Forcing Hate Out Into the Open

As our campus observes a Day Out Against Hate, much energy will be spent decrying the recent acts of prejudice on campus. But has anyone asked what this event will actually accomplish? I fear that as we go out against hate, hate will not meet us, but will continue to lie low. This day is one more example of well-meaning student and administrative leaders preaching to the choir. If we want to actually fight intolerance, we must use our heads, update our tactics, and, above all, acknowledge what we are up against.

In the e-mail announcing the Day Out Against Hate, University President Lee Bollinger referred to the “unspeakable acts of prejudice” of recent weeks. Unspeakable? The acts are terrible and disturbing, but it is vitally important we speak about them frankly. Otherwise, we give the perpetrators terrific incentive for continuing to cause campus-wide fear. More importantly, what will happen if petty vandalism progresses into real violence? The way we speak about these incidents gives the impression that the problem is the acts of vandalism themselves, not the thoughts and feelings behind them. But if the racist element of our campus were present and silent, would we really be better off?

The chant coming from the crowd that gathered after the worst of the incidents was “Not on our campus!” To me, this translates to, “Go ahead and be racist, but don’t let me hear about it.” The outrage does not come from concern that the incidents will turn into more serious crimes, but from disquiet at suddenly being brought face-to-face with an intolerant segment of our community. No one wants to look at the truth: there are people here who honestly believe that different means inferior. And so everyone’s efforts focus on eliminating the public expression of hatred, so that this unpleasantness will just stay hidden.

The general response to the incidents of vandalism is based on the assumption that these incidents threaten our community. By themselves, they do not threaten us, provided we make it clear that the targeted groups are welcome on our campus, and that prejudice is the exception, not the rule. Initiatives like Day Out Against Hate do a good job of this, but they do not, as they claim, address the larger problem of intolerance.

Do you really want to take a stand against hatred? Then the first thing to realize is that vandalism is merely a symptom that allows us to diagnose the larger problem. Next, realize that our tactics have to change now that we are in the majority. A peaceful public demonstration works great when trying to change national policy or raise awareness of widespread persecution. But we are no longer dealing with institutionalized racism—we are dealing with a few thugs. Odd as it sounds, we have to put ourselves in the place of someone who would commit prejudiced vandalism and ask how the response is impacting him or her.

That is why it is so misguided to focus on the acts of intolerance rather than on the beliefs behind them. If we manage to put a stop to public displays of bigotry, the feelings of hatred will not go away—they will tunnel underground to the privacy of homes where a new generation of racists can be born. But if instead of cracking down we allow expressions of intolerance and then confront them with strength and resolve, everyone will see the perpetrators for the cowards they are, including potential sympathizers with their message.

For this reason, I propose we give these people an opportunity to express themselves in free, open discussion. If I were in President Bollinger’s position, I would promise not to punish whoever hung the noose on the Teacher’s College office door, on the condition that he or she come forward and participate in a public debate about racism. Of course no one would accept, but then such people could not say their views are unwelcome, and their chosen method of communication would become even more cowardly.

I question the goal of our Day Out Against Hate. If it aims to eliminate acts of intolerant vandalism, this can only be accomplished with a police state. If, as is suggested by such liberal use of the word “hate,” the goal is to confront the people who committed these crimes, should we not have given them a special invitation? As it is, we are trying to take a stand against hate without even involving the people who expressed the hate to begin with. No matter how many times we state our values and claim that the entire community holds to them, we are not going to make it true. Thus, I do not see what this day will accomplish, besides reassuring those who do not want to face the uncomfortable truth. Intolerance and hatred are alive and well in our community, and banishing them to the shadows gives them fuel for growth. Our only chance at actually making progress against this hatred (which is the only way to protect ourselves in the long run from incidents of prejudice) is to force it into the open and let it burn itself out.