This Week’s Non-Racists: A Dog and Bunch of Angry White Guys

It’s almost too easy to point out that bounty hunter Duane “Dog” Chapman is a bigot. After his rant to his son in a telephone conversation was leaked to the media this week, there’s no doubt about his attitude toward African Americans. If you’ve not heard it, you can listen here or here. The irony is palpable: Chapman argued that his son must break up with his black girlfriend because the n-word is used around their house, and he was afraid that the woman in question would tape him using the word and sell it to a tabloid, thus ruining his career. If someone had proposed an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm on this premise, even Larry David would have found it ridiculous. So Chapman joins Michael Richards, John Gibson, Dom Imus and Joe Biden on the list of famous people getting caught recently saying racist things, even though they’re “not racist.”

In his apology, Chapman explained that he was angry (which, as we’ve learned with others who have “slipped” with language, apparently means that it’s not really who he is), and that it wasn’t about race at all: "I was disappointed in his choice of a friend, not due to her race, but her character," he said. "However, I should have never used that term." This is consistent with what he says on the telephone recording. At one point, he notes that “it’s not that they’re black,” but rather that he would be misinterpreted if people heard him using the term. Perfectly understandable. We’ve all heard that the n-word isn’t about race: “There are niggers, and there are blacks.” Who couldn’t understand the embarrassment of someone being misunderstood as racist when heard using the n-word the way Chapman used it. Poor fella.

But even as this was happening, the non-racist white men were out in full force this week, attacking (and ultimately killing) a diversity awareness program at the University of Delaware and TWIR’s own Stephen Maynard Caliendo. The level of hostility is curious: if race isn’t something we need to be worried about, why are these folks so upset?

There are several things at work here, so we want to try to break them down in an organized way. This is complicated, so we won’t be able to come up with a cute sound bite to make our point. If there is an interest in understanding our perspective, the reader will have to go through each point, absorb its message, and avoid the urge to call us names, tell us about his or her black friend, and remind us that slavery has been over for 150 years. If that’s not possible, we respectfully request that such readers stop at this point, because there is no value in exposing oneself to the following.

1) All Americans are racist; all Americans are not bigots. This is an important conceptual (not merely semantic) distinction. Until folks can understand this, there is no point in going further. Conflation of these terms very much relegates the discussion to heated claims about individual persons’ “hearts” and the fact that the only people who are racist are those who routinely use the n-word (and not even them, right, Dog?!). The diversity program at the University of Delaware attempted to make this point, but did so somewhat poorly. In the “Diversity Facilitation Training” manual (note: the “training” refers to teaching the resident assistants to lead the facilitation – not “training people how to think”), as prepared by Dr. Shakti Butler, nicely explains racism as “race prejudice plus power.” In this case, since whites are the racial group with access to the power structure, racism is a term that can only refer to that which perpetuates white supremacy. So it is improper to refer to African Americans, for instance, as “racist” against whites. Where Dr. Butler erred, however, is by stating that “people of color cannot be racist” in the definition of “a racist” in the manual. This is only partly correct, and neglecting the other part leads to confusion.

People of color cannot be racist against whites, but, as noted in the definition of “internalized racism,” which appears on the same page, racism very much affects the way people of color see themselves. African Americans, for instance, are socialized to believe the negative stereotypes about themselves and other minorities, just like white folks are. So the claim that the term “a racist” “applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent)” is misleading and incomplete. First, “racist” should never be used as a noun (i.e., “a racist”). It is an adjective that appropriately describes all persons socialized in racist systems such as that of the U.S. The preferred noun, we argue, is “bigot,” which describes someone who dislikes persons of a specific race. This can be applied to folks of any race. If a Latino person hates whites, he is a bigot. He’s racist, too, but not against whites. This needs to be clear and remain clear or we’re doomed to another fifty years of spinning our wheels with respect to making more progress toward racial equality.

2) College is designed to challenge existing beliefs so that students are prepared to think critically and exist meaningfully and productively in a democratic culture. This is absolutely threatening to those who are comfortable with the status quo. The University of Delaware put together a program to help students – many of whom come from homogeneous high schools – to learn about issues of diversity that they likely did not encounter to that point in their lives. Far from telling them what to think, the program clearly is intended to introduce them to concepts that would likely be unique to them. With the number of hate incidents that occur weekly on college campuses, such a program is not just warranted, but a failure to have such a program is irresponsible.

