Agree. You brought up HBCUs, but it wasn't clear that it was an analogy. It seemed like an attempt to change the subject.
I am not debating HBCUs, so you have been debating yourself on the issue. I know and agree that HBCUs don't ban white people (or other non-blacks) by policy, or in practice. And I have in no way stated or implied that as a gross generalization that black people exclude white people.
But the fact remains that "black affinity housing" is a specific and separate case from your various other situations. The reality is, that in practice, white people are not living in "black affinity housing", no matter what the "official policy" may be.
Grok is not perfect by any means, and it's analysis is often flawed, but it can usually find examples when asked.
Q: Can you find any examples of white people living in black affinity housing.
Grok: No, based on extensive searches across news articles, university websites, academic studies, and discussions on platforms like Reddit, there are no documented examples of a publicly named white student who has lived in a black affinity dorm.
One more thing. Without an example of a single white person who has attempted to apply to "black affinity housing" and was denied, your argument lacks standing. You just can't claim "Discrimination" without an actual example of a particular person being discriminated against. In the case the all white "Return To The Land" community, the Hodge Twins have standing because they asked to be admitted and were denied. (They are too "buck broken" to sue). Since you and
@TheTexan are so fond of Grok, I asked it about the discrimination investigation of the University Of Alabama's Greek program in 2013 and specifically brought up the question of "standing" and a comparison with a possible investigation of "black affinity housing." This is the response (note that my prompts is in
italics, underlined and bold):
How did discrimination in Greek fraternities and sororities last until 2013 at the University of Alabama? What role did the legal principal of standing play in addressing this? And how does this compare to black affinity dorms? Specifically address the question of whether blacks applied to admission to Greek organizations and were denied and if such an application is required to legally challenge perceived discrimination in Greek organizations or "black affinity housing." Please be brief (under 1,000 words).
In 2013, the University of Alabama’s Greek system faced intense scrutiny for racial discrimination, particularly in its historically white sororities, which had systematically excluded Black women from membership. This issue, rooted in a long history of segregation, persisted due to a combination of institutional inertia, alumnae influence, and legal challenges related to standing. Below, I address the key points of your question, including the role of standing, comparisons to Black affinity dorms, and the necessity of applications for legal challenges.Persistence of Discrimination in Greek Life Until 2013Discrimination in the University of Alabama’s Greek system endured due to several factors:
- Historical Legacy of Segregation: The university’s Greek system, like much of the South, was shaped by a history of racial segregation. Even after the university’s integration in 1963, Greek organizations remained largely segregated, with historically white sororities and fraternities maintaining all-white memberships. This was reinforced by traditions and social norms that resisted change.
- Alumnae Influence: In 2013, the student newspaper The Crimson White reported that alumnae of white sororities blocked Black women from receiving bids, despite strong qualifications and support from current members. Alumnae wielded significant power, including threats to withdraw financial support if Black women were admitted, perpetuating discriminatory practices.
- Lack of Administrative Oversight: Prior to 2013, the university administration had not taken decisive action to address segregation in Greek life. The absence of proactive measures allowed discriminatory practices to continue unchecked, despite federal laws prohibiting racial discrimination.
- Cultural and Social Barriers: The Greek system’s recruitment process, known as “rush,” was opaque and relied on subjective criteria, which facilitated discriminatory decisions. Social pressures and the desire to maintain traditional chapter identities further discouraged integration.
The issue gained national attention in 2013 when two Black women, including the step-granddaughter of a university trustee, were denied bids to white sororities solely based on race. This prompted public outcry and university action, including policy changes to allow continuous open bidding and increase sorority membership caps to facilitate integration.
Role of Legal StandingLegal standing, the requirement that a plaintiff demonstrate a concrete injury, causation, and redressability to bring a lawsuit, played a significant role in addressing discrimination in Greek organizations. To challenge discriminatory practices under laws like Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (prohibiting discrimination in federally funded programs) or the Fair Housing Act (FHA), a plaintiff must show they were directly harmed—typically by applying and being denied membership due to race.
- Application and Denial: In 2013, evidence confirmed that Black women applied to white sororities at Alabama and were denied bids explicitly because of their race. For example, a highly qualified Black student was rejected despite excellent recruitment scores, with sorority members citing alumnae interference. This clear instance of application and denial provided the necessary standing for potential legal challenges, as it demonstrated a specific injury (denial of membership) caused by racial discrimination.
