Yesterday, I read an article written in response to the hate crime that occurred at Harvard Law School. The article was written by a student of Harvard, hence the title, "This Morning at Harvard Law School We Woke up to a Hate Crime." The piece was well-written, as it described the occurrence without bias, and related it to broader issues.
To summarize the act, Harvard has a hallway lined with portraits of every tenured professor in the history of the university. Sometime between the night of November 18th and the morning of November 19th, the portraits of black professors were defaced. A single piece of black tape was placed over the face of every black professor's portrait. The author, Michele Hall wrote, "their faces were slashed through, X-ing them out, marking them as maybe unwanted or maybe unworthy or maybe simply too antithetical to the legacy of white supremacy on which Harvard Law School has been built." She then goes on to say that the legacy of white supremacy "drips from every corner of the campus," but yet, they [black students] are not afraid.
Her words are powerful, emotional, but relatable and accurate. Because her writing had traces of her feeling personally attacked, I predicted the comments would, too, attack her. Usually, when we read pieces reporting a crime the author distances themselves and objectifies the situation. Hall did not do this, and I'm glad she didn't. As a black student at Harvard, she does have a direct connection to the crime and should be able to voice her hurt in a rational way.
After completing the article I went on to read the comments. At the time I joined in there was nothing outright inappropriate being said. A little controversy, but nothing blatantly disrespectful (I don't know about now though). As assumed, people did criticize her approach to the "crime." One person said that she shouldn't label it a hate crime until it is proved to be such, and another commentator advised her not to assume a white person committed the crime.
Another commentator, whom I am most interested in, responded to Hall's concluding remarks, "This morning at Harvard Law School we woke up to a hate crime. And what we do next will shake will supremacy at Harvard Law School to its core," with the suggestion that black students "exclusively attend Historically Black Institutions."
Although this comment was made with good intentions, I couldn't help but to find it to be one of the most damaging. I understand the call for unity and nationalism, but I can't stand by the plea for segregation. That's what we've been fighting against this whole time, isn't it? Do we really want to re-visit this notion of separate, but equal? Suggesting that we just "stick together" moves us away from victory, not closer to it.
Isolating ourselves won't solve the problem, it will just make it easier for us not to be a problem.
We must remember that racism is now more pervasive at the macro level, than at mirco level. It has become structuralized, rather than just individualized. Yes, some people are just racist, but institutions and ideologies had a strong hand in teaching them to be that way. We have to fight against the institutions, and let the change trickle down.
Also, by secluding ourselves we will only be able to appeal to advocate amongst each other. It is imperative that our conversations take place amongst a diverse group of people. We need to hear other voices, consider the advice of other people. What fruitful conversation can you have with people who all hold your same opinion? Yes, you'll move in unison, but will your methods be absolutely effective?
Like Hall said, we need to shake white supremacy to its core, that way we will have the choice to attend whatever institution we want and be valued, respected, and educated equally. Unity is not segregated, and neither should we be.
No comments:
Post a Comment