So, last time I discussed an account of the controversy over a student newspaper running a cartoon depicting Kanye West holding "the race card" and Condoleezza Rice addressing him with a "N****, please!"
Today I want to focus on one aspect of this controversy that has been pushed to the background, the very issue of "playing the race card." I have heard this phrase a lot, especially since the O.J. Simpson trial. I have most often heard it used by non-Blacks or by conservatives of any stripe in situations where Blacks and others make an assertion that some phenomenon has racism, racial discrimination, or racial bias as a central feature.
To the persons making this claim, if I understand what is going on, folks who bring up race in some (most? all?) such circumstances are "crying wolf." They are seeing racism--all the time and where racism is actually not an issue--often in an attempt at attention-getting or deflecting from real causes of the phenomenon such as lack of personal responsibility. Somewhat like in games of cards, pulling the "race card" out and slamming it on the table of discourse is seen to be an act of rhetorical desperation, a last ditch attempt to win a hand (a losing hand) that the player cannot or will not play using accepted strategies: A blunt by-pass of the more nuanced moves of fair play.
College campuses have been one site for this "race card" claim phenomenon. What I believe is that the claim itself is becoming a form of "politically correct" speech: In other words, in my view of many of these cases the claimant is playing the "playing the race card"-card.
I've found it helpful to think of the race card claim as an anti-epithet. I was introduced to this term last year in one of J. David Velleman's posts (here) at Left2Right. He coined this term to apply to labels like "homophobe," "racist" and "anti-semite" as they have come to be popularly applied in recent years:
I call these terms anti-epithets because they impute attitudes that are themselves typically expressed with epithets -- racial and ethnic epithets, or epithets for gays and lesbians. I call them anti-epithets when they are used in the same way as the latter terms -- specifically, for the purpose of social disqualification.
Calling someone a nigger or a kike or a faggot is a way of disqualifying him from social participation and inflicting on him the emotion of disqualification, which is shame. Calling someone a racist, anti-semite, or homophobe is similarly aimed at disqualifying him. We don't listen to racists, anti-semites, and homophobes; we don't deign to argue with them; and we expect them, on being so called, to feel ashamed. (Original emphasis)
Velleman asserts that such usage goes beyind description to imply a "psychological diagnosis" of someone's attitude, or "mere psychology-as-insult."
Such is true, in my opinion, of the race-card phrase. In this case, though, a neat rhetorical feat is achieved: The claimant distances herself from actually applying a label to a person by applying it to a person's actions, thus offering the illusion that the claim (unlike, presumably, the original erroneous race-crying) is "nothing personal."
But it is personal. No one wants to be accused of "cheating." No one wants to be seen as taking "shortcuts" in the logical reasoning process, moves not based on true ability, knowledge, and intelligence. Least of all no one in higher education, the very nurturing ground (or is is a demonstration ground?) for such intellectual gamesmanship. I only have anecdotal evidence, but my hunch is that in academia folks of color (especially, but not exclusively or even automatically all...) are well aware of the possibility that they may be so accused if they bring up issues of race.
In my experience, everyday life on campus is not by any means a hot, active game of high-stakes racial rumble. However, I bet I am not the only person who has had the experience of, as someone on a discussion board so brilliantly put it, bringing up race and feeling as if I had "brought stinky cheese to a potluck lunch." That is, instead of being rebuked, debated, or otherwise engaged in conversation about what I have said, the reaction is a polite--but firm--avoidance. Too well-mannered to chide me for my poor choice of dish, my fellow lunchmates nevertheless steer clear of it.
This makes me think: Has "diversity" failed as a workable strategy in higher education? I know I just made a jump here, but bear with me for a moment. Two points:
One: At one time the focus in higher education was on affirmative action. This was a system meant to redress wrongs that occured in the past, wrongs that resulted in Blacks (and others) being effectively shut out of access to higher education.
Two: At some point, this focus on affirmative action shifted to a new framework: diversity. The old policy was aimed at assisting members and descendants of members of the wronged group. By contrast, the new policy was packaged as a way to help everybody--for instance by "preparing all students to be citizens of a diverse global community." (Look at your own university's mission statement on diversity and insert any random goal above and my point will still be made.)
Now. Also shifting have been the strategies of those opposed to policies specifically targeting minorities. Now it can be claimed that having people of color in the University, in and of itself, is not having the positive effect desired by the proponents of such actions. For example, folks are not interacting with each other or becoming more tolerant: People automatically clump in groups of other people with whom they feel comfort and like-mindedness. Or it may be that the curriculum has become so "inclusive" to be, at best, meaningless or worse, pedagogically suspect.
And of course the claim: No real conversation about anything can occur because Blacks on campus are quick to play the race card. This is insult to injury: Blacks got in the game via a shortcut (because they obviously were admitted/hired over more qualified Whites), and then once at the university they take the easy route again if they play the race card instead of painstakingly building their flush or straight or two-pairs like everyone else.
Thus (so the claim goes), Blacks "cheat" twice. And by extention, White students, faculty members, and others are disadvantaged twice.
I know I have travelled some distance from the Condi/Kanye cartoon. So let me close by turning to yet another cartoon in yet another college-serving newspaper. And to yet another IHE piece:
Minority students were outraged at the use of "ghetto" and "zoological," as well as by a cartoon that was printed (and that Imperialist editors say that they never intended to edit out). The cartoon depicts an "almost hyper sexualized, or tribal," Gordian [editor in chief] said, black woman, with bangle bracelets and a ghoulish face, pointing a finger at a young, dollish looking white girl. The caption reads: "Black student confronting a white supremacist on campus." The point, Gordian said, was "that when black students accuse a white student of being racist, that student is as helpless as a little girl."
Again, the image of Blacks being quick to play the race card. Again, the (implied) anti-epithet, disqualifying the views of a person of color--even when those views are in response to "a white supremist on campus." Again, the ensuing controversy.
Has "diversity," then, been a successful strategy at these two institutions (and by extension, at any college or university)? Maybe. The first cartoon presented two Black public figures who it was assumed (likely, correctly) would be easily recognizable to a large segment of the paper's readership. The cartoon presented an episode of inter-Black interaction that is apparently no longer private, no longer just "a Black thang," but instead "understood" by a wider demographic. With the second cartoon, the editor of the paper that published it apologizes and also offers that he is "part Puerto Rican," thus having apparently learned well the language of diversity as it relates to personal background.
But maybe the "diversity" experiment has not been so successful. Or perhaps, for many folks of color in the academy, it has been a game of bait and switch. Perhaps it is time for someone to suggest exploring a return to the affirmative action framework. Or perhaps the time is right to suggest exploration of other frameworks--but frameworks in which the main intention is head-on confrontation of race and ethnicity and racial/ethnic bias, instead of vague notions of "benefit for all."
On the other hand, it is likely that anyone making such a suggestion would be immediately accused of "playing the race card." Lest she be so branded, anyone even thinking to suggest such alternative frameworks would probably keep the idea to herself and play her hand out as dealt: Better a "house n*****" than a crybaby...
So instead of true conversation we will likely continue to see these campus explosions from time to time. We'll have these in place of true, ongoing dialog that would honestly consider and respect all viewpoints at the card table. And this is unfortunate, because--even if, a la stinky cheese, they may not smell so nice--such conversations are very necessary.
Posted by perry032 at September 26, 2005 02:11 PM