On Our Terms | Rhetoric thin veil for implicit racist discourse

Andrew Block Columnist

Ask yourself if this sounds familiar: “I’m not a racist, but...” Following the ellipsis is a statement that criticizes anti-racist efforts, but then fails to show any actual commitment to improving them. The “I’m not a racist, but...” (INARB) discourse discourages anti-racist work, encourages political complacency, and thereby supports the existing systems of racism that so define our lives. We cannot deny the negative implications of our inaction, as that itself constitutes action.

Unfortunately, INARB has pervaded our campus this year. So too have its effects. Hopefully, an analysis of INARB at the College will show us precisely how we participate in this discourse, and how we can reverse it.

INARB emerged in the fall after Students Allied for Equity and Justice held a “Rally Against Racism” and anti-racist teach-ins in the College Center. One popular INARB criticism was that the student organizers represented undesirable politics because they refused to include in their presentations the ideas of those who opposed their efforts. Moreover, this particular criticism continued, the rally and teach-ins were not “the right way” to fight racism. Such assertions fit the INARB mold for two reasons. First, the assertions admonished anti-racist efforts for not incorporating messages that clashed with their anti-racist efforts. To what does such admonishment amount? It means these assertions criticized anti-racist organizers for not adopting racially exclusive—i.e. racist—principles. Second, these assertions neglected to offer “the right way” of fighting racism or even advancing a dialogue on race and racism. As a consequence, the INARBers shut down anti-racist efforts at Vassar.

Another prevalent INARB argument of last fall admitted that racism is truly a problem in American society but contended that it is not as pressing as issues such as sexism at Vassar and genocide in Darfur. This INARB logic concluded that the campus community can’t waste its attention on anti-racist work, given limited time and resources. To be charitable, those who advanced these aggressive arguments against anti-racist work may have been worried their particular concerns would lose all exposure and support when the public focused on race and racism. Yet we cannot dismiss, deny, or excuse that this INARB discourse called for invalidating and halting anti-racist work.

This semester, I have heard a particular INARB argument in response to student efforts to boost the representation of professors of color at Vassar. You might’ve heard it, too: “I agree that we need to increase the representation of people of color in academia, but we can’t do so by focusing on hiring professors only because they are non-white,” some say. “Vassar can’t support reverse racism.” The argument then stops. Entirely. These assertions suggest that race is the “only” consideration when the College hires a person of color to the faculty, whereas Vassar takes on white faculty for other reasons, i.e. intellectual aptitude and academic expertise. Such suggestions, however subtle, represent a jab at affirmative action.

This argument distorts affirmative action, denigrates professors of color, and supports an ideology of white superiority. It goes without saying that all professors on campus are qualified. It is also the case that there are plenty of qualified candidates of color for professorships, just as there are many qualified whites. But it is less well known—at least to the INARBers—that a variety of social, economic, and political factors result in the underrepresentation of candidates of color and the overrepresentation of whites.

Considering these realities, we see that what some claim to be “reverse racism” is only the beginnings of efforts to undo the overwhelming overprivileging of whites, which as driven and been driven by the exploitation of color. It is even less known to INARBers that these same factors systematically make campuses unwelcoming to candidates of color and welcoming to whites. Affirmative action encourages institutions to take such systematic racism into account in order to counter it. With this in mind, it becomes clear that INARB arguments refuse to acknowledge the qualifications of professors of color. In so doing, they suggest that professors of color are intellectually inferior to their white counterparts. Such an implication plays into an age-old white supremacist logic and, furthermore, contradicts INARBers’ stated desire for equal representation in the professoriate.

I have heard many Vassar students express anger at the proponents of INARB discourse. I feel frustration, too, especially when I recognize my own contribution to the INARB discourse. I also think that no one is simply “a racist.” We can and do act in ways that represent and perpetuate racism. And we are surrounded by and participate in systems of racism. Those of us who are white cannot escape from complicity in these systems. We also can and should act against racism. Doing so won’t make racism disappear, as the struggle is long-term, perhaps endless. Dropping the INARB discourse is a first step.

There are many ways to avoid this year’s INARB talk at Vassar, and thus constructively act against racism. Instead of rejecting anti-racist efforts out of hand, why not affirm the need for them and recommend ways to build an anti-racist movement? Why not recognize that racism intersects with other forms of oppression, including sexism and genocide, and therefore promote a broad-based effort to social justice? And in discussing hires to the faculty, if there really is interest in diversity, why not acknowledge contemporary discrimination against people of color and explore ways of combating it?

By answering these questions affirmatively, we can join each other in an anti-racist movement based on dialogue and action, not to pat ourselves on the back, but because such a movement is necessary. If not, then don’t bother saying “I’m not a racist, but...”