The 'racist' card

In Feb. 11, 2003, IU Vice President for Student Diversity and Development Charlie Nelms published a piece in the IDS titled, "A learning opportunity is at hand." The column was written in response to the IDS' decision to publish a political cartoon satirizing affirmative action policies in higher education. Heeding Nelms' advice, I decided to commence my "learning opportunity" by reviewing some of Nelms' own public writings on the topic of affirmative action and race.\nI soon arrived at an April 19, 2001, column he authored for the IDS entitled, "Content of Horowitz advertisement harms minorities." Near the close of that column, Nelms writes, "The Horowitz ad, racial profiling, attacks on affirmative action, underachievement of urban school children, poverty and burgeoning prison populations are all part of the same equation."\nThe quote troubles me. In the column, Nelms made it quite clear that he believed some of the claims advanced in the Horowitz anti-reparations ad were "racist" and "idiotic." Certainly, those who universally condemn the concept of "racial profiling" find its practice "racist" as well. Nelms thus has lumped "attacks on affirmative action" in the "same equation" as two "racist" practices. The thought immediately springs to mind -- "well, I oppose racial preferences in higher education for many reasons, not the least of which is equal protection of law, does this make me a racist enabler for the oppression of blacks?"\nThe answer is ... of course not. While many black leaders nationwide casually disparage those whites opposed to affirmative action in higher education as "racist" or "anti-civil rights," and similarly disparage the many black leaders opposed to affirmative action as either "betraying their roots" or a "sellout," the truth is, we are neither.\nThe impact of these "racist" charges is destructive, and perhaps purposefully so. Just as the "N" word is used by true racists to demean and silence blacks, the "racist" card -- while certainly appropriately played in some contexts (I give you Trent Lott), is similarly powerful. It is a "silencer" designed to squelch opposing viewpoints immediately. It requires those who express anti-reparations or anti-racial preferences viewpoints to actively weigh the benefits of expressing their points against the detriment of being unjustly labeled a racist. \nFor one, I have no such fear. Confident in the person I am, I know I am not racist, my family knows, my friends know, my co-workers know, my classmates know, and even my casual acquaintances know. I could care less whether those who get emotionally wrapped up in race debates choose to unfairly label me instead of confronting the issues head on -- with facts, and logic. The fact is, the great majority of those of us who oppose racial preferences and reparations are equally concerned with racial progress -- although opponents say we are not. We just envision a different way of getting there -- not by handouts and preferences, but by attacking such things as the individuals who employ racist practices, by making accountable those schools who continue to fail inner-city students, by giving parents better choices about how to educate their children and by inspiring "buy-in" into the benefits of an education within poor communities.\nSo, the next time someone accuses you of being "racist" because you disagree with racial preferences or reparations, speak not with a softer, but with a louder voice. Don't waste your time trying to defend yourself by naming your black friends and describing all of the actions you have taken to assist the downtrodden, you don't have to. Instead, educate yourself about the arguments on both sides, and defend your opinions with the same confidence and vigor with which opponents express theirs.