Recently “Dr. Laura” got herself into great trouble by using the “N” word. I really dislike Dr. Laura, in part because she shows a side of Judaism that comes frighteningly close to the arrogance I associate with the worst of Christianity and Islam .
Would her words have evoked a protest at the UW or action by the administration charged with banning offensive speech?
I hope not. After all we are supposed to be about free speech. Moreover, I think she is being misquoted. Worse, some of the comments against her approach the edge of the cliff of antisemitism. If there is anything we do not need, it is name calling.
I am posting this on the Ave because I feel the UW, despite the good intentions of most if us, remains under de facto apartheid system. While the UW has pretty strict rules against politically incorrect speech we also have vanishingly few African American faculty and do little to encourage African American students to come here except on athletic scholarships. As for the Northwest native heritage we all benefit from, the the campus might as well be in Chicago.
Here at the UW, we avoid the all too real heritage of oppressed minorities by hiding it under the blanket called “people of color.” Rather than dealing honestly with our low representation of African Americans, Native Americans and other groups who have long faced discrimination in the US, the UW “Faculty Council on Minority Affairs” is charged with oversight of people of color. Somehow there has been only one African American on the Council and, for the last two years, no one form the Northwest native culture. Of course Koreans, Chinese and folks from the subcontinent are represented, effectively suggesting that highly successful Asian-Americans, Indian-Americans, and upper class hispanics are one one side of the scales, while “whites” are on the other side. In my three years on this Council every effort to address issues that affect African Americans or Native Indians was put aside.
Back to Schlesinger, her actual words are included in this post at Huffington.
The script goes like this … A caller asked Laura for advice. Th problem, according to the caller, is that she is Black and her husband is white. The caller said he is insensitive to her feelings because he allows guests to ask question about black people, as if the wife were a representative of all African Americans, and that sometimes a conversation about Blacks goes on as if she, the wife were not there.
Schlesinger was pretty ham handed <pun>. Instead of asking usual shrink questions .. “what do you think of this?” or “have you raised the issue with hubby?,” the radio host asserted that the caller was overly sensitive. Schlesinger went on to point out that we have developed two standards for speech .. “Black” people can use the word “nigger” as a pejorative or even a word of praise. “Black” humorists on TV use that word so much that I, personally, find them boring. When a “White” person uses the N word, even with no pejorative implications, all hell breaks out.
So, as usual, Schlesinger did a pretty bad job. I do not think it is all that hard to avoid the N word, knowing that the word itself is offensive to others ought to be enough. On the other hand, I think it is absurd to argue that discuss how the N word is used by African Americans is itself a form of White bigotry.
Still, I have a problem. I am a Negri. Yep, that is my paternal last name. The name comes from Spain where it was an epithet .. literally my ancestors must have been dark skinned and the goyem called us “nigger” .. or in Spanish, “negri.” When we escaped to Italy, the darker part of the family adopted the epithet as our last name.
Can I discuss my last name in public? Did my Sephardic identity justify may appointment to the Faculty Council?
Back to Michael’s essay, why does he make so much of Dr. Schlesinger’s Jewish origins unless he is denigrating (another pun?) us? Like many liberals, Michael invokes the term “schwartze” (Yiddish for “black”) as if that was the Jewish version of nigger. I suppose Jews should only be allowed to use the term schwartze if we also call goyem (the nations) non Jews? Michael’s use of the term schwartze is offensive to me and especially offensive to my memory of my grandmother, a heroic lady whose English was largely dependent ion her knowledge of Yiddish.
Michael’s essay seems part and parcel of the way the UW deals with “people of color.” In this dialectic, Neurenberg-like system, Jews have now become “white” while Iranians, Arabs, Gypsies, Cherokee, and Hispanics .. all of whom can look as “white” as George Bush, are people of color. Does my status as a “person of color” change if I decide to revert to the Negri last name?
Although I am the father of two biracial children, I can’t say that I feel very qualified to comment since I am white (while the Welsh were overrun and belittled by the English, that was a long time ago and didn’t happen to me directly).
Thoughts: while free speech is important, it is also important to listen to different groups, particularly those with a history of being victimized or discriminated against, and honor their requests. One small way to make amends for past mistakes is to show respect and deference for current and past pain.
