As a recent re-adopter of Yik Yak and a (not so) proud Facebook procrastinator, I, like the rest of campus, have witnessed the explosion of social media discussion of racism on campus over the last few days. In fact, I am myself contributing “yet another Op-Ed complaining about racism,” as one angry Yak put it. However, despite the onslaught of opinions that have been voiced in light of recent events, it is a discussion worth having. One of the biggest problems in this discussion, however, has been the tendency for both sides to try to limit or delegitimize the speech of others, rather than rebut or respond to it. Declaring an argument “too offensive to be had,” rather than winning it, is as unproductive as declaring that those who claim offense at the actions of Urban Congo are “butthurt,” and everyone would do well to engage in dialogue:convince the other side, don’t silence it.
I would be remiss not to acknowledge that, as someone who has never had to live under systemic race-based inequality, there is little I can substantively contribute to this discussion, compared to others who have. Yet the ease and frequency with which some members of this campus community — most of whom look like me — have dismissed legitimate claims of overt and/or structural racism in recent days embarrasses me to my core, and I feel compelled to try to counter it, if only in one short column.
This dismissal of discussions of raceis by no means universal: as with many other problems, it is likely the result of a small but loud minority. Perhaps the bright spot of Yik Yak in the past few days was when an Urban Congo performer yakked what I felt was a sincere apology to the community for irresponsible and offensive behavior. Obviously, an apology can’t undo the damage of the act that was committed in the first place, but amid a stream of Yaks complaining about people complaining about racism, it was a welcome bright spot. That said, dismissing the discussion is an unproductive response that moves us nowhere — even if the “discussion” in question is a one-sided Facebook post intended to be an echo chamber for like-minded commenters to competitively agree with each other and the original poster.
There are a lot of pedantic words I could use to critique this campus’s dismissal of racism. For instance, in dismissing people’s claims to offense, victimhood or injustice without hearing first their merits, one delegitimizes the potential for dialogue that is critical for progress to be achieved. Or I could say that the ease with which people have dismissed claims of injustice reflects the very position of ingrained, structured privilege they themselves hold. But I won’t do that. Instead, I’ll just say that I think it’s rude and goes contrary to the tenets of a classical liberal education. This is not to say that I think everyone has to agree with what’s said, but dismissing an argument rather than winning it or even contending with it is at best small-minded.
So while it may be annoying to some to “have to” read Yik Yaks or Facebook posts about racism at Princeton, it is nothing in comparison with actually having to live under a systemically racist system — at the University or elsewhere in America. In the former case, one can simply exit Facebook or Yik Yak and move on with one’s life, no longer having to think about racism or those who point out its continued existence. We can only wish that one could simply “exit” and “move on from” racism in the same way.
Our campus would be a better place if discussions of racial injustice became just that: discussions. One-sided Facebook posts aren’t real discussions. However, dismissing the substance behind them rather than grappling with it, and (dis)agreeing based on the merits of the claim, is even less a form of real discussion and treats these issues childishly. The most interesting facet of this explosion of discussion on social media was the degree to which both sides talked past each other and even advocated limiting the other side’s freedom of speech that is a bedrock of academic inquiry, rather than engage with them. If the other side is being “oversensitive,” “butthurt” or offensive, then prove your side better by responding constructively; rebut their points instead of declaring them too offensive to be spoken. The way to convince people isn’t to take away their freedom of speech, and the way to move Princeton past BuzzFeed headline articles about racism and toward a productive progression towards greater equality and acceptance isn’t to belittle your opponents or silence them — it’s to show them why they’re wrong. We would all do better, in this debate as with others, to recognize that antagonizing your opponent does nothing compared to convincing them.
Ryan Dukeman is a sophomore from Westwood, Mass. He can be reached at rdukeman@princeton.edu.
Read More
Princeton must move towards a world-changing curriculum
Luqmaan Bamba“If we in the Orange Bubble are supposed to be taught how to be changemakers, our education should not just stop at learning about change but also extend to the tangible application of it.”
“If we in the Orange Bubble are supposed to be taught how to be changemakers, our education should not just stop at learning about change but also extend to the tangible application of it.”
Statement of solidarity with Columbia University students from Princeton faculty and staff
Guest ContributorsIn an open letter, Princeton University faculty and staff express solidarity with Columbia University and Barnard College student protestors by boycotting the universities until their demands are met.
In an open letter, Princeton University faculty and staff express solidarity with Columbia University and Barnard College student protestors by boycotting the universities until their demands are met.
Princetonians want political change. Why don’t more of us take action?
Frances Brogan“Understanding that this is how activism works — collectively — can empower people to go to protests and meetings because it undermines the stereotype that being an “activist” is an undesirable individual identity and the misconception that only people with that “identity” label can contribute.”
“Understanding that this is how activism works — collectively — can empower people to go to protests and meetings because it undermines the stereotype that being an “activist” is an undesirable individual identity and the misconception that only people with that “identity” label can contribute.”
