Racism Wears Many Masks
I came across an interesting wordpress blog today, run by an “organization” called C.A.R.D., which stands for “Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination”. At first glance, one would think they stand for something positive and progressive. However, I think this blog requires a closer examination. On the surface it appears to decry all forms of racism, no matter the background of the perpetrators or victims. It has entries that question whether or not Oprah Winfrey is racist, based on comments she apparently made on her XM radio show. It has an entry talking about a writer named Kenneth Eng who wrote an article in a San Francisco newspaper entitled “Why I Hate Blacks”. It also has an article suggesting that the law school of Howard University may be racist, based on the demographics of the student body. One could say that they are committed to exposing racism whereever it rears its ugly head. But one could also say – and I am saying – that how they present their cases against racism is extremely slanted.
In situations where the victims of racist activity are “black”, the information is presented without much – if any – context. For example, in the entry about a racist rabbi who compares people of African descent to monkeys, there is no text at all, only a video of the rabbi and his views. For a group that is against such racism, why have they posted the video, but said nothing about it, to denounce it, to debunk it, or anything? Were a website with a blatantly racist mission to post the same video in the same manner – that is, without context or discussion – it would be implicitly espousing the views of the video. So are we to assume that simply because this video is presented on a site that claims to be against discrimination, that the site is against the views presented? I wonder.
Now in the entry about Kenneth Eng’s article, they show whole listing of his views, but again without saying a word to criticize or debunk them. Again we have a situation where racist views are presented without being contextualized within the stated mission of the website. For a group that is “against discrimination”, they sure don’t appear to be fighting very hard. Yet when it comes to the case against Howard University Law School and its potential for racism, they show at least some propensity for research – listing student demographics and even snippets from the law school application.
Unfortunately, their “research” does nothing at all to support their claim. The numbers show that the Howard University Law School has a large majority of African-American students, which does not reflect the demographics of Washington D.C., where the school is located, or the rest of the United States, where African-Americans are a minority. Now how does this demonstrate that Howard Law is racist exactly? It doesn’t. All it shows is that there is a large African-American population. The blog goes on to show how the school shows a particular interest in providing for minorities, particularly African-American students, implying that this is also racist.
Do the demographics at Howard present a case for racism? Absolutely not. The reason for the African-American majority and the Euro-American minority is because of the demographics of the applicants. Most people who apply to Howard University – by far – are African-American, as it is one of the HBCUs (historically black colleges and universities). There is no exclusion of Euro-American students, merely a lack of such applicants. As for Howard’s “particular concern” for minority groups, that would be out of a desire to “level the playing field” so to speak, to ensure that minority groups are receiving quality education. Particular concern for minority groups does not imply the exclusion of Euro-Americans.
The also have an entry entitled “Is Oprah Winfrey racist?”, which is mostly just a reiteration of an article from a sensationalist entertainment tabloid website – TMZ.com. The blog entry, much like the TMZ article, takes comments made by Oprah on her XM radio show out of context, suggesting that she may be racist. Oprah’s comments – to anyone who heard the radio show – were made jokingly, pointing towards an apparent reversal of the usual power dynamic in the United States, i.e. that she – an African-American woman – is in the position of highest authority while her subbordinates are Euro-American. There is no doubt in my mind that even these employees of Oprah would come to her defense and deny any accusations of racism. And really, no one probably takes these accusations seriously, anyway. TMZ.com at least has the excuse of being an entertainment tabloid site, meaning that its credibility as a serious journalist outlet is virtually nil. Instead it writes whatever is going to garner the most attention. This much is obvious from the title of the Oprah article. But on the other hand, what are the intentions of C.A.R.D. – which presumably takes itself more seriously?
Why is it that this “C.A.R.D.” group is so considerably more rigorous in their examination of cases where African-Americans are potentially racist than in those cases where African-Americans are the objects of racism? Could it be that C.A.R.D.’s alleged platform against discrimination is merely a cover for espousing racist views (by presenting them without context or debate), while at the same time aggressively indicting any African-American person or organization whose views or policies – again out of context – appear racist? What is C.A.R.D. really about? And why are both their blog entries and their YouTube videos blocked from outside comments? Perhaps because someone like me sees through their pretense and could possibly call them on it?
But in the spirit of open-mindedness, I cannot say for sure that I know C.A.R.D.’s agenda. And if they are willing and able to defend their position against my concerns, and more importantly to better balance their content, then I am willing to withdraw my allegations. If they are unwilling or unable to do so, then what else are we to assume? No matter the outcome, what this whole thing demonstrates is how racism can wear many masks, even going as far as to conceal itself behind an image of anti-racism – such as the positions of certain people that Affirmative Action is “reverse discrimination”, as if their argument really is as much against discrimination as it is against equalizing employment opportunities for minorities. After all, these critics seem to forget that Affirmative Action provisions for equal hiring for women as well, regardless of race. So be watchful of racism wheresover it may manifest, as it so cleverly evolved as to sometimes not even be identifiable as racism at all.