Sometimes it is hard to know what is acceptable or not since individuals are so different. Take our Editor and me for example. The Ave Editor associates with ‘ethnic identity’ so much that he makes certain that everyone knows he is a Jew and even goes so far as to say that he is ‘Black’ based on his last name and his understanding of history. That is his prerogative, and although I think it is unlikely that he shares any more genes than I do with say people of the Niger and probably doesn’t have ancestors who came to America as slaves, I can understand how he would naturally identify with being a Negri and accept and honor this.
Almost every time Steve introduces me to someone, he refers to the fact that I am a Buddhist. He does this as if this is something unusual or special about me, and in a friendly way. I don’t like this and would prefer to have some say as to whether I want to be immediately classified by someone based on a ‘Buddhist’ identity. This is true in spite of my blog name (perhaps a counter to the ‘Seattle Jew’ persona). I see this behavior of Steve’s as a natural projection of someone who is really ‘identity-oriented’, but it is not the way I am wired. The point is, when in doubt, it is best to ask questions or listen in order to find out what makes someone at ease, the platinum rule (not the Golden rule) is do unto others as they would have you do unto them. Some ‘people of color’ place this aspect of their identity front and center, while others do not, and would prefer to be approached in a ‘color blind’ open manner.
As far as the UW goes, in the Med School where I have seen some small positive steps to attract more ‘people of color’, this has mainly been due to people taking the effort to travel to schools and conferences in attempts to reach out to minority students and show them there is a receptive, welcoming and supportive community at the UW. We need to do more outreach and support. Each of the departments I am associated with this year have 50% minorities in the 2010 incoming graduate student classes. This took a lot of work (applaud others not me) and more work is ahead too.
Biobudhhist’s concepts reveal an underlying issue that divides us .. that issue may be the very basis of the idea of “people of color,” an idea I consider to be very wrong .. as a biologist and certainly as a believer in the ideals of Jefferson.
As biologists, I am sure BB and I agree, The term “people of color”{ is meaningless. Skin color, per se, says very little, even very little about “race.” African Americans, as they define themselves, certainly can be lighter skinned than many who call themselves “white.” Hindus, usually considered as their own ethnic group or as “Aryans” can have skin as deep brown as the handsomest people from the Congo.
Genetically, the African part of most African-Americans comes from the Bantu people who arose, I am told, in Nigeria only 20,000 years ago, while modern Australian aboriginals trace their ancestory, and skin color, to the much more ancient ‘san of South Africa.
Privilege is also not a very good marker of “people of color.” Amongst the world’s most privileged people today are the Communist Party of China leaders, the all-too-rich oil aristocrats of Arabia, and a growing coterie of recent achievers at the top of the American Corporate world, including Coca-Cola, Citi, and , of course, Orah.
The situation at the UWSoM, is far less copacetic than BB suggests. YES, we have a lot of “minorities” and cultural diversity. BUT er have disturbingly few African American faculty. “Cultural diversity” at UWSoM reflects the all to real fact that we are a world school, rather than an American school. Faculty and, for the most part students, “of color” generally either come from overseas or, if American, from our privileged classes.
I recognize that we do make the effort BB says to address this problem at UW, but all too often we “solve” this problem by recruiting people who are ll too like all of us .. upper class folk for whom skin color is not a very important dividing factor.
In response to BB, who is a good friend, let me suggest that is all too easy for any of us to deny our differences as long as we see ourselves as part of the implicit majority. BB and I, for example, come from very different roots yet we are very much part of the same tree … American, academics with a shared culture of political liberalism,a high level of education, and modest (or better) affluence.
Back at “people of color,” I detest this term because it is a dorm of hypocrisy. I ti hypocritcal to pretend that a Dravidian (south Indian people with very dark skin) Comp. Sci. Professor is in the same class as a Lummi (local coastal indigenous people) Oceanography Professor. Having either as a colleague would help me enjoy a culture of diversity, but as someone conscious of the unpaid debts of the UW, I would be especially happy to have a Lummi colleague.
I, like BB, am aware that I am advantaged by my own history and appearance. It would be hypocritical of me, an overtly European person, to pretend that I am not perceived as “white.” Actually, one reason for the SeattleJew blog is to make it clear that I do not want to be perceived that way.
So, I apologize to a dear friend if I DO think of his being Buddhist as a lot more than an anomaly. I see that attribute of his as a lot more important to me, since he has taught me a lot, then his skin color.