In tune with the Zeitgeist
I have to say that I find this pretty amusing. After Princeton’s President (like officials of many other colleges) wrote a letter flagellating himself and his University for systemic racism, the U.S. Department of Education has begun investigating Princeton for violating Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The charge is taking federal money for years while purporting to abide by federal nondiscrimination and equal-opportunity standards. If Princeton is indeed rife with “systemic racism” that it hasn’t addressed, then surely they have violated that agreement.
I saw items about it earlier today, and had the same ambivalent reaction.
I get why it’s a little funny, I suppose. I definitely get that it can be cringe-inducing to see presidents of ivy league universities and the like accuse their universities of systemic racism, but at the same time…should we really just assume that there is no such systemic racism? If the “we” in question means white people? Do we just know, for certain, that we recognize it when we see it and instantly leap to stamp it out, leaving the world cleaner and better?
I don’t think we do know that, and I don’t think we should assume it. We should probably also avoid narcissistic displays of self-accusation, but I don’t know that that’s what the Princeton president was doing. (I grew up in Princeton by the way. It’s very very white, and very impressed with itself, and very snooty – at least it was then. That’s Princeton the town, but most people I know who went to the university confirm that the two take their style from each other.)
The thing is, the white majority went along for decade after decade not giving a single thought to systemic racism, or any other kind, and taking the racism around them (us) for granted. The Civil Rights movement started a change in that, but is it finished? Of course it’s not. Trump has dragged us sharply backwards in some ways, with enthusiastic help from Stephen Miller and Don Junior and other assorted shits. The problem isn’t solved or over, so how likely is it that crusty old elite institutions like Princeton have shed all trace of racism? By the way it was much favored by the few [editing to add: pre-Civil War] southern boys who went north for further education – Yale and Harvard were seen as way too Yankee, while Princeton was more relaxed and forgiving…of white boys.
It’s true that I wouldn’t have any idea how to come up with concrete evidence that Princeton is systemically racist – not unless I got some social science training at least – but I don’t think that means I have to assume there absolutely is none. I think the jeering about this is a bit trumpish.
This is amusing because I don’t believe that Princeton is systemically racist, though there may be private instances of racism. And yet the University had to admit deep-seated racism to keep in tune with the Zeitgeist. By so doing, it got itself investigated. It’ll be interesting to see how Princeton plays this one, maintaining that it has a climate of systemic racism but yet doesn’t violate federal statues.
But maybe it’s not quite that simple. Maybe they’re not just “keeping in tune with the Zeitgeist.” Maybe they really do think racism isn’t over yet and therefore they shouldn’t take it for granted that there’s no trace of it at Princeton. Is that out of the question? I’m not seeing it.
Completely & utterly OT, but according to the Independent, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has just died at the age of 87.
I think the Trump DOE is trying to stifle colleges from doing any kind of introspective examination of their own systemic racism. It’s a very cheap move by the DOE.
I don’t know the federal statutes, but I might expect them to deal more with discrimination against individuals than with practices that have the effect of disparate outcomes. Sailing scholarships are not disallowed, but they mostly go to wealthy white people, for instance. And secret societies and anything dealing with “connections” tend to maintain the status quo.
Let’s find the racism and root it out. Performative self-flagellation accomplishes nothing.
This is silly.
The point of talking about “systemic racism” is that it’s the stuff that doesn’t violate anti-discrimination laws, or at least can never be shown to have done so. Princeton is just going to say “yeah, we comply with all federal laws. Our point is that isn’t enough, and we’re trying to do better than just that.” The DOJ or DOE isn’t going to yank their funding, because they’d be shot down in court.
This is stupid “gotcha” Twitter discourse being played out by actual government agencies.
Thanks, Skeletor. Way to just ignore the entire post and repeat the very thing I was questioning as if I hadn’t bothered. Four little words to do just that. It’s impressive in its way.
The irony is that there is rather clear systematic racial discrimination at elite universities such as Princeton — in favour of blacks. It’s an open secret that black students are admitted with grades below those expected of whites, and well below those expected of Asians (Harvard is even defending a law suit to continue this practice). And any complaints by black students, or on their behalf, about anything that might discomfort them, will be treated by the admin as of high import (much more so than if they were white). There are swathes of “EDI” administrators there specifically to advance the interests of people “of colour”. And in recent years being black has been a big advantage in getting faculty posts (and scholarships and talk slots, etc). In STEM there is also (these days) discrimination in favour of women, but not as much as the discrimination in favour of blacks (but against Asians).
Two things.
One: I understand you to think that programs aimed at helping undo many decades of discrimination against black people look like preferences toward black people. I disagree. Your position assumes people are all starting on an equal footing, and that is most definitely not the case. Why? Because of systemic racism. Which brings me to:
Two: Systemic racism. Institutional racism, racism embedded in institutions in ways that are often invisible. Steering people away from the “bad” neighborhoods, which ultimately are “bad” because black people live there, but that’s not explicit. Just for an easy example.
It’s not “systematic” racism, racism by some method, it’s “systemic” racism, embedded within the system or the institution. We’re only talking about the former, and Princeton is only talking about the former.
@Sackbut:
My position most definitely does not assume that we all start of an equal footing. Quite obviously we don’t; we’re all products of our birth and environment, and those are different for each of us.
And “systemic racism” is not the only cause of inequalities between groups, and, nowadays, it is likely far from the biggest cause (differences in culture, for example, likely have a larger influence).
I’m highly dubious of claims that something can be prevalent and of major importance to outcomes — but also so hard to detect that it’s invisible.
I should leave Coel alone to his fantasies and to his black and white world. ‘Systemic racism’ is not very hard to detect. The Macpherson Report certainly found it very much alive & kicking. In addition to Isabel Wilkerson’s recent book, there is the intelligent book by the British Reni Eddo-Lodge: ‘Why I’m No longer Talking to White People about Race.’ With such as Coel as around, I’m not surprised she chose that title.
Ugh. That deteriorated fast.
@Tim Harris:
… was 20 years ago and in a different country from Princeton. It’s not really that relevant to whether there is currently systemic racism at Princeton.
Got any evidence of the latter? If so, send it to the US Dept of Education.
Coel: ‘…, but that was in another country,/ And, besides, the wench is dead.’
That’s it. I leave it to others, if they wish to bother..
@Tim Harris:
You seem to be adopting an attitude along the lines of: “if systemic racism against blacks can be shown to have been present in one institution at one time in one country, then inevitably it is present in all institutions at all times in all similar countries, and we don’t need any evidence of this, we can simply make disparaging remarks about anyone who queries the claim”. How Woke.
It will be interesting to see what evidence Princeton actually produces as a result of the Dept of Education’s investigation.
Did the Macpherson Report not define a racist incident in pretty much the way that trans-activists define a woman?
Speaking up for Coel here. Racism is real. “Systemic racism” is a vague, slippery fish of a term. What does it mean here?
We can and should identify and rectify legal/institutional racism wherever we find it. And we should make sure the history of black Americans has its rightful place in American history.
Princeton’s an institution; they can do the first. It’s a place of learning; they can do the second.
What’s left for Princeton to do? I understand wanting to foster a non-racist culture, but as far as I can see, after you’ve ensured everyone’s rights (and maybe tweaked your admission/hiring practices in order to correct for economic injustices, which is open to debate but not unreasonable), you’re left with stuff that can’t be mandated, like argument and persuasion.
Alan Peakall#14 You can simply Google the report for yourself, read it, and find out for yourself.
And it was not merely a ‘racist incident’, it was the murder of a young man, and the ensuing refusal of the authorities to treat the matter in a serious way.