The Delaware attack was driven by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), who issued a letter to the University’s president demanding that the diversity program be put to a halt. The University’s Vice-president for Student Life wrote back, and FIRE responded by a point-by-point rebuttal on its website, followed by a “victory” statement on Friday when the University apparently bowed to the demands of the powerful.

The FIRE rebuttal provides an interesting look into how misunderstood higher education is. College professors, on the whole, go to school for twice as long as lawyers and the same amount of time as physicians, only to earn a fraction of what most lawyers and doctors earn. We don’t understand why the motives are always in question. Further, professors are, by definition, the most educated people in their substantive areas. That’s what it means to have a terminal degree in one’s field. That doesn’t mean they don’t disagree with one another or are always right, but it’s interesting to note that non-academics attack professors’ work in a way that they never would attack a physician’s. FIRE’s president, Greg Lukianoff, appears to think he knows more than college professors about how to educate America’s youth. Colleges are in the business of helping students to think critically about the indoctrination that they have received for the first eighteen years of their lives, which Lukianoff clearly does not want to happen. Students cannot reject what they do not see, so keeping the hegemonic order off students’ radar is in FIRE’s best interests.

(To put the organization into context, while one of FIRE’s white male founders is a college educator, none of its senior staff have Ph.D.s; all are white, and only one is female. Every member of the Board of Directors is white. The “Board of Advisors” is more demographically and ideologically diverse: at least one member is of color [Roy Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality is African American]; there are three females, three college educators and three former educators on this list of seventeen.)

There is a psychological concept known as “projection,” where people unknowingly attribute their own thoughts and behaviors to others. It is out of the realm of possibility to someone who wishes to indoctrinate that a university offering such a program would be attempting to do anything but indoctrinate. Lukianoff seems to not understand that there are motives for providing information that do not involve changing someone’s mind. Students are capable of making up their own minds, but they deserve to have all the information. For years, they’ve been fed myths about American meritocracy, color-blindness, and the infallibility of relying on “personal responsibility” with no attention to context. Delaware’s program is not designed to change students’ minds, but rather to expand them.

How do we know? If we examine the intended learning outcomes of the program, here’s what we see:

“Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society.” The acting verb is “recognize.” They don’t have to believe that it needs to be reversed, that affirmative action is the way to solve it, or anything else. They merely will recognize that it exists. That is not pushing “an ideological viewpoint,” as FIRE claims. Are FIRE’s spokespersons arguing that systemic oppression does NOT exist? If so, they should say so clearly and explain why they believe people of color are still disproportionately denied access to the power system. Another outcome is “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression.” Again, they must recognize the benefits, not subscribe to them. They are perfectly free to argue that there are drawbacks that offset these benefits, for instance. A third outcome, not squarely related to race, is “Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.” Students will be able to do this; they are not forced to, or even forced to think that they should. After the program, they will see the complexities of consumerism and be in a better position to make an informed choice. But to persons who wish to keep things as they are, we can see how such knowledge would be threatening. The University wishes to “leave a mental footprint on [students’] consciousness,” a claim that FIRE highlights as an indictment of the school’s attempt to indoctrinate. Raising consciousness is a fundamental element of higher education and does not even slightly resemble indoctrination. Quite the opposite: consciousness raising has to do with students recognizing how they have been indoctrinated throughout their lives. In the response letter, FIRE claims, “some students are successfully resisting indoctrination.” Not so. Those students are simply less willing to allow their indoctrination to be challenged. They’re not getting their money’s worth from their college education.

But we know that some students come to college to receive a degree so that they can earn a better living. That’s not surprising given that they’ve been indoctrinated to believe that all that matters is getting wealthy and having more material possessions than their neighbors. Perhaps the folks at FIRE think that college shouldn’t be expanding young minds, but rather teaching them what they need to make money. Again, if this is accurate, we encourage them to say so directly. In that case, students will be best served to keep their heads down for four years and get that piece of paper. In a society where intellectual growth is seen as weakness (ask any candidate who has changed his or her position on a salient issue over the course of a lifetime), it’s not surprising that stubbornly “defending” one’s beliefs is more highly valued than inviting them to be challenged.

