Yale University students demonstrate for racial inclusion |
“It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those
three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience,
and the prudence never to practice either of them.” – Mark Twain
Is it possible to rid America of racism? To make African-Americans completely and
comprehensively included in our national life?
To make them feel completely
included? And if that’s seems an
impossible dream, then what about eliminating racism from a college
campus? Is that more modest goal
conceivable? And if it is, what
tactics are justified in reaching it? How
should we approach that dream? What do
we owe each other? Because that’s what the
controversies
at Yale University and Missouri University and other colleges are really all about.
Consider the Yale
Halloween costume
controversy. In previous years some
students wore racially and culturally provocative costumes, some even including
blackface
and redface. This year, a few days
before Halloween, a Yale administrative committee distributed suggestions
for avoiding costumes that “disrespect, alienate or ridicule segments of our
population based on race, nationality, religious belief or gender
expression.” A few students in Silliman
College (the largest Yale dormitory residence) privately complained to their resident
administrators, known as “masters”, that the university was trying to control
their free expression in the choice of costumes. Those masters, Nicholas and Ericka Christakis,
Yale faculty members, were sympathetic, and Ericka subsequently sent out an
email of her own, urging students to be less sensitive about Halloween
costumes, to ignore or rationally engage with those wearing costumes they found
offensive. She argued that there is
value in breaking these kinds of social taboos, and denied it was her job to
enforce them.
But a sizeable number
of students strongly disagreed. A large
group confronted Nicholas in the campus yard and demanded he repudiate his
wife’s position. When he refused, on the
grounds that a college should provide an open “intellectual space”, a few of
the students became belligerent, quite upset that these administrators were
refusing to enforce their program of racial inclusion. To them, Ericka’s email condoned behavior
that made them feel excluded, second-class, lesser members of their
community. One unhappy student’s letter
to the school paper (since removed) reprimanded the masters for subordinating
the real pain of that exclusion to the merely abstract principle of free
speech; in her memorable line, “I don’t want to debate. I want to talk about my
pain.”
The students are arguing, in effect, that their residence is a home,
and the job of the administrators is to make sure it’s a “safe
space” where no one feels excluded.
But an administrator is not a parent, a student is not a child, and –
most importantly – a college is not a home.
The purpose of a college is to increase and transmit human knowledge and
wisdom, and censorship and coercion are its deadly enemies. If a college is not an open intellectual
space then it has undermined its own reason for being. But really, how have we come to the point
where this needs to be said?
Some students, it seems, want much more than just to talk about
their pain. They angrily demand that official
institutional power be employed to control Halloween costumes and opinions
about costumes, and that dissenting administrators and students be
punished. The students
of Amherst College have gone so far as to explicitly state they “do not tolerate” certain dissenting opinions
on racial issues. They’ve demanded that
their college suppress those opinions through official proclamation, and that
it force stubbornly dissident students to “go through the Disciplinary Process”
and “attend extensive training for racial and cultural competency.” They even demand that the college try to suppress
alumni dissent! Official orthodoxy promulgated, maintained
and enforced through firings, denunciations and re-education; behold the new
dispensation. They do not tolerate!
Sadly, the world is full of the intolerable: poverty, disease, war, economic exploitation, sexism, and yes, of course, racism. The eradication of racism – in the world, in America, on a college campus, in a single dorm – is a goal to be devoutly hoped for, and ardently fought for. But that ardor must be tempered by practicality, by recognition of reality. Indeed, part of the radical black analysis of modern America is that it is essentially racist. Ta-Nehisi Coates, probably today’s pre-eminent African-American intellectual, has written that, “in America, the notion that black people are lacking in virtue is ambient.” Last year Coates and liberal writer Jonathan Chait argued back and forth on the causes of black poverty, with Coates explicitly arguing that there was little or no hope of ending racism in America. Damnably, American racism does seem incurable! It pollutes our cultural bloodstream like alcohol, distorting our perceptions, impairing our judgment, quickening our anger, and eroding our trust. We drank it so long ago, but it wreaks its havoc even now, and we never sober up.
And it’s not that the students have forgotten their racial
pessimism. Indeed, it only heightens
their desire to see racism ended! The
pathologies of their movement – over-sensitivity, incivility, intolerance – flow
from the intense desire to make the pain stop while knowing that it cannot stop.
If the pain can intrude into even the leftish-liberal-controlled college
campus, then there is no respite, no haven, no safe space. For years, liberal college administrators
have – somewhat disingenuously – told black students that not only could they have
such a safe space, they had
a right to it. Then Ericka Christakis – somewhat
disingenuously – told them to stop wanting it.
And that reminded them it isn’t really achievable. Thus, anger.
It is the profound and earnest disappointment that the impossible has
not arrived that explains why this movement has come so far off its hinges.
The Civil Rights Movement of the 50’s an 60’s had definite,
objective goals in mind: the end of legal segregation, the restoration of political
rights, equal treatment in public places.
To a large extent those procedural goals were reached; thankfully, they
were reachable. But the fight for
substantive equality foundered, partly because changing minds and culture is
much harder than changing laws, and much more subtle. But the understanding that minds cannot be
changed by force is the bedrock
of the historical liberal project, and the comprehensive inclusion the students
desire requires a degree of control over thought, expression and action that is
itself intolerable. Painfully, American
racial pessimism is a perfectly defensible position, but it’s one that should remind
anti-racists to tread more lightly, not more heavily.
