, it is enough for her to be looking at 10,000-square feet locations in Brooklyn for a proposed August 2019 opening. [...] Membership is application-based; interested parties must support the brand mission of empowering and advancing people of color.

[...] Chroma has organized events with names like “Working Women of Color” and “Continuity: A Conference on Self-Preservation for Women of Color.” Its members recently celebrated the grand opening of their studio in the Lower East Side, a goal financially realized through their networks.

posted by Little Dawn at 1:47 PM on March 9, 2019 [1 favorite]