3) Those who advocate for racial equality are not interested in telling people what to think or how to think. Rather, we wish to help folks understand that the abbreviated version of the world that we’ve all been socialized to accept is full of myths, half-truths, and ideas that serve to perpetuate the status quo. For those who think the status quo is acceptable, there absolutely should be concern that our ideas are threatening. We are happy to engage in an honest dialogue about this, but it is disingenuous to argue that equality will evolve naturally within the existing system without external agitation. We would appreciate if those who like the system the way it would simply state that. They should be clear that they believe that racial minorities are disproportionately denied access as a result of their own individual choices, rather than any systemic bias in favor of whites. They should be clear that they believe that Brown v. Board of Education was a bad Supreme Court decision because it was improper judicial activism. They should be clear that they believe that tax money from wealthy neighborhoods should stay there rather than be distributed to poor areas because it’s poor folks’ fault that they can’t live in wealthy neighborhoods (and, thus, their children do not deserve the chances wealthy folks’ children have). These are all perfectly valid positions that should be part of the “marketplace of ideas.” What is unacceptable is the refusal to admit these aspects of keeping the status quo, reverting instead to name calling and projected accusations against those who are arguing for meaningful chance to bring about social justice.

We have no interest in telling folks how to think. On the contrary, we are arguing for a more truthful articulation of what everyone thinks. We are asking for the anger to be reduced (it’s not useful), for the name calling to stop, and for an honest dialogue about race. We’ve been requesting that for seven years as part of The Project on Race in Political Communication and for over a year in this space. Others have asked for it for many years before us.

This week, one of Chicago’s conservative talk radio hosts, Jerry Agar, was infuriated about the Delaware situation. And, in case you missed it, Stephen was taken to task in the comment’s section of last week’s blog. Unfortunately, the argument made no sense for two reasons. First, a “paradox” is an apparent contradiction, which means that what the commenter believes is hypocritical is actually not. He would be (unintentionally) correct, except that what he points out isn’t even an apparent contradiction. As a white male, Stephen argues that he cannot participate in the discussion about whether black folk can use the n-word. He has not participated in that discussion. Rather, he has argued that it is inappropriate for white folks to use it. Second, neither of us has told anyone what to think. We may both be silly, but not for that reason. And our mamas raised us not to be rude, so we do our best to avoid that.

So we’re asking for some civility to the discussion. It is apparent from the anger, though, that we need to be talking to one another. If it didn’t matter, these folks wouldn’t be so hostile toward us and the folks at the University of Delaware. So, in a backward way, we thank this week’s non-racists for reminding us how much work we still have left to do.

It is further evidence of the power of the hegemonic order that the University of Delaware has bowed to the wishes of FIRE and canceled the diversity program. FIRE declared “victory” over diversity awareness on its web page; it takes a special kind of person to believe that students learning less, not more, is victory (and it takes a special kind of arrogance to believe it while claiming that it’s in the name of free speech). It’s likely that Delaware state legislators threatened to cut funding if the program continued (isn’t it obvious where the real power resides?). Angry white guys win another victory over those who fight for equality.

As if the victory over heightened consciousness were not enough, FIRE continues to threaten to dismantle attempts to broaden students’ worldviews. In their “victory” release, they note the following: “FIRE would like to know if RAs are still required to immediately report ‘[a]ny instance that is perceived by those involved as being racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, or otherwise oppressive.’” Why would FIRE encourage covering up hateful activity on campus? Perhaps since awareness of such activity would remind us that inequality still exists. So bigots at the University of Delaware are now free to spew their hate around the residence halls, because if the folks at FIRE find out that the acts were reported, they will bring their wrath down on an administration who urges hate crimes to be reported.

If the University of Delaware does not re-implement this or a similar program (we would be happy to help with that, if they would like us to) its students will be poorer citizens as a result of this abuse of power by the folks at FIRE and the cowardice on the part of the University’s president. But angry white guys everywhere can breathe a sign of relief that their historic access to power remains and has succeeded in keeping people of color on the sidelines by allowing white folks to continue to believe the myth that there is no systemic racism.

***On FACEBOOK? Join the Group, "RaceProject.Org" for information and updates about the Project on Race in Political Communication.