In a recent Wespeak, James Aisenberg articulated the reasons for being cautious when using the word “anti-Semitism.” Because anti-Semitism does present a significant threat to so many, it is important to distinguish between an anti-Zionist political view and an anti-Semitic expression or act.
The same point applies in response to Dave Scardella’s Nov. 7 Wespeak responding to Jose Chapa. Racism is very real and directly harms hundreds of people on our campus alone. Again, incorrect use of the word detracts from its power as a descriptor of an extremely harmful reality.
Here, we must separate interpersonal acts of prejudice from institutionalized or systemic racism. The set-up of our country’s educational, law enforcement, residential, economic, electoral, and health care spheres all systematically privilege white people, while discriminating against people of color.
Expressions and acts that fit into this historical pattern of institutionalized racism (i.e. acts by whites against people of color) are, indeed, racist. Centuries of history give the perpetrator a relatively privileged position, and the act must be seen in light of that history.
But not all instances of racial prejudice are racist. If white people are targeted because of their race, it may be related to intolerance or prejudice, but it should not be called racism.
Claiming that this is racism dilutes the strength of a needed word. Maybe Scardella was right that “Prejudice in your [Chapa’s] articles was directed at white students.” (Maybe.) But Chapa’s letters were not racist. In relation to the several recent racist and homophobic acts on campus, they are far from an “equally important issue” and are certainly not equally deserving of the administration’s attention.
Saying so doesn’t combat a “racism double-standard;” it falsely equalizes two things with very different backgrounds. It helps hide systemic racism and it disregards the substantial harm that racism does cause, which is both dangerous and disrespectful.
Leave a Reply