Either It Matters When We Judge People Based On Their Skin Or It Doesn’t

Whenever I dare to dream, whenever I think I've found a topic we can all agree on, I’m reminded that this is a risible, childish fantasy, and I’m an idiot to hope for it. 

Terrorism is evil, bigotry is stupid, Adam Sandler isn’t funny, believe it or not, there are people walking the face of the Earth for whom all of these common sense takes are controversial.

But undeterred, in my article, Claudine Gay And The Infuriating Double Standards Of “Antiracism”, I wrote about something else I hoped we could all agree on; plagiarism is wrong, especially if you’re the President of Harvard.

So if you lose your job over 50+ plagiarism allegations, especially after a disastrous congressional testimony that saw one of your fellow university presidents lose her job, it’s not that surprising.

Anita, sadly, couldn’t agree. She begins with a quote from the article.

---

Anita:

“Because when a white professor loses their job over gross misconduct, nobody feels the need to initiate a struggle session about whether their misconduct is “the relevant question.””

Think about this.

---

Steve QJ:

I have thought about it. You seem to think you have an insight I'm missing though. So please share.

---

Anita:

Systemic racism protects/favors white people like an unseen breeze in the background or, quite often. right out in the open. So why would anybody feel the need to pursue the question if racism was the factor in them losing their job?

---

Steve QJ:

“So why would anybody feel the need to pursue the question if racism was the factor in them losing their job?”

Read the sentence you quoted again. It doesn't mention racism.

Also, do you not see how your logic leads inexorably to the conclusion that every single adverse outcome for a person who isn't white needs to be examined for evidence of racism? Do you see how ludicrous and infantilising and ultimately debilitating that is? Do you think the same should be done for sexism, homophobia, a lack of "pretty privilege" etc.?

---

---

I’ve written about this before, but this tendency to forget that privilege isn’t limited to being a member of the dominant racial group in your country is almost impossible to distinguish from the Curse of Ham rhetoric in my mind. It seems people like Anita really do believe that having milk-chocolate-or-darker skin is a curse that no other attributes can overcome.

Or similarly, that having burnt-cream-or-lighter skin opens your path through life like an unseen breeze might part tall grasses.

It does nobody, black or white, any good to believe this nonsense. And it’s the reason why so much modern “antiracism” is so ineffective and spends so much time talking down to white people and black people. More on that later.

---

Anita:

Hi Steve, I don't need to read it again. I read it several times before I left my comment, and I did notice that you did not mention racism. But it is implied. If we aren't talking about racism, what are we talking about--isn't that the whole point of your article--that we jump too quickly to racism with black people when "something else" is the reason for them losing their job or receiving criticism?

And no, my logic does not lead inexorably to the conclusion that every single adverse outcome for a person who isn't white needs to be examined for evidence of racism. That would be too simplistic. Let's take a step back and look at why Dr. Gay was being examined so closely, and why her career was picked apart by conservatives. It's because she wasn't willing to unequivocally say that calls on campus for the genocide of Jews is a violation of the school policy, during the congressional hearing. I didn't listen to the hearing. I read articles about it. It's clear she was pressured during that hearing, and wanted to protect free speech, and wanted to allow for context-- wanted to allow for a distinction between speech and conduct.

She later apologized. She said, "What I should have had the presence of mind to do in that moment was return to my guiding truth, which is that calls for violence against our Jewish community--threats to our Jewish students--have no place at Harvard, and will never go unchallenged." I can appreciate her feeling pressured, and not saying the right thing at the right time. It's a lot right now! In the context of the Palestinian genocide, fueled by ultra-right policy from Israel, fueled by U.S. complicity and aid, in the context of 75 years of Palestinian oppression by the state of Israel and the IDF, the propagation of illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine. Don't tell me THAT conflict isn't riddled with racism as a driving force. From Amnesty International's website, " Our report reveals the true extent of Israel’s apartheid regime--Whether they live in Gaza, East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, or Israel itself, Palestinians are treated as an inferior racial group and systematically deprived of their rights. We found that Israel’s cruel policies of segregation, dispossession and exclusion across all territories under its control clearly amount to apartheid."

That's a big backdrop to all of a sudden say, let's look scrutinize this woman's academic career because she didn't parrot what conservative activists where demanding she say in regards to anti-Semitism. I am glad South Africa is taking Israel to court. It's about time. Am I anti-Semitic? No. Am I anti-Israel's regime and actions? YES.

---

Steve QJ:

“I did notice that you did not mention racism.”

So then why did you mention racism?

Here's what you asked me to “think about”:

"Because when a white professor loses their job over gross misconduct, nobody feels the need to initiate a struggle session about whether their misconduct is “the relevant question.”"

My point is that when a white person is fired, we all recognise that the relevant question is whether they did something that merits their firing. Sure, there may be questions about whether the person accusing them dislikes them for one of countless possible reasons, but they're secondary. This is how we treat adults.

