Systemic Racism Here?

Like many other members of the Columbia community, I was shocked by the response to the recent bias incidents on campus. However, my dismay did not result from the actions of the administration, but rather from those of my fellow students, some of whom have seized upon recent events and twisted their meaning to reflect an activist political agenda. Not only do I believe that this smacks of political opportunism, but more seriously, it demeans the importance of the cause—opposition to racism—that these individuals supposedly represent.

The first point that needs to be addressed is the assertion that racism at Columbia is not only pervasive, but also condoned and tacitly encouraged by the University. In his Spectator article “Not Just an Isolated Incident” (Oct. 26), Andrew Tillet-Saks listed four racist incidents—and alleged several more—that pointed to systemic bigotry within the Columbia community. He then made the assertion that Columbia was responsible for these abhorrent acts because of the racist climate created by the Core Curriculum and the administration’s insensitive response to hate crimes. Before we accept this statement at face value, we should first apply some rational scrutiny in order to determine both the scope of the problem and its causes.

Let’s begin by assuming for a moment that all four of the racist events listed by Mr. Tillet-Saks were undeniably perpetrated by members of the Columbia community, despite the lack of evidence substantiating this claim. Either way, four racist incidents since 2004 in a University of 20,000 hardly seem systemic and institutionalized.

Moreover, this doesn’t even take into account the student turnover at Columbia, which would increase the number of students (and possible bigots). Compared with hate-crime statistics for New York City as a whole, racism at Columbia is actually less common. Columbia has a rate of .02 percent hate crimes per person (assuming 4 crimes divided by 20,000 people), while the city average is .024 percent (1900 crimes between 2000 and 2004 divided by 8 million people). Additionally, one should consider that many of the crimes in the New York City statistic reflect incidents of murder and physical assault, actions that thankfully have not occurred at Columbia.

Even though racism at Columbia is less pervasive than in the city as a whole, I, like most reasonable individuals, consider any instances of racism to be too many. This is why it is important to understand the causes behind these actions. During my two years at Columbia, I have consistently heard many activists argue that racism at Columbia is the result of the cultural insensitivity of the Core, combined with the University’s “hostile” policies toward both ethnic students and academic departments. If the causes of bigotry were actually this simple, however, I doubt racism would be as troubling an issue as it truly is.

Firstly, the idea that the Eurocentricity of the Core creates bigotry is fallacious for several reasons. One of them is that the Core is not as Eurocentric as some activists would have us believe. The Core includes four classes that could be reasonably considered Eurocentric: Literature Humanities, Contemporary Civilization, Art Humanities, and Music Humanities. However, this is offset by the two Major Cultures classes and four semesters of foreign languages, which are designed to be diversity-building elements. Yet, even if we do assume for a moment that the Core is Eurocentric, how does this engender racism? Are we to allege that every bigot on this campus is a student of 4000-person Columbia College, spurred to action because of the cultural insensitivity of the Core?

This question actually leads us to the larger issue of what motivates a racist. Does someone hang a noose on a door because they feel that Columbia University’s lack of funding to the African-American studies department legitimizes their actions? Or rather, is it because of emotional and social insecurity, isolation, and most importantly, ignorance? Ultimately, when we use reason—the foundation of CC—to examine these outrageous contentions, we quickly see that they are little more than crass political moves designed more to elicit emotion than rational discourse.

The final point to consider is the University’s attitude toward racism as a whole. Columbia’s administration has been routinely attacked for its supposed intransigence in response to hate crimes. However, what exactly would be an appropriate response? Would University President Lee Bollinger’s presence at an anti-racism rally seriously make it any more effective? To assert that Lee Bollinger—the man who defended affirmative action in the Supreme Court—is not just insensitive to minority issues, but is actually a closet racist, is absurd. The administration’s actions have been motivated by the correct belief that the appropriate response to hate crimes is to allow the police to investigate, apprehend, and prosecute the offenders.

Fundamentally, Columbia University is not a racist institution. Slavery, segregation, and the Holocaust were all racist events—Manhattanville is not. Racism is a powerful charge, and just because activists need something to protest does not give them the right to make libelous accusations against their own University.

Hijacking issues and incidents by labeling them as examples of racism is a dangerous tactic. It not only limits the open discourse of our University community, but more importantly, it demeans the value of the term, so that when real racist events do occur, they don’t receive the consideration they deserve.

The author is a Columbia College sophomore.