THIS WEEK's Non-Racists: A Couple of Bigots

We continue our occasional series featuring "non-racists": people who are caught making racially insensitive statements or statements that reveal their racism or bigotry but claim that something other than racism is to blame. Long-time TWIR readers will recall some of the previous "episodes": Joe Biden, Michael Richards and Clint Eastwood, "Dog" the Bounty Hunter, John Gibson, Don Imus and, most recently, Arnold Kling.

THIS WEEK, the perpetrators are lesser known, but their claims of not being racist are so remarkable that we had to share them with you.

Lyons, Illinois is a tiny village outside of Chicago. On the way to a parade last summer, the village president, David Visk, and a village trustee, Richard Schuppe, were riding in a police car. Visk put on the siren and flashing lights to the car, which, unbeknownst to him, triggered a video and audio recording system (only audio is recorded inside the car) that captured the exchange. You can see a video of the story below (or here), which contains the relevant parts of the recording and some belligerent defensiveness by the offending parties.



In addition to some disgusting displays of sexism (Vick notes that he likes the parade route because it provides a view up women's skirts), the racist elements are clear and bold. From the Chicago Tribune story:

Schuppe is heard using the "n-word" to describe a man who delivered a refrigerator to his home. Commenting on the price of the refrigerator, Visk told Schuppe that the worker should have thrown in a free watermelon, though Visk said the comment was not racially motivated.

"What?" you might ask? "Not racially motivated? What possible explanation could there be, then?"

Oh, dear reader, there is one: "Knowing Mr. Schuppe as many years as I have, he happens to be fond of that particular fruit," Visk said Wednesday.

We could not make this up. The guy actually wants us to believe that he knows his friend so well that, upon learning that a [n-word] delivered his expensive refrigerator, he noted that it would have been kind of the African American gentleman to have provided an advance supply of the fruit of Mr. Schuppe's choice. If Mr. Schuppe was fond of pineapple, this would not even be an issue! Poor guy: a victim of his taste in fruit.

We are less concerned with the actual incident -- these guys are clearly flat-out bigots -- as we are with the explanations and excuses that they offered. Again, from the Tribune's coverage:

Schuppe, who is in the middle of a four-year term, was reluctant to talk about the matter.

"I have made all of the apologies that are necessary," he said. "I have apologized profusely on television over the statements I said. It was something that just came out in the middle of a sentence, and I apologized for it."

Visk said he wishes the incident never happened.

"I made an inappropriate remark about the women and that was out of line," he said. "That was locker-room talk. I regret the entire tape, everything on it, good, bad or otherwise."

Visk said he may have switched on the recording device when he turned on the patrol car's lights and sirens. The village president, who has a daughter, said his comments were inappropriate.

"We didn't realize we were being recorded," he said. "We didn't mean for it to go out in the public like that, and we can't be any more apologetic."

As for Schuppe's use of the racial epithet, Visk said this is the first time he has ever heard the trustee use the term.

"I have known him for quite a long time," Visk said. "He is a former police officer. He has been out serving the public now for his entire life. Obviously, it was a slip of the tongue. He is not a racist. He is one of the top public servants in the Village of Lyons."

Asked whether he would do things differently, Visk said, "If we had known we are going to be recorded, we wouldn't talk like that."

Ok, so let's break this down a bit.

1. Schuppe dismisses the behavior as "something that just came out of [his] mouth." The suggestion here is that it is not reflective of his true feelings. This is a typical response of non-racists. Recall Michael Richards's apology on David Letterman's show, where he said “I’m not a racist. That’s what’s so insane about this.” The "possessed by a racist demon" excuse doesn't fly. As Dawn Turner Trice notes in her post about the Lyons episode on the Exploring Race site, the "apology" is more about being sorry that they were caught than sorry that they harbor racial resentment. Visk dismisses the sexist remark as "locker room talk," which means that it's acceptable there, but what is not acceptable is saying it in polite company. He seems to have no clue as to how offensive, demeaning and dangerous the attitude is (not just the manifestation of the attitude).

2. Also by way of explanation, if not excuse, Visk says that they didn't mean for it to become public. No kidding? Again, the apology seems to be about the fact that it became public. Well, who is harmed by it going public? The women they objectified? The minorities they insulted? Those folks are all harmed by the fact that public figures have these deeply-held beliefs and attitudes in the first place; the fact that it became public only harmed the Visk and Schuppe.

3. In the video (above) Schuppe insists that if Fox News Chicago's Dan Placko got together with his male friends (and, since we suspect he doesn't know Mr. Placko personally, any of us would do) in an "all-male environment," the same thing would happen. While he may be right that most bigots and overt sexists are more skillful in hiding their level of social ineptitude and ignorance, it is not the case that this kind of language takes place in all or even most gatherings of men. For his part, Visk is similarly certain that at any "card game," similar langauge could be heard. This is a good illustration of "projection," which is a psychological concept where people ascribe their own thoughts and feelings to others to innoculate against or combat any dissonance between them and others. Visk and Schuppe very well may have never been to a party where such ideas were openly batted about, but it may have more to do with the company they keep than the realities of "all" men's experiences. On the other hand, it is true that social norms keep the reality of White, heterosexual, men's resentments more or less "underground," masking the true status of our progress toward equality.

4. Finally, in the Tribune story, Visk offers that Schuppe couldn't be a bigot because he's known him a long time and he's never used the word before. First, it's a suspicious claim. Given the social norm against using such a word, what are the chances that a person who knew someone for a long time would be caught using it the very first time? And the rest of the evidence that Schuppe isn't a bigot is equally unbelievable: "He is a former police officer. He has been out serving the public now for his entire life."

Ok. We got it. Public servants cannot possibly have racial resentments. That would suggest that perhaps racial profiling is in practice and the justice, political and social systems are biased against women and persons of color and perpetuate White male privilege. Hey, wait a minute!

In all seriousness, though, the danger is not these two low-level, largely irrelevant bigots, but rather their belief that they might explain away their attitudes with such lame justifications. When we called out Joe Biden and Arnold Kling, it seemed clear to us that their sins were about understanding, not maliciousness. They simply do not understand the racial dynamics that are at work in this country. People like these two guys, Michael Richards and "Dog" the Bounty Hunter, though, are in a different classification. They are caught not just being racist, but being overtly bigoted, yet they try to explain it away by suggesting that the problem was one of the conversation being made public, propagated by political opponents. If the tapes were continually running and an analysis conducted of all of our words throughout our lives, none of us would be spared the label of "racist," though probably very few of us would be caught being bigoted. There is a difference, but at the end of the day, it is reflective of our current racial climate, which is much improved, but nowhere near equal.

In a more racially sensitive world, not only would these two be chastised by the public and the media (as they rightly have been), but they would not have even attempted to sway a portion of the public with their silly excuses.

We advocate for a political culture in which the only available response when something like this surfaces is for the culprits to say, "I don't think that Black folks are as smart, hard working, or deserving as White folks. I know that's not popular, but it's what I believe." That is the truth. That is honest. Any alternate explanation should not even be able to be considered. The fact that we operate in a context where those explanations will, in fact, be embraced by some, is further evidence of the work we need to do.