But Kendi, and many others, argue that when a black person is fired, the relevant question is whether the people who are criticising her might be racist. This is how he suggests we treat black people and only black people.

And as, in most cases, it will be unprovable that somebody is racist, and as, even if they are, the relevant question is still whether their criticisms are valid, yes, this inevitably leads to an infantilising double standard for black people.

At least, unless you have some genius way we can draw a line between cases where it's clearly not racism and cases where it clearly is. Kendi certainly hasn't figured out where that line is.

As for Gay's testimony, I'm not interested in arguing the merits one way or the other. The key point here is that a white woman was fired for saying more or less exactly what Gay said. Is this "reverse racism"? Why view these cases differently?

---

Anita:

The reason you have to treat the cases differently is because racism exists for black and brown people in a way that it doesn’t for white people, because the power structures and systems in our society still support white people deferentially..

I agree, it can be difficult to tease out if racism is an underlying cause for a black or brown person, and I’m not saying to consider it in all situations. Im saying, allow for the consideration of it when things point in that direction,and don’t try to negate the fact that white people can’t suffer from racism the way black and brown people do because white people have the system behind them.

Until you acknowledge that something is evil, you can’t fix it. If you try to just wash over everything and say let’s approach the treatment of black/brown people and white people absolutely the same, you are missing the opportunity to address injustices.

I took a class in undergrad, called the Healing Racism Institute. It was co-facilitated by a black and a white person. One of the things that we learned in that class is, it’s important to distinguish between prejudice and racism. By definition, because white people by default, are still favored or protected from societal structures, you can’t be racist to a white person in the United States. You can be prejudiced against them, but not racist. It seems like you were unwilling to see or admit that reality.

---

Steve QJ:

“You can be prejudiced against them, but not racist. It seems like you were unwilling to see or admit that reality.”

That's because this distinction is silly at best and racist at worst. Either it matters when we judge people based on their skin or it doesn’t. Whether you call it racism or prejudice or being a doodoo-head is irrelevant.

Because you can’t partially do away with discrimination based on skin colour. You can’t condemn it in some cases and make excuses for it it in others. And given that I'm very well aware of the reality of racism, I'm perfectly willing and able to see it. I'm just not willing to trivialise it.

Acknowledging that something is “evil” is not a prerequisite to fixing it. This idea is at the root of so much of the navel-gazing, self-congratulatory ineffectiveness of modern "antiracism." Because what typically happens, is that people get all wrapped up in the fervour of their fight against evil and lose sight of the concrete issues they should be "healing."

And finally, great, if you’re not saying to consider it in all cases, which situations, specifically, should we consider it in? What criteria do we need before we ask if the president of Harvard's plagiarism and social ineptitude is the key issue?

---

Anita:

“And finally, great, if you’re not saying to consider it in all cases, which situations, specifically, should we consider it in?”

Go ahead and consider it in all the cases. I would just ask that you wouldn’t trivialize it in the cases where it actually has merit to be exposed.

You said that you’re not interested in discussing the particulars of Dr. Gay‘s case in Congress. But those particulars are what brought people to criticize her academic work. With excessive scrutiny.

The Israel Palestine issue right now is loaded with racism. That’s why ultra conservatives decided to scrutinize her academic work in the first place. It would be helpful if you would consider context. But it seems like you are hell-bent on trying to prove that anyone can be racist to anyone. Sure. You are an interesting one.

---

Steve QJ:

“But those particulars are what brought people to criticize her academic work. With excessive scrutiny.”

And they're what led to Liz Magill's firing, without the criticism of her academic work!

We're in the bizarre situation where if Gay had resigned on the basis of her testimony alone, I think fewer people would be arguing that racism was involved. Because the story would simply be, "two university president's resign after disastrous congressional hearing."

But because Gay also committed fifty or so counts of plagiarism, and the guy who highlighted it is white and conservative and therefore a de-facto racist in progressive minds, we have to pretend that Gay's firing was all about racism.

---

I wish I’d made this point more clearly in my article on Claudine Gay’s ouster. Something has gone seriously wrong when firing a black woman for greater wrongdoing than a white colleague increases the likelihood people will blame her downfall on racism. 

I’m all for a broader variety of perspectives, socioeconomic experiences, and political philosophies in the corridors of power. This kind of diversity is obviously a strength. And it will, to a degree, map onto the skin-focused “diversity” we all know and love. 

A company run entirely by men will inevitably miss perspectives that women would bring. A university that's run entirely by white people will invariably miss perspectives that people of colour would bring. A non-profit run entirely by straight people or Liberals or Mormons will…you get the idea.

That’s not to say these perspectives will always be correct, insightful, or valuable. It’s to say that it’s good, even essential, training to have our assumptions and perspectives challenged. It’s good to hear from people who don’t think like us. 

I remain resolutely foolish enough to hope for a world where we can, at least, agree on that. 

---