In his recent "Ground Up" column ("Family Matters," April 12), E. Alex Jung wrote that he was exhausted by the intolerant bullshit that he puts up with every day. I am exhausted as well. I am exhausted by repeated demands that I apologize for my race, and I am exhausted by outside assumptions that I have no standing to discuss issues of politics and social justice because I am white. It is crucial to understand that this is part of a larger debate: what are the effects of identity politics and how can we respond constructively to intolerance? Remaining silent is taking a side, but silence does not take the side of intolerance-it takes the side of those who want to vilify rather than engage; those who want finger-pointing instead of dialogue.
Jung criticizes "privileged white folk" for their efforts to represent the concerns of marginalized groups, the supposition being, "How could they know anything about us and our concerns?" The sad irony is unmistakable. Jung condemns bigotry and intolerance at the exact same moment that he disparages white people for supporting and leading minority causes. It is as if to say, "I won't tolerate your intolerance of marginalized groups, but I reserve my right to be intolerant and skeptical of white support for minority concerns." We must expose this argument for what it is-hypocritical and prejudiced.
This is indicative of a problematic vantage point that has gained significant traction on this campus. Several weeks ago, in my Contemporary Civilization class, a non-white female student said "I hate being taught my history by white men." I challenged the notion that someone should be rendered unqualified to teach a subject merely because of his race or sex. Is professor Nicholas Dirks unfit to teach about the imposition of colonial knowledge on native populations simply because he is white? This is the exact same ugly intolerance that Jung allegedly wants to weed out. When he asks, "Why do the white males talk so damn much in class," I ask in reply, "Why is such naked bigotry acceptable as long as it targets the majority?"
The problem with identity politics is that it fails to engage with the substance of argumentation. We harp on who is doing the saying instead of what is being said. This is folly. Undoubtedly, when minority leaders discuss minority issues, they often speak from personal experience and hardship. This lends their words a considerable amount of weight. But there are many people of color who did not personally experience the hardships that often come with their skin color. Moreover, there are many white people who hear the moral calling of these issues. Why do some people believe that the privileged people of color have more standing to support these issues than white people? It is this obsession with identity rather than issues that leads Jung to say that he does not care about bipartisanship because "it still just looks a lot like white men agreeing on something." If one doesn't care to listen to what the politicians say, why would one care that they came together, staked positions, and accomplished something?-hey, they're just a bunch of old white guys anyway.
Identity politics has its most deleterious effect when it begins to influence methods for engaging with intolerance. Resistance to Stop Hate on Columbia's Campus did not stem from complacence. It stemmed from discomfort with the tone and content of SHOCC's demands. The silent majority was not siding with intolerance-it was merely skeptical of SHOCC's methods for achieving its exceedingly worthy aims. As someone who is disgusted with bigotry based on race, sex, religion, and culture, I welcome the injection of these issues into the campus debate. Yet I am also certain that anti-oppression training is a grievous error. It is unconscionably offensive to teach appreciation for multiculturalism by pointing fingers at the heirs of power and privilege for their oppression. Here's another example: would SHOCC try to gather my friends of German descent separately from other cultures in order to teach the atrocities of the Holocaust?
Those who espouse identity politics and who support its encroachment on responses to intolerance believe that intolerance moves in one directional only: from traditional, oppressed minorities (blacks, gays, and women) to traditional, oppressor majorities (whites, heterosexuals, and men). What SHOCC has done is reverse that directionality and isolate the "traditional oppressors" based solely on their race, sexual orientation, and gender. SHOCC has effectively told incoming freshman that it doesn't matter what you believe; rather, what matters is that people of your race, sexual orientation, and gender historically oppressed minorities, and you need to learn how that has affected inequalities in this country. In trying to respond to campus hate based on physical characteristics and lifestyle choices, SHOCC has marginalized groups solely based on those very same characteristics.
It is my sincere belief that there are alternative avenues for addressing this problem, and I believe the silent majority of the Columbia community feels likewise. Singling out groups of "oppressors" and "oppressed" simply feeds the cycle in which we pay an inordinate amount of attention to what someone looks like instead of what they stand for. If we are going to combat hate on this campus and elsewhere, we must start to tear down preconceptions one at a time. This community is built around people who are hypersensitive to perceived intolerance. I want to build my campus community around people who spend time engaging with people from different backgrounds. I want to build my community around people who spend time listening to the ideas of others with an intent to understand them even if they will not agree. Most importantly, I want to be part of a community that knows that the only way to tear down preconceptions and bigotry is through personal engagement-showing people that their stereotypes fail to account for individuals. I think that most of Columbia stands with me and not with the purveyors of identity politics and false acceptance of others. The silent majority simply needs to make its voice heard. Might I propose a name for this alternative campaign? SEARCH: Students Engaged for an Alternative Response to Campus Hate. Let the search for a new approach begin.