- Legal Implications: The U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice investigated these allegations in 2013, indicating that the documented denials could support claims under anti-discrimination laws. The university’s swift response—implementing an action plan to combat discrimination—likely preempted formal lawsuits by addressing the issue administratively.
Without an application and subsequent denial, it would be difficult to establish standing, as courts require evidence of a tangible harm. Hypothetical or generalized claims of discrimination (e.g., “I didn’t apply because I knew I’d be rejected”) typically lack the specificity needed for legal action.
Comparison to Black Affinity DormsBlack affinity dorms, or housing designed to foster community among Black students, differ significantly from Greek organizations in purpose, structure, and legal context:
- Purpose and Access: Black affinity dorms aim to provide supportive environments for underrepresented students, often in response to historical exclusion from campus life. They are typically open to all students but prioritize Black students’ cultural needs. In contrast, historically white Greek organizations at Alabama in 2013 actively excluded Black applicants, maintaining racial homogeneity.
- Legal Framework: Greek housing, often university-affiliated or on-campus, may be subject to the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in housing. A 2013 study suggested that segregated Greek housing could violate the FHA, as it did at Alabama, where Black applicants were denied access. Black affinity dorms, however, are not typically restrictive; they do not exclude based on race but rather offer optional, culturally focused housing. Thus, they are less likely to face FHA challenges unless they explicitly deny non-Black applicants, which is rare.
- Application and Legal Challenges: To challenge discrimination in Black affinity dorms, a non-Black student would need to apply for residence and be denied based on race to establish standing. Without such an application and denial, a legal challenge would likely fail due to lack of concrete injury. Similarly, for Greek organizations, Black students needed to apply and be denied to pursue legal action, as seen in the 2013 Alabama case. The key difference lies in intent: Greek organizations excluded to maintain racial exclusivity, while affinity dorms aim to include and support.
Necessity of Application for Legal ChallengesFor both Greek organizations and Black affinity housing, an application and denial are generally required to establish standing for a legal challenge:
- Greek Organizations: The 2013 Alabama case demonstrated that Black students who applied and were denied membership due to race had standing to challenge discrimination under laws like Title VI or the FHA. Without applying, potential plaintiffs would struggle to prove they suffered a specific injury, as courts do not typically entertain speculative claims.
- Black Affinity Housing: Similarly, a legal challenge to Black affinity dorms would require a non-Black student to apply, be denied, and demonstrate that the denial was racially motivated. Since these dorms are generally inclusive, such denials are uncommon, making legal challenges rare.
ConclusionDiscrimination in Alabama’s Greek system persisted until 2013 due to historical segregation, alumnae influence, and inadequate administrative oversight. The legal principle of standing required Black students to apply and be denied membership to challenge these practices, as seen in the 2013 cases that spurred reform. Black affinity dorms, designed to support rather than exclude, face different legal scrutiny but also require an application and denial for a viable discrimination claim. The 2013 Alabama case underscores how documented denials were critical to exposing and addressing systemic racism in Greek life, while affinity housing operates under a distinct, inclusive framework.
Word count: 498
The Bible literally says "they held all things in common." That means there was an "organized effort towards common ownership." Further evidence of organization was the creation of the Deacon board, which I just mentioned. Yes it was 100% voluntary. That is despite the fact that Ananias and Sapphira were struck down by the Holy Spirit for keeping back a portion of the money from the land they sold and lying about it. Peter clearly said "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." Note that this story was between Acts 4 (the beginning of holding things in common) and Acts 6 (the creation of the Deacon board). That's why in this story they brought the money and "laid it at the apostles' feet." (Acts 5:2). In the original "organized effort towards common ownership" the Apostles collected and distributed the money directly. In Acts 6 the Deacons were put in charge of all of that. That's why in modern churches today the Deacons will collect tithes and offering. The "distributing to everyone in need" is what is missing. Yes there's a poor fund and most churches have food pantries and may sometimes pay a light bill. But that's not the same. As you say "We can learn from this and do the same for those in need in the church." You know what happens in many Western European countries today? The state takes care of the needy not just with tax financed foot (like the U.S.) and tax financed housing (sort of like the U.S. but quite limited), but tax financed education and a much more generous unemployment program. That's all socialism. That's what conservatives fight tooth and nail not to have happen here in the U.S. And forced socialism can lead to disastrous results. But voluntary socialism is an entirely different thing. 
