Spread Trading

Letters to the Editor, Part II

Date 5/3/2001 12:00 AM | Topic: Letters to the Editor

Questioning what you read

In last week's Chips, Jay McDivitt wrote about "a conversation overheard in the hallways of Koren in which a professor [said] 'In those days in Harlem, one was either a musician or a pimp.'" McDivitt labels this conversation a "racially offensive discourse" and wonders "who is it that watches out for these things? Who ensures that racial discourse is done in a responsible, anti-racist manner?"

Does anyone else find this just a little bit scary? I have no idea who made the comments McDivitt attributes to a professor, but the more I thought about the letter, the madder I got. I have never criticized a student in a Chips letter. But McDivitt's method and comments cut to the heart of what is most valuable about college, the free exchange of ideas, so I believe his letter requires a response.

Did McDivitt overhear this conversation or did he get his information second- or third-hand? Conversations normally require more than one person yet he only quotes one professor. Is it possible the professor was responding to someone who asked what the average American thought the two most prominent professions in Harlem were during the 1930s and 1940s? Or doesn't the context of a conversation mean anything? And who will decide what racial discourse is responsible and what is not? And how will such decisions be implemented? Maybe McDivitt wants Luther College to designate a team of racial discourse thought police. Will they lurk about in hallways outside classrooms and offices listening for examples of irresponsible racial discourse? When they find examples of irresponsible racial discourse, will they make the culprits attend responsible racial discourse workshops where they will learn the appropriate way to talk about race? And when we do all this, I suppose McDivitt will say that Luther College has finally demonstrated its "commitment to diversity."

But I did like one thing McDivitt wrote. He urged his readers to "question everything you hear." Skepticism is an important intellectual tool, perhaps the most important. And the surest way to kill skepticism is the kind of police state regime suggested by McDivitt's ill-conceived notions.

- Paul Gardner, professor of political science

Paideia students analyze letter

After reading Jay McDivitt's letter to the editor critiquing a faculty member's statement about the Harlem milieu that Malcolm X lived in before his prison conversion, I asked my Paideia students what they thought about it. Your readers may be interested in their responses:

1) One student pointed out that Malcolm X himself, in his Autobiography, makes extreme statements like the one McDivitt quoted in order to make the rhetorical point that America's dominant white political, social, and economic structure forced Harlem blacks to "hustle" in order to make a living (some felt that the instructor's statement could have even been a quotation from Malcolm X);

2) Though McDivitt doesn't label the instructor's statement "racist," his rhetorical questions at the letter's close imply it: "Who ensures that racial discourse is done in a responsible, anti-racist manner?" The class felt that "racist" is a problematic and counter-productive word when it is used to label everything from an ignorant or ill-advised assertion in an educational discussion to hate-talk epithets directed at particular individuals;

3) One student said that an overheard statement, taken out of its larger context in a full conversation, can easily be misconstrued unfairly; someone wondered aloud whether McDivitt had talked to the professor privately about the whole conversation before writing a public letter about it;

4) Another student remarked that it seemed scary to have someone monitoring others' statements: it's important in an educational situation to be able to make even ignorant statements without judgment, so that we can talk through our views in order to learn and grow toward tolerance and wisdom.

Though we deplore actions that perpetuate hate and dehumanize others as a group or as individuals, we would hope that "commitment to diversity" does not include policing others' private conversations or their classroom discussions.

- Carol Gilbertson, professor of English

--

[ Comment, Edit or Article Submission ]