As a white man – who, despite my best attempts,
ultimately knows so little of lived black experience – it’s easy for me to urge
caution and prudence in the fight against racism. But part of what’s gone
wrong with the racial inclusion movement is its insistence that the content
of an opinion is not as relevant as the background
of the person holding it. In this
view, the
pain of racial exclusion cannot truly be understood or appreciated except
by those who have lived it; therefore, the analysis and actions of those
victims should not be questioned. But this is a reasonable premise taken to an
unreasonable conclusion. Even though
whites can’t fully understand the black experience they can still make genuine
contributions to the racial conversation; they can still make cogent judgments
about the state of race relations. It is
possible for a black person to be mistaken about race.
But leftist thought has been heavily influenced by post-modernism, particularly
by the doctrine that there are no universal truths, only limited, parochial,
and self-serving ones. Truth with a
capital “T” is merely an instrument for settling arguments in favor of the powerful. That is, discourse which fails to account for
cultural presumptions in favor of traditionally dominant groups only appears to
give minority arguments their due, in reality it merely perpetuates the
domination. The post-modernist solution
is to allow each group its own unimpeachable narrative; since there is no
honest objective truth, let all the subjective truths flourish, none with a
greater claim on our credence than any other.
Once again, this is a healthy
idea taken to an unhealthy extreme.
Being white, male, heterosexual, etc. obviously can make one oblivious
to the concerns of those who are not, and that distortion must be guarded
against, partly by appealing to minority subjective experience. But that doesn’t negate the need for
objective analysis as well. It’s
reasonable to worry whether black students feel unsafe, but it’s just as
reasonable to consider if they’re justified
in feeling so. It’s possible to feel
unsafe and simply be mistaken. We should
be more open to minority views on what is or isn’t offensive, but we should
also consider whether those arguments are in themselves convincing. Being a victim of racial injustice obviously
can give one special insight into the nature of that injustice, but it does not
exempt one’s arguments from fair scrutiny.
But many liberal whites, in effect, believe otherwise. At root, the post-modern elevation of
previously marginalized groups is an attempt to spread social power to those
groups. In other words, this is ultimately
about white
guilt. Liberals work so hard to
appreciate the staggering horror of America’s racial sins, and rightly so; but
they’re so afraid of blaming the victim that they bend over backwards to avoid
condemning any black sins. So liberals earnestly
sacrifice their intellectual independence on the altar of racial atonement,
hoping as fervently as their black allies that the American soul can be washed
clean. They make themselves scapegoats,
vessels for America’s bad conscience on race.
Post-modern rejection of objective judgment simply provides the perfect
alibi for rejecting one’s own judgment in deference to the greater racial
good. And it inoculates white liberals
against the creeping suspicion that any bits of racism are still lurking within
their own souls. After all, isn’t every American at least a little
racist? Clearly, their hearts are in the
right place; their greatest wish is to end racism. But this post-modern extremism is really disguised penance, white liberal ritual
for purifying their own dirty white souls.
There is no longer any white racial politics that’s actually
reasonable and constructive; it consists of either masochistic
self-denunciation or angry denial. By
the latter, of course, I mean conservatives, the term of art for that group
that finds the reality of American guilt too painful to accept. If white liberals hold that blacks can do no
wrong, white conservatives hold that racism is only a quaint historical artifact,
an unfortunate detour on the noble road to American greatness, an unimportant detail
of our past best forgotten lest it stir up racial problems we’ve happily solved. In effect, both liberal and conservative whites
concede the enormity of American racial criminality and both consequently suffer
crippling racial shame, which they’re
frantic to escape. Liberals do so by
purging their own souls and projecting all sin onto conservatives, who in turn
protect themselves from the tiniest possibility of racial introspection by
generously wrapping themselves in the American flag. The point, of course, is that both are left
pure.
But as liberal guilt forgives the worst black transgressions,
conservative guilt can’t forgive the smallest.
This is the real danger, that the bullying mob on the left may be met by
the vengeful mob on the right; worse, a vengeful mob in the guise of a repressive
state. Blacks are a minority after
all, and a mobilized angry white majority can do far more damage than the racial radicals are doing now. And nothing can bring forth latent
conservative impulses in otherwise reasonable people as quickly as an angry
black crowd. Conservative over-reaction
to the present campus excess is visibly boiling up. Even a generally calm-headed conservative
like Rod Dreher is eager
for a reckoning, oblivious to the danger that it could all-to-easily become
violent. And there’s a lot of
unreconstructed hate out there on the farther right; it’s not
even that far. We’re not sobering up;
we’re becoming more drunk.
That’s why I urge caution; but by the same token I don’t remotely
urge complacency. We’re all obligated as
Americans to resist and overcome racial exclusion. But the current leftist program is much more
likely to cause more damage. Real
progress can happen only if we respect differing opinions and the people who
hold them; if we stop dismissing all opposing views as bad faith; if we
consider thought and action on the basis of its content and not just the color
of its author; if we remember the terrible fallibility of all people, ourselves
and our opponents alike; and if we squarely face both the necessity and the impossibly of our fight. American racism will probably never be eradicated. It is a sobering thought. But it is sobriety which we most need at this
moment. There are no safe spaces, nor
should we work so hard to procure any.
We can make our country better, we can make our colleges better, we can
make ourselves better. But we can’t do so
by silencing, or denouncing, or purifying, or demonizing. Four hundred years of racial bitterness must
be fought, but not with more bitterness.
It must be fought inside each one of us, freely, candidly, and with humility
and charity. The safe spaces that need
to be nurtured are those inside our own heads.
And we do that by renouncing false hope, and embracing the real thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment