It is fully possible to be sexist and racist towards a white male. To build this case, let’s establish some semantics. When speaking about racism, I am a believer in a colloquial, individualistic definition of racism that racism is treating someone differently, and usually negatively, on the basis of their race. By this I mean that I view larger entities being comprised of individual actors that are employing individual actions. As Ayn Rand once astutely stated, “racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism”. I do not believe skin color should be the lens through which individuals view other individuals, and the ultimate goal I have is racial equality. This makes the sweeping generalizations stated by Leda Fisher that white men are “unqualified to speak, ill-informed, uncritical, spout only narratives of dominant ideologies, and debate the pain of others for fun and then take away their rights” abhorrent and racist to me, as she is denigrating an entire population on Dickinson’s campus strictly based on their skin color and gender identity. 

On the other hand, her article rests on the existence of white privilege, which arguably is inherently racist as it is arranged to depict white men as superior no matter their individual circumstance solely on their skin tone in a bid to illicit guilt for past injustices the vast majority of living people in the US have had nothing to do with. This compounding of degrading generalizations and unqualified assumption of white privilege is collectivist in thought, and only serves to prop up a different form of prejudice as it falsely traps white people into appearing morally unable to speak on race relations. The white man is somehow caught between being constantly generalized, demonized, and belittled, all the while he is somehow still elevated at the top of this constructed hierarchy. This is a convenience for prejudiced minority group members and “allies” because it narrates the white speaker as being somehow wrong no matter where they turn if they find themselves in disagreement with a minority group member on a controversial topic. With white people unable to properly and fairly contribute to discussions on race or race relations, it merely permits the opinions of white people to be instantly discredited, all because of their lack of melanin.

Students have made the argument that Leda is just stating that white men’s comment on race, feminism, LGBTQ rights, et cetera, should not hold the same weight as people of color or these minority groups when discussing lived experience. If her scope truly ended here I would agree, as any outsider comments inherently do not hold the same weight as an individual who has lived through certain experiences. 

Unfortunately, this is not the case in Leda’s piece. Leda broadens the scope of her statements by stating white men should not even be able to speak on the merits of capitalism- the most dominant and long-lived economic structure of the modern world. At the end of her article she states bluntly that the “opinions” of white boys in general should not be heard. It implies that they should be silenced all because they happen to be white and male. Trying to silence people based on skin color and gender identity is something unequivocally wrong. We should all be free speech absolutists- the problem lies nowhere in Leda’s article being written or published. All opinions should be heard and debated. In hearing vocalizations as numbingly small-minded as Leda’s piece, we can begin to recognize genuinely good ideas. However, we should never censure on basis of disagreement. Leda has provided a racist, blanket condemnation of my potential future sons, my little brother, and my father solely on account of their race- and that is a disgrace. 

I, just like you spent our college career at Dickinson as well. In class discussion after class discussion, conservative white men actually get heard way less because of how they are constantly demonized as racists and misogynists because they’re white and male- scaring them into silence. Opinions and ideologies like Leda’s get elevated, they’re trendy, and supported by most students and staff in the Dickinson bubble, which is the scope I am concerned with here. 

Those who say it’s impossible to be racist to white people- you most likely believe in a collectivist view of the term racism in which corporations, the government, et cetera are not a conglomeration of individuals acting individually, but are monolithic entities. This ideology finds roots in liberal academia and Marxism and within the writing of Patricia Bidol-Pavda in 1970, post-Civil Rights Movement. This view and definition of racism states that racism is the equation of prejudice and power. There are several philosophical flaws in this view which we should expand on, and also in the hopes we can glean that neither definition is necessarily factually correct, but that both are valid in different ways. This collectivist view is much less persuasive and much more divisive. A collectivist definition of racism maintains that nobody can be racist if they are not a part of the dominant group no matter how prejudiced they are- hence all the people decrying “minority groups can’t be racist towards white people”. Individuals holding this viewpoint even often ascertain that racial prejudice can be considered “anti-racist” if they believe their racial prejudice is “bringing down” a dominant groups power. To these people, since the US political system was founded by white males who were complicit in slavery and other atrocities, then they must be the only ones who can be racist because they are the only group with any power. 

Under the Prejudice + Power equation and ideology, minority groups are empowered and encouraged to recruit prejudiced people and leverage prejudice without bounds against a group with perceived power. Members of the minority group can even be emboldened to force members of the dominant group to be prejudicial against themselves by threatening to label them as an “oppressor” should they do otherwise. This vein of thought is wildly hazardous because if it is applied genuinely and fairly, it means that anti-Semitic views would be completely appropriate and acceptable in Israel, unlike they would be in the US or other countries, since Jewish individuals are a “power group” in Israel. 

Let’s assume the collectivist definition and ideology were effective. If this plan of action does work to dismantle power structures, do all the former “non-racist” yet prejudiced people suddenly become racist once they gain power? How do we measure power? How much power does it take to become a power group? The entire design of this ideology quickly falls apart when one critically analyzes it.

Going off of this, the level of any glimmer of analysis in Leda’s piece seems to halt at the accepted yet unqualified dichotomy of oppressor vs. oppressed. What she deeply fails to recognize is that black people do not all have the same political philosophies, affiliations, or personal experiences just as she fails to recognize the same for white men. Dickinson can do better.

When it comes to listening- I listened long and hard, over and over, for three straight years. This “white chick” has listened- even through death threats and my personal property vandalized I have listened- and I just don’t agree. I can say so, and guess what? That’s okay.