It’s not just a matter of it not being polite to say nigger in public. That’s not the measure of whether racism still exists or not.
―President Barack Obama, June 22, 2019
The civil rights movement of the 1950s and ‘60s was a form of identity politics that was passionate, effective and brilliantly strategic. The new “identity politics” is still passionate, but it has lost its way. Fortunately, this new politics has not completely taken over.
Just what is today’s new identity politics? The concept comes from radical-left academics, but you may have heard some of its jargon on the news—microaggressions, safe spaces, triggers, trigger warnings, White privilege and cultural appropriation. If you’ve paid attention, you may have also heard about intersectionality, essentialism, cisgender and queer theory. We’ll meet several of these later on, but for this chapter, microaggressions will suffice.
Colleges and universities had no identity-studies programs when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But now, if you don’t have a “studies” program dedicated to promoting your identity, you’re not even on the map.
Black Studies was the first, but to that has been added: Chicana/o (Chicanx), Mexican-American, Native-American, Asian, Critical Race, Ethnic, Feminist, Women’s, Gay and Lesbian, Gender, LBGT, Queer, Postcolonial, Cultural, Disability, (anti-) White, (anti-) Science and Fat Studies. But the most important identity politics in the U.S. still concerns Black racism.
Here’s one real-life story of how the new identity politics played out in Kansas in 2015. It’s the story of how one accidental, microscopic aggression traumatized one person and derailed another person’s life. Everyone was, as usual, “well-intentioned.”
Microaggressions in Kansas
After a town-hall meeting on racism at the University of Kansas, 10 students met for a graduate seminar with Dr. Andrea Quenette. They steered the discussion to the question of how to discuss the town-hall issues with their own undergraduate students. According to a public letter some of them published, Dr. Quenette said, “As a White woman I just never have seen the racism … It’s not like I see ‘Nigger’ spray-painted on walls…”
Gabrielle Byrd, the only Black student in attendance, told The Washington Post that she almost couldn’t believe what she’d heard. “I was incredibly shocked that the word was spoken, regardless of the context,” said Byrd. “I turned to the classmate sitting next to me and asked if this was really happening. Before I left the classroom, I was in tears.”
Byrd had suffered a microaggression. It was unintended, but in microaggression theory, that doesn’t matter. Quenette had not used the n-word as a slur but had, in fact, implied that its use against a person or group would be completely unacceptable. Twenty years earlier, her statement would have been seen as anti-racist, which was her intention.
But don’t blame Gabrielle Byrd. Her behavior was the result of “microaggression theory,” which is now taught at most major colleges and universities in the U.S.
Back to the Freedom Riders
Now compare Byrd’s reaction to the incredible mental toughness and bravery of the first Freedom Riders. Many of them were students no older than Byrd. They had received training in nonviolent direct action—how to withstand deliberate, violent levels of aggression, not just barely detectable microaggressions or micro-nonaggressions.
Instead of being taught that even an unintended slight could do them great psychological harm, they were taught how to withstand intense personal, physical violence. They knew how to expose it and win against it. And they did.
Had the Blacks and Whites of the civil rights movement been brainwashed by the academics now pushing microaggression phobia, there could not have been a civil rights movement.
Some Microaggressions Are Real
Microaggressions—minor slights, slurs, and insults—certainly happen to all of us, and they can be damaging. Moreover, racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination often include the systematic use of such small insults, and this is a problem that should be openly addressed. Even unintended slights should be understood and avoided.
This is nothing new. Back in 1970, as I was training to teach junior high school in a part of California where half my students would be Mexican American, I was shown a training film that helped us understand cultural differences and avoid accidentally hurting each other’s feelings. The instructor in the film was Mexican American, and nearly 50 years later, I still remember his warmth and humor. He made me want to be like him. Outrage would have had the opposite effect.
Microaggression Dogma
The problem with microaggression theory is the “theory” part. This so-called theory predicted that saying “America is the land of opportunity” might be more damaging than a hate crime. Actual research, however, revealed that 93% of Blacks and 89% of Latinos were not offended by “the land of opportunity.” Quite likely no one saw it as more damaging than a hate crime. Microaggression theory consists of four dogmas:
- Intent does not matter even if the “perpetrator” is intending a compliment.
- Microaggressions can be more harmful than “hate crimes by the Klan” (according to its leading proponent).
- If the recipient feels hurt, almost any level of retaliation short of physical assault is justified (and in a few cases, even that).
- People should be treated as members of their identity group, not as individuals.
With this in mind, let’s return to the incident in Kansas.
Back to Kansas
Recall that the Quenette incident was preceded by a town-hall meeting on racism. In a report that was entirely sympathetic to the KU students, Slate.com noted that at the meeting, students complained that faculty members had insulted them. Slate gave only two examples. The faculty had been caught “complimenting them for being (1) well-spoken and (2) intelligent.” You read that right.
