The question of whether Philip Curtin "is" a racist in the permanent
ontological sense so often used in the U.S. seems to me to be a red herring. I
agree with Paul Landau at least this far: his scholarly work shows clearly
that in his *intentions* he is not racist and is anti-racist. But as we surely
all know by now there is every difference between intentions and consequences,
especially over a long period of time. So Curtin (or any of us) might write
something which is racist or which has racist consequences without his (or our)
intending it, and without that somehow being a comment on the condition of his
or our souls. Rather it is a comment on the condition of our society, and our
places and interactions within it.
In the present context I would argue that Curtin's piece lends itself to a
fundamentally racist discourse in the society and academia at large, by sloppy
use of evidence and prose. Moreover, his self- reported advice to his graduate
students to interpret difficulties they have on the job market as resulting
from racial preferences, without substantial evidence, contributes to
tendencies to scapegoat African- American and African candidates. The result
is a racist poisoning of perceptions. We all need to take responsibility for
our words. I think Philip Curtin fell down on the job.
I would also like to object to the idea that "calling him a racist is a
technique to silence argument only." In the first place, the pieces in the
Chronicle responding to him don't call him a racist. The long one says his
*arguments* resonate with racist arguments, and imply but don't quite say that
some of his *arguments* are racist arguments. If Curtin doesn't wish to be
making racist arguments, presumably this is a claim in which he ought to be
interested. It may or may not be right, but the argument is not an ad hominem
one.
In the second place, the "technique" of saying that talking about racism "is to
silence argument only" very much resembles what it purports to oppose. The
logic is like this: no one wants to think of themselves, be thought of, or be
called a racist; therefore to call ideas racist is intimidating and silencing.
But it is equally true, in academic life particularly, that no one wants to be
thought of as a silencer, censor, opponent of free speech and thought and so
on. Therefore to say that to raise the question of racism is to "silence
argument only" is also intimidating and silencing.
Basically we're all going to have to be a bit thick-skinned here. But I for
one refuse to accept that the question of racism can be put off the agenda.
Curtin's own claim about "ghettoization" *is* a claim about racism, and an
argument against racism, as he understands it. Response about what is racist
and how to avoid it is entirely necessary and appropriate. At the same time I
would plead for a focus on consequences and not on impossible inferences about
purported motives.
We also need to think about all of this in the context of a widespread U.S.
American tendency to deny the persistence of racism. A few years ago during
protests in New York against the death of black man in a white neighborhood,
the *NY Times* published a photo showing white counter- demonstrators,
one holding a sign saying "We Are Not Racists", the one next to him
holding up a slice of watermelon. Our own best intentions aren't the
only forces shaping the meanings of our words and ideas.
Chris Lowe
<chris.lowe@reed.edu>