Debate

A part of Wise's book that particularly resonated with me was Wise's recount of his experience on the debate team in high school. While the terminology and references he makes to debate may have been lost on the typical reader, I found myself immediately reminiscing on my debate team days.

I was captain of the debate team in my high school and the team exclusively focused on the type of policy debate that Wise refers to. Thinking about the team I captained, everyone was white with the exception of one Indian boy. Thinking about the league my high school was a part of, I remember almost every single team being completely white with the exception of one black and a few Asian debaters.

But what makes the practice of debate such an obvious sign of white privilege is not the racial composition of participants necessarily, but the subject matter. Debaters take major world events like terrorism, food shortages, and energy initiatives and prepare an affirmative action plan along with an arsenal of research to negate any alternative plan that comes their way. However, as Wise states, teaching people to make a game out of real life situations is dangerous. Serious world issues are turned into abstractions in which debaters pull apart the details and formulate irrational cause and effect events in order to simply win the game. Debaters are only able to speak freely on the topics of poverty and economics because it is an issue that does not affect them. They can hover above from their position of power and turn policy into game. It is a privilege to have this perspective.

The debate topic I remember most clearly had to do with welfare in the United States. The affirmative plan my team had developed was one in which welfare was slowly phased out and all funds would be reallocated to government approved private charities. In practice, this plan would have disastrous and disgusting effects on society. In debate theory, this was a bullet proof plan that very few teams had evidence against and we had enough biased sources to make ourselves sound right.

What's even worse? I grew up on welfare. And the fact that my family worked itself out of poverty to the point where I now live in a nice suburb and attend a private college can be at least partially attributed to white privilege. There was a tinge of disgust in my voice when I read the ultra-conservative sources which supported our plan by describing how the welfare system is ineffective and is just taken advantage of. But at the same time, there I was, elevated by white privilege playing a game with a social issue that had even directly affected my life.

It's kind of sad to think about. I enjoyed the thrill and excitement of debate, but in the end, it's all just kind of a sad game that prepares people to go on to play the sad game of politics. Whether it's out of touch high school students making a game out of policy or out of touch politicians making a game out of policy, the clouding of perspective that white privilege offers detracts from real understanding.

The Confusion

After an admittedly stressful beginning to fall break filled with either writing papers or agonizing about writing papers, I have yet to start reading White Like Me. However, there is something I wanted to vent about before breaking into the reading...

Two years ago I was in an African American Studies course here at Ursinus that completely changed the way I viewed race. While a lot of different readings and workshops and lectures brought me to radically reconsider how I viewed the issue of race in our society, going to see Tim Wise speak at West Chester was one of the more influential encounters I had that brought me to change my opinions.

Now I don't remember much of what he said if I'm being honest (I remember thinking that he wouldn't be the kind of guy I think I could tolerate for more than an hour or two). And while his personality was mildly off-putting, seeing a white man stand up and actually acknowledge white privilege and why it was wrong in public setting was amazing. At this point, white privilege was a relatively new concept to me (well the theory itself was, I'd been living in it my whole life) thus it was legitimately powerful. As Wise spoke, all of this race talk was finally making sense and the mechanisms in our society which perpetuated a system of inequality were illuminated. I felt as though maybe I was starting to get it. Then I remember a sort of call to arms, urging anti-racists to combat the racial injustice in our society today. I was inspired, but confused... as I still am.

All of this anti-racist talk is great, but no one takes a white person (other than Tim Wise) seriously when they talk about it. White people think I'm overreacting/don't want to hear what I have to say because it would force them to face their racist tendencies. Black people think I'm another white kid who wants to get up on my liberal high horse and chant "equality" from the hilltops because it will make me "different". Am I using rash generalizations right now? Yes. But that's how I feel when it comes to vocalizing my opinions on the issue of race. I'm not sure if it's because I'm white or a female or both but no one wants to take my opinions seriously. On the same note, I'm not sure if I can even take my opinions seriously because really, what am I supposed to do about the issue of race? I care about it. I want to see things change. But this is a socially embedded problem that I can't just fix and if people only want me to shut up when I start talking about the issue, what am I supposed to do?