The idea is that the professors had secretly been thinking, Hey, you’re intelligent like everyone else, even though you’re Black. So the compliment part—“you’re intelligent”—meant nothing, and the professor was only sending the invisible message, Blacks aren’t intelligent.
So what’s a professor to do? There are only two ways to avoid this microaggression—only compliment Whites but never students of color. Or never compliment any students. Neither outcome of this “theory” is acceptable.
I’m not saying Whites never compliment Blacks sarcastically or out of racism. Sometimes they do, and that’s abhorrent. What I’m saying is: Don’t apply microaggression dogma #1. It does matter whether the speaker is a sarcastic racist or simply someone doing their damnedest to improve race relations but not getting it exactly right according to the latest identity fad. Treating one like the other is just going to make things worse.
I don’t want to blame the students. This mode of thinking—that the speaker doesn’t matter, only the listener’s interpretation—didn’t start with people of color. It was developed and introduced as “deconstructionism” in America’s top universities beginning in 1968 by Jacques Derrida, a French philosopher who ironically was a highly privileged White male. I’ll get to him later.
Martha and the N-Word
Martha Stewart said the n-word. Yes, that Martha Stewart, who you may not realize has been co-hosting Martha & Snoop’s Potluck Dinner Party since 2016. Yes, that Snoop—rapper and Rastafarian Snoop Dogg. So a couple of years after Dr. Quenette said the n-word, Martha and Snoop were taping a show with bubble-gum rapper and teen idol Lil Yachty when the production hit a snag. They didn’t have clearance to show Yachty’s album cover. The Doggfather, according to Fader.com, “appropriately referred to Yachty’s album cover as ‘this nigga’s shit.’” It was then that Martha leaned over and asked, “Yachty, does it upset you when Snoop says ‘nigga shit?’”
According to the Los Angeles Times, “The room filled with every imaginable reaction: anger, horror, embarrassment, laughter, joy, pain.” Throughout the exchange, Martha did not seem to understand what the big deal was. Yachty’s reaction? A huge smile.
No one person could agree with all the contradictory reactions in that room, but those reactions have one good thing in common. Not only was Martha not severely punished, she was not punished at all. I’m not saying she didn’t make a mistake. I’m saying we shouldn’t punish people for honest mistakes—mistakes made with no ill intention, an intention that we ourselves would not condemn.
Unfortunately, that’s probably not the reason Martha got off scot-free. She basically owns that show. And besides, most rappers are in a pretty poor position from which to criticize the use of the n-word.
Kansas Again
Andrea Quenette was essentially powerless. Her students were able to force her to take an unwanted immediate leave of absence and forced the university to try her in administrative hearings. After five months, she was found innocent. Despite that, and despite being backed by her department, Quenette was fired, although with a built-in, one-year delay.
This is a good example of the part of the dogma that argues that if the recipient feels hurt, almost any level of retaliation is justified. The students saw Quenette’s slip as justification for immediate termination of her career. Saying the n-word was their primary complaint, and the only one they backed up with evidence.
I must emphasize that this is what is being taught at many colleges and universities. As usual, everyone has “good intentions.” They are trying to end our greatest and most enduring political evil—racism. My point is simply that this approach is counterproductive. It makes the problem worse. And it hurts a lot of innocent people in the process.
Once More, Only Crazier
At a high school in the very “woke” Madison, Wisconsin school district, on October 9, 2019, Marlon Anderson, a Black security assistant, was asked to help the assistant principal escort a student from the school grounds. The student was yelling and pushing the principal and began calling Anderson the n-word. At first, Anderson asked him to stop, but without using that word. When the student continued, Anderson said, “Don’t call me nigger.”
The school administration thought this over for a week and then fired Anderson, who had worked for the school for 11 years. They were so brainwashed by postmodern thinking that after a whole week, the lot of them could not figure out the most obvious moral problem. The Madison School District explained that “racial slurs will not be tolerated … no matter what the circumstances … no matter the intent.” Note dogma #1 above—intent doesn’t matter.
Had the school district administrators known English, or perhaps tried using a dictionary, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble. A slur is “an insulting or disparaging remark.” Anderson did not make an insulting remark. He did not slur the troublemaker and did not use a racial slur against him. Saying “he’s a bastard” is a slur. Saying “Don’t call me a bastard” is not. Anderson didn’t use or make a slur. It’s that simple.
The students quickly realized their administrators had taken leave of their senses, and two days later, 1,500 students and staff walked out on strike, led by Anderson’s son, president of the Black Student Union. Three days later, Anderson’s firing was rescinded and two weeks after that he was back at work.
Conclusion
Nonviolent direct action, as implemented by leaders like Diane Nash, Martin Luther King Jr., and John Lewis, massively changed White attitudes for the better and produced reforms so fundamental that reversing them today would likely cause another civil war. (Of course, we still have a long way to go.)
The techniques used then were the exact opposite of those used in today’s new “identity politics.” So are the results.
Ripped Apart
