Yesterday, black protesters at Missouri segregated their white "allies" because the blacks there needed a blacks-only healing place.
A Yale student lost her shit (along others who were protesting) because the university would not create a safe place for students. Halloween costumes are apparently so racist and offensive that the students demand the university outlaw them.
The Missouri president and chancellor resigned after what were seemingly made-up accusations of racist acts on campus. These racist acts were connected to systemic and institutionalized racism. Poop swastika and the "n" word - both somehow systemic and institutional.
Where I'm confused is the location of these people's power. When I go to an SEC message board and see what are mostly conservative males criticizing these issues, I wonder if their bias is affecting their viewpoint. But when I go to a liberal site like Reddit and see the same arguments against these type of actions and protests, I start to wonder about what the hell is going on. If no one on either side of the aisle agrees with this, where are they getting their power?
I recently was silenced in a classroom discussion because I am a white male. I asked the wrong question. In a discussion of feminine voices and feminist rhetoric, there was an accepted claim that the female voice cannot be defined or categorized. When I asked, "How do we know what the female voice is without a definition?" I was told that my question stemmed from my phallo-centric language that sought power. That definitions were just a way of establishing a framework for control that would lead to oppression.
What scared me in that moment was that I could tell from the emotional reaction in the room that if I pushed the issue, I could have been in trouble. It's like Climate Change with science. If you don't accept the findings of Climate Change in scientific discourse, you're ostracized from scientific discourse (note - I "believe" in climate change science).
If you don't agree that black people get to define institutional racism and that no white man will get a say, then you are ostracized from academia. If you don't agree that the white male is not the source and root of oppression and evil, then you can get out of the humanities.
It's anti-intellectualism to the T. As someone who works in academia, it saddens and frightens me that you can be judged and sentenced based not only on what you say but what you don't say. For the Missouri president, it was how and when he spoke. He started to discuss systemic racism at Missouri, but because he lead with it being a "belief," he was done. These kinds of censorship and control are a detriment to the intellectual exercises that produce knowledge for the betterment of society as a whole.
Last year there was a protest at Auburn for Michael Brown. Several students participated in a lie-down. One of my colleagues helped organized it. He sent out a message to the entire department lauding the efforts from those that participated and criticized those that did not, calling those that skipped it (including me) to question our own thoughts and intentions and to dig deep to find the inspiration to support these issues.
Is that where we're headed? A Maoist-esque revolution where you not only cannot criticize elements of discourse but you are also required to participate in and follow along with what others feel you should do and believe?
Where does this stop? The "real world"? Have we any examples of social justice warriors being silenced in the real world? Any areas that can object to and attack sudden changes in language such as the only acceptable definition of racism being part of a system, meaning that no one other than whites can be racist? That isolated acts of racism call for the disassembling of power structures because unqualified people decide that those structures are somehow responsible?
9 Replies
2384 Views