This is a confusing post brought to you by a confusing girl talking about a confusing issue. Hopefully White Like Me will provide some clarity.

Profiling

After reading the anecdotal introduction to Taylor's sixth chapter about racial profiling, I was immediately reminded of something my mother said. We quite typically get into controversial discussions, mostly because we both always think we're right and hold polar opposite political views. This time, when the slightest reference to racial profiling came up on the television, my mother said "Now how are you to blame a cop for pursuing minorities more often when statistically, they are more likely to be committing crimes? If I was a black man, I wouldn't be mad at the cops, but at other black men for giving me that reputation."

At that point my jaw dropped, and I couldn't immediately speak as if I had just witnessed a bomb explode. On occasion, I hear things that just seem so illogical to me that I cannot begin to explain why they are wrong. But in this case, I tried. I tried to explain how using race as a factor to judge a whole group of people is not rooted in logic and how such prejudice is the problem in our society. I tried to explain how the "statistics" she references are already skewed solely because of racial profiling, thus it can't be used to explain racial profiling. In the end, all she could really say was: "It's statistics Ashlyn, and cops have a job to do. I can't wait for this liberal phase to go away."

I was dumbfounded. But I usually am after conversations like that with my mother (who I do love dearly despite our difference in opinion). What mostly disturbed me was an unwillingness to acknowledge the problem and I find that to be the biggest hindrance in working towards racial equality in general. There absolutely is a problem, but it is constantly overlooked. People don't want to be pushed out of their comfort zone. (white) People don't want to consider a problem if it's not theirs to begin with. Why would my mother or any other white person be bothered to acknowledge the issue of racial profiling when it doesn't affect them? People who desire a more just society may push acknowledgement but people content with their status in society see no reason to rock the boat. It's sad. And unfortunate. And I don't understand it. And I don't know what I should do about it. I don't know if I would make any sort of difference. And I don't think anyone would ever take me seriously even if I tried to make a difference because I am a white female college student who is apparently going through my "liberal phase".

CIE Considerations

I was recently informed by the professor of my Philosophy of Race course that the faculty is considering adding The New Jim Crow to the curriculum for a class entitled the Common Intellectual Experience, which is mandatory for all freshman students. This book would be replacing the current section of the curriculum which discusses the Holocaust. I firmly believe that The New Jim Crow needs to be introduced into the CIE  coursework, even if it means not having a conversation about the Holocaust.

The Holocaust is a subject that many students are familiar with. Having studied it on four separate occasions in my academic career thus far, I know my experience is not unlike many others. Students come in to a conversation about the Holocaust with a great deal of base knowledge and although the CIE experience does often push students to more deeply consider the issue, it is nothing new. Talking about the Holocaust initiates discussion on genocide, humanity, and the extreme effects of prejudice. However, it is much more simple to talk about these notions when they are something of the past. In history we first make sure we are detached from the wrong doings in time and space before an open conversation is easily had.

To consider the issues found in a book such as The New Jim Crow would be hugely influential on students. Firstly, the conversation of race is not typically seen in a standard classroom setting. Vague generalizations while studying the civil rights era may be discussed, but if a student does not seek elective courses which cover the topic, is it something they will not learn about. Secondly, being confronted with the realities of racism that still exist today would cause a great impact on many students. Many people do still firmly believe that we now live in a racially just society where inequality has faded and colorblindness is the answer to all. To be blunt, more people need to wake up and any opportunity to proliferate knowledge about race relations in our society should be taken, as there are not many open platforms in which such a conversation can be easily had. Thirdly, introducing such a controversial issue to a group of freshman college students would undoubtedly spark lively debate. It would not be an easy conversation to have, but it would force them to think about their own thoughts and the status of their society. Finally, I believe that if Ursinus College is going to attempt to pride itself on its (minimal) diversity, they should strongly consider introducing subject matter into freshman curriculum that would perhaps eliminate the racial tension on this campus which clearly exists.