“Sexist By Virtue Of Being A Male”: Emory Professor
Under Fire For Views On Race and Gender Bias
Now you know why college grads are so screwed up. If it is not some statue about our history, it is this latest rant.
Emory Philosophy Professor George
Yancy has attracted considerable attention this week over his writings and
comments on race and his suggestions for teaching white students. Yancy is
under fire for telling his students that he believes not only in “safe spaces”
for non-white students but “dangerous spaces” for white students. It is part of
his view of “white privilege” and his effort to prompt students “to
acknowledge their inherent racism and fight actively against it.” Yancy
insists that all white people are inherently racist and all men are inherently
sexist.
Yancy has railed against the “norm”
of “whiteness” in our society. As a result, he insists that most white
students “have never had to think of themselves as different or problematic.”
The Emory Wheel reported that Yancy
maintains that “although he does not intentionally try to oppress or objectify
women, he is a sexist by virtue of being a male.” Thus, he argued that “at the
end of the day the best that I can be is an anti-sexist sexist. I fight against
sexism everyday of my life, to the best that I can.” He then extends that
analysis to his white students and argues “[t]he best that [a white person] can
become is an anti-racist racist.”
Yancy notably does little to really
explain why all men are inherently sexist any more than explaining why women
are not. Indeed, Yancy states in a 2013 op-ed that “There are others who will say, “Why
isn’t Yancy telling black people to be honest about the violence in their own
black neighborhoods?” Or, “How can Yancy say that all white people are
racists?” If you are saying these things, then you’ve already failed to listen.
I come with a gift. You’re already rejecting the gift that I have to offer.
This letter is about you. Don’t change the conversation.”
This is not an argument but simply
an accusation. The very response is simply dismissed as proof of the point of
sexism. It is both convenient and transparent. The “gift” most
academics prefer is a reasoned argument, not a series of affirmative statements
followed by a rejection of any counter argument as proof of sexism and denial.
The notion of all men as inherently
sexist and all whites as inherently racist is deeply troubling for a teacher
who is incorporating such views into his classes. That concern is then
magnified by the pedagogical effort to create “dangerous spaces” for whites.
The treatment of white students differently would not be tolerated in this way
for other students.
In his oped, Yancy rejects virtually
any beliefs or practices that would show that a white person is not a racist. Don’t tell me about how many black
friends you have. Don’t tell me that you are married to someone of color. Don’t
tell me that you voted for Obama. Don’t tell me that I’mthe racist.
Don’t tell me that you don’t see color. Don’t tell me that I’m blaming whites
for everything. To do so is to hide yet again. You may have never used the
N-word in your life, you may hate the K.K.K., but that does not mean that you
don’t harbor racism and benefit from racism.
Yancy’s view cuts off any serious
retort or response from white students beyond accepting their premise that they
are racist.
In the end, I would still defend
Yancy’s right to teach his theories with the caveat that his advocacy of
putting white students into special spaces goes not further than a pedagogical
practice in a relevant course on racism.
When Yancy speaks of creating
“dangerous spaces,” I do not take that term (as some) as meaning that he abuses
white students but tries to get them to experience what he sees as the
discomfort of non-whites in society. However, in his writings to other
professors, Yancy encourages faculty who do not teach race related courses to
“call out implicit instances of white privilege when they see them.” The
problem is how he defines such white privilege and inherent racism. We recently discussed this difficulty in the controversial
practice of “progressive stacking.”
Professor Yancy does offer
interesting insights but they tend to be more rhetorical than analytical in my
view. Indeed, his outcome determinative and conclusory form of argument
is itself a worthy subject of classroom discussion. He denounces
objectifying groups while doing precisely that with groups like men and
whites. These writings fall, in my view, considerably short of meaningful
analysis. It is certainly emotive and thought-provoking but in the end it
offers little beyond categorical statements and the “gift” of self-defining
conclusions.
