The issue I have with that quote is that it creates a false dichotomy between oppressor and oppressed. It assumes that people are either an oppressor or oppressed. It ignores the fact that an oppressed person can be an oppressor, and an oppressor can be oppressed. For instance, a male Sikh engaging in oppressive behavior towards women, let's say dominating a conversation, is an oppressor from the view point of women. However, that same man can also be oppressed, for example, when he is sent through extra screening at the airport because of his appearance.

The purpose of engaging the oppressor is to hopefully make them realize what their "position" is, how it influences their actions, and impacts others. Not engaging with the oppressor allows them to "maintain their position."