"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.