Safe Spaces and Diverse Faces!

I was going to write economic self-determination. I was inspired by a man who I consider an athletic professor of mine to express some thoughts about reconciling institutional injustices of the United States and taking economic responsibility for oneself. I was even further inspired by a class I'm currently taking on Islam in Black America. We've now gotten into mid-20th century Nation of Islam early discourse which is fraught with self-determination rhetoric. In any case, in light of recent events I've decided to write on self-determination in a different context, our present context.

As a member of the IRC I do not feel that the process for admission of new members is as transparent as it should be. I realize that we have a group interview, after which there is a short discussion and a vote is taken. From my experience with admitting the three new members of 554, because we voted almost unanimously our decision didn't seemed to be changed with the final administrative word. But is this always the case? I think my contention is not whether or not the answer to that question is yes but rather that I feel that I have to ask that question at all. Do we feel as though we are an important part of the process? What goes into the final selection process? What is the weight and/or purpose of the individual interviews? For the sake of diversity and admitting people with fresh ideas and motivations, should not the process be entirely transparent? Shouldn't we have the final say? Why does no one ever ask any questions, no matter what the outcome is? And furterhmore, and perhaps most importantly, can the re-application process really be called RE-application? I know that we are trying to create a cohesive community here and that objectivity is hard to reach (if not entirely useless in some cases) but in the spirit of our new national politics, these processes should be displayed so that the people can hold responsible whom they see fit.

FT