The white male who says 'there is no racism' should not be shushed based on his background. There is nothing to gain by silencing viewpoints. He should be debated. On merit. On substance. Disregarding him or ignoring him doesn't accomplish anything. There are people who think that (racism doesn't exist). We should persuade them otherwise....not silence or censor them. It doesn't work in the long run anyways. In a couple hours, Donald Trump will espouse racist views in a presidential candidate debate. How does censoring lectures and speakers on campus work to prevent that? If anything....it turns said speakers into martyrs for that demographic.

Privilege rhetoric can be a useful tool in analyzing and contextualizing real-world circumstances. But when it's used to disregard/silence worldviews....it's counter-productive. And inevitably, it's always selectively employed. So if a white person says "racism doesn't exist"....we should disregard him because his privilege denies him from seeing the truth. If a white person says 'racism exists'....we should NOT disregard him because he is able to see past his privilege? That's when the idealogical carraige is pushing the horse. Whether or not his viewpoint should be disregarded on the basis of privilege depends on whether he agrees with us? It's circular logic and dogmatic. It's a self-reinforcing rule of thumb.

Merit, substance, content. You can't go wrong with that.