INSULTS shouldn't play an integral role in the political discourse of a respected academic community. Sure, debate is most relevant when it involves passion on behalf of its participants, but a person always loses intellectual credibility when he or she resorts to the use of personal attacks on his or her opponents. Only among kindergartners does name-calling qualify as an effective method of argument. Sadly, a large portion of the University's population has forgotten this rule as of late.
The nexus of debate at the University in the previous month has been the Individual Rights Coalition and its petition against a potential mandatory online diversity exercise for students. While a large number of University students have proudly aligned themselves with the IRC's cause, a vocal group of those in favor of the diversity exercise have publicly challenged the IRC's efforts. Many of these individuals in the latter category have taken the low road in voicing their opinion, shirking issues-based debate in favor of simply accusing the IRC of being "racist."
According to an IRC representative, several profanity-laden messages have been sent to the IRC's Web site containing accusations of racism. This comes in addition to several instances in which disgruntled individuals have verbally assaulted IRC members at the group's Lawn table, going so far as to compare the IRC's goals to those of racist Southerners who supported slavery. On Sept. 22, "Think of the Children," a comic in The Cavalier Daily, parodied the IRC's acronym by referring to the organization as the "Increasing Racism Club." Childish insults like these are outright deceiving and completely inappropriate for the world of legitimate political debate.
Spouting out the word racist to the IRC serves simply to detract from addressing the actual pros and cons of the diversity issue. In her best-selling book "Slander," Ann Coulter describes the insult as a "tactic of refusing to engage ideas." Such a method must not become commonplace at the University, where all ideas should be evaluated according to their merits. When insults are thrown heavily into the mix, intelligent discussion inevitably drifts away from a true analysis of the problem and turns into a shouting match. No one wants to see political disputes turn into games of "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Once a group successfully attaches the racist label to a set of policies in the public mind, that group can exploit the collective public guilt over past racial injustice to achieve its purposes. Racism is one of the most universally hated values in today's culture, and few would risk seriously examining the merits of an idea that had been popularly defined as "racist." Most likely, the enlightened University population will see through this attempt to equate the IRC's platform with racism. However, such attempts to do so are still founded in a desire to manipulate public opinion without regard to the specifics of the issues at hand.
The crowd in favor of the diversity exercise runs the risk of undermining its own argument when it relies so heavily on calling the other side racist in order to make itself heard. By focusing extensively on portraying a group like the IRC as racist, the initiative's supporters waive their chance to make valid points of their own. Any political interest whose representatives fail to imbue their claims with real substance will gain few converts if their initial attempts to win with the word racist are unsuccessful.
Everyone who uses the term racist in reference to the IRC disrespects those persons who have felt the effects of real racism in their lives. The opposition of the online diversity initiative on ideological grounds is not akin to the physical violence or verbal harassment suffered by countless minorities throughout American history. Excessive inappropriate use of the word dilutes its meaning and makes it harder for society to identify racism when it actually occurs. Racism is a terribly destructive phenomenon, and its name should never be invoked as a shortcut for making a personal political statement.
With its recent protest, the Individual Rights Coalition has introduced a thought-provoking set of ideas to the University community. Those in disagreement with these ideas deserve to have a voice, but the public deserves to hear that disagreement expressed in the form of real debate, not reduced down to a simple, single-word insult.
(Chris Kiser is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 2 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
