"Racism" and TKO

Here is my letter on the "racism" controversy that the Collegian refused to print.

For the sake of argument let us assume that the worst is true, and that the wording of Taylor Somers’ Observer article does unambiguously suggest that women and minorities are less productive than white males.

People who think the Observer printed something offensive, by the way, are entitled, and I have no wish to see them prevented from expressing their judgment. Nor did I suggest as much when I came to Somers’ and the Observer’s defense in my email to the community.

Even if we assume that the article says what some allege, where do we go from there? How do we react as individuals, and what course does the community take?

Granville reacted poorly and dangerously. He did not merely express his anger. Having interpreted the article as he did, he apparently did not hesitate to assume the worst of Somers’ imaginable motives, and to construe him and the Observer as agents of pure and deliberate bigotry. In several allstus, and in personal emails, he vented open rage against Somers’ alleged racism, and that of the Observer. His most dramatic smear, in an email to me, was to state that the Observer promotes “racist ideology,” and his public comments took an identical tone. In two word clusters that must be read several times to be believed, Granville adopts something like the language of Uncle Remus, calling Somers “massah.” In case anyone needs this insanity spelled out for them, Granville has suggested that Somers may be supportive of white supremacy or ante-bellum slavery.

Granville’s frank and unmistakable intent was to dehumanize Somers and his defenders as completely as possible, and to cause them as much injury as he might through public attacks. He has mocked anyone who sees grey area and attempts to stake out a neutral point of view. He has openly gloated that he can call whom he wants “racist” and get away with it because of free speech.

It is hard for me to understand that claim. The exercise of free speech doesn’t mean the absence of responsibility and accountability, and it is not the same as license to attack person by whom one feels slighted.

But even if Granville is correct, the practical issue of how to handle the matter needs still to be addressed so that the rest of the college can function normally. To accuse someone of racism is to say that he is a standing social and perhaps physical threat, unfit for regular society, and unworthy of regard or respect. Life in a community does not just go on after such a charge is made. If one churchgoer openly denounces another as a heretic, no one would be naïve enough to think that the congregation is unaffected, that the accuser and accused will simply sort the matter out between themselves, or that afterward the church will function regularly. Regardless of one’s love or loathing for the Observer, necessity requires some sort of public settlement.

When that happens the Observer likely will have to share a measure of accountability. Whether I or the current staff agree that Somers’ article was so deeply offensive, the Observer would do well to reconsider its boundaries and the tenor of its articles, out of both respect for the community and instinct for self-preservation.

But if the Observer needs to correct itself and apologize, it could have been asked or directed to do so without casting it and its associates totally outside the boundaries of civilized society with such venom and hatred. By their nature Granville’s menacing attacks have affected not only the Observer but the stability of the setting in which the rest of Kenyon people work and live. Granville will have to be held accountable as well, particularly since he arrogantly boasts otherwise.

Collective common sense obviously is lacking, and so it will fall to school administrators to somehow restore order. But people at Kenyon should not require such authoritative direction to avoid this sort of spectacular collapse in civility. It would be shameful if that were in fact the case.

What Election?

Observers,

I am sure most of you have joined the herd that is being guided to the voting booths by our civic-minded shepherds. But for those of you who, like me, made a conscientious decision not to vote, please join this event on Facebook: What Election? It is about time more people learned that democracy is a sham. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Voice your opinion by not voting.

Liberal Tyranny

Dear observers,

An essay from a few years back by Donald Livingston makes a point I always have in mind very nicely:

From 1900 until today, nearly four times as many people have been killed by their own governments as have been killed in all wars, foreign and domestic. This destruction would not have been possible without the unprecedented concentration of power available to modern states. Had Hitler and Stalin been 18th century monarchs, they could not have murdered millions because they would not have had the authority to mobilize the necessary resources. They would have been hedged in by powerful independent social authorities (the Church, the nobility, and provincial powers) whose authority, in their sphere, was as good as the monarchs' and who could be expected to resist. The czar, for example, from 1825 to 1905 executed an average of only 17 people a year. With the collapse of the monarchy and all independent social authorities, large-scale corporate resistance vanished, and Lenin and Stalin could murder millions.

The French Revolution gave birth to the first truly modern state. The storming of the Bastille revealed only 7 inmates, none of whom were political prisoners. The king, who was willing to become a constitutional monarch and refused to use force, was executed; the nobility, clergy, provincial authorities, and an independent judiciary were eliminated. The French republic, in the name of the ‘rights of man,' seized half a million political prisoners. Of these, 17,000 were executed with trial; 12,000 without trial; and many died in prison. The republic, for the first time in Europe, ordered universal male conscription. The armies of the great monarchies had hovered around 190,000; the French republic, overnight, placed a million men in the field. By the end of Napoleon's reign, the republic had conscripted 3 million. Other European states followed suit. As a result of European imperialism, world wars, and global capitalism, most of the world was hammered into the form of the modern state.

Universalist liberalism views the destruction carried out in the 20th century as the result of illiberal forms of government. What is overlooked is that liberalism itself first legitimated the destruction of independent social authorities, and concentrating power to the centre. The French republic was the first modern state, the first government legitimated by liberal ideology, and the first totalitarian regime.

Another essay, by Jim Kalb, helps frame the current status of liberal tyranny:

A man who arbitrarily imprisons me or confiscates my property is a tyrant. Ruling elites that destroy the social institutions and relationships that make me what I am, that attack the family and abolish gender distinctions, ethnic ties, and traditional moral standards, that drive religion out of public life and tell private associations what members to choose and why, are also tyrannical.

Best,

Evan

What about Biden?

Dear observers,

While the rest of the world works up a good froth about what a horrible disaster Sarah Palin supposedly is, I'm noticing that Biden apparently has had some moments to be humble about as well:

San Diego Union-Tribune blogger Chris Reed recalls Biden's 1988 response in Claremont, New Hampshire to a question about his law school record from a man identified only as ''Frank.'' Biden looked at his questioner and said: ''I think I have a much higher I.Q. than you do.''

Biden of course couldn't leave it at that. He is not known for his concision or care with the facts. He added that he ''went to law school on a full academic scholarship -- the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship.'' He also said that he ''ended up in the top half'' of his class and won a prize in an international moot court competition. Biden still wasn't done. In college, Biden said, he was ''the outstanding student in the political science department'' and ''graduated with three degrees from college.''

Reed then turns to Biden's subsequent statement on this exchange. At Syracuse College of Law, Biden graduated 76th in a class of 85. He acknowledged: ''I did not graduate in the top half of my class at law school and my recollection of this was inacurate.'' Just a slip of memory.

As for receiving three degrees, Biden conceded: ''I graduated from the University of Delaware with a double major in history and political science. My reference to degrees at the Claremont event was intended to refer to these majors -- I said 'three' and should have said 'two.''' His arithmetic was off.

As for his undergraduate preeminence in the political science department -- well, that was somebody else. But one of his professors thought he fit the bill. ''With regard to my being the outstanding student in the political science department,'' the statement went on, "my name was put up for that award by David Ingersoll, who is still at the University of Delaware.'' Professor Ingersoll had it right!

As for his claim that he went to school on full academic scholarship: ''My recollection is -- and I'd have to confirm this -- but I don't recall paying any money to go to law school.'' Reed cites a Newsweek report that Biden had gone to Syracuse ''on half scholarship based on financial need.'' About that moot court competition, however, Biden may have nailed it. Biden said he had won such a competition, with a partner, in Kingston, Ontario, on Dec. 12, 1967. So there.

And so on.

So why is liberal scorn reserved exclusively for Palin?

Best,

Evan