OpenXChange: The Truth of Racial Inequality

In OpenXChange: A Call to Engage, I likened OpenXChange events to swimming pools. These pools have regular swimmers, but they certainly aren’t exclusive: “[OpenXChange] opens its swimming pools to everyone.” I did, however, lament that the pool-goers may be an insular, self-selected group: “only those who already know how to swim” — metaphor for ‘those who tend to be comfortable talking about race’ — “(or at least are eager to try) generally come.” Unfortunately, the extended metaphor went over some heads.

Titled OpenXChange: Only “Pool-Goers” Allowed, Philip Clark’s response to my piece misunderstands or intentionally misuses my extended metaphor. I read the response’s title as ‘Events: Only Attendees Allowed,’ and then scratched my head in confusion. But this “semantic quibbling” is just the beginning; the author then went on to misunderstand or to intentionally misconstrue my article’s central argument.

Clark writes:

The Stanford Political Journal’s Ruairí Arrieta-Kenna countered that the [OpenXChange] event was intended to be one-sided, a jumping-off-point or “call to action” from which to confront “white privilege” and engage in discussions on race. He argued that it was legitimate for the event to be lecture-like, since it was subtitled as a “lecture”.

This is fair. I did all of the above. But then Clark continues:

This justification clearly sidesteps [the original Review article’s]broader point: that [OpenXChange] has been framed — quite literally by name — as a place where people openly exchange viewpoints on contentious issues…The central dispute between the articles hinges on one question: assuming that [OpenXChange]’s goal is to engage people in conversation on race, did it do so in the best way possible and to the greatest number of people?

This critique displays a lack of familiarity with the stated goals of OpenXChange. OpenXChange is not “a place” for debate, and it is not “literally” framed as such. It is an initiative to engage not only people but the entire Stanford community in issues of national and global concern — such as, for example, race and the criminal justice system. Thus, the real test of OpenXChange should be: assuming that the latest event’s goal was to engage the Stanford community in conversation on race, did it do so in the best way possible and to the greatest number of people? Well, we will have to wait and see. My original article’s argument was that OpenXChange’s “ultimate success is dependent on our participation outside of these events.”

Were alternative perspectives voiced at the last event? No. But is the existence of racial inequality a contentious issue that needs to be debated? Clark writes:

Both the Journal’s response and the event itself betrayed a conflation of students’ willingness to discuss thorny issues with an acceptance of a certain framework as the basis for such dialogue. Both advanced the false equation of students’ readiness to discuss difficult topics with their acceptance of a set of “facts” upon which such discussion is premised. Dialogue is not truly dialogue — or at least will not include the people who are crucial for advancing race relations — if it is forced to occur in a preconditioned space.

This is also fair. I do conflate students’ willingness to discuss race with an acceptance of a certain framework as the basis for such dialogue. But the “certain framework,” or the “set of facts” so to speak, is really just one fact: racial inequality exists. To deny this reality is to deny that there is a problem, rendering unnecessary any discussion of solutions. But most reasonable people (liberal or conservative) do admit that racial inequality exists in the United States. At the OpenXChange event, Bryan Stevenson simply noted that acknowledgement of this truth is a necessary starting point for any progress.

Clark laments that the event was “not dialogue-driven” and later that it “reinforced a paradigm that stifles the diversity of opinions.” But there is no need for a diversity of opinions on whether or not racial inequality exists. That would be tantamount to asking for a diversity of opinions on the reality of anthropogenic global warming rather than on potential solutions (well, I guess the Review does that, too). Bryan Stevenson delivered his lecture to show that at the very least we should all agree on the existence of racial inequality in America.

Clark continues:

Insisting that a cathartic admittance of “white privilege” must be the starting point for all discussion on race is unlikely to draw in students skeptical of this interpretation of “white privilege” — yet these are precisely the students whose minds need to be changed if American society is to more fully participate in productive conversations on race…While some may be willing to converse on these terms, it is not unreasonable that others are hesitant to engage in a discussion whose underpinnings explicitly pass moral judgment on members of a particular race. Just because a number of Stanford students oppose the axiomatic assumption that white privilege is a ubiquitous, overarching evil does not mean that these individuals are uncomfortable talking about race. But insisting that they accept it as some kind of original sin will do nothing to encourage engagement.

Whoa! Things really start to get interesting when “white privilege” is invoked. I did suggest in my original article that confronting white privilege should be a starting point for productive discussion of race in America, but not in the way Clark construes white privilege — as a sin or wrongdoing. White privilege is simply a truth that must be acknowledged. If you accept that racial inequality exists (the basis for discussion of the topic), then you must also acknowledge white privilege. White people have the privilege of not being the victims of racial inequality in America. You don’t have to be a bad person in any way to have inherited white privilege; you just have to be white.

I should have been more explicit in my original article that confronting white privilege should not take an accusatory tone, for it’s not about being made to feel guilty. Clark suggests that confronting white privilege “explicitly pass[es]moral judgement on members of a particular race.” But that should not be so; no one is guilty of white privilege; white people are simply the beneficiaries of it. White privilege is not “a ubiquitous, overarching evil” or “some kind of original sin.” Again, it is just a reality.

Unfortunately, white people are generally discomforted by that reality — and understandably so. Few want to believe that they are the beneficiaries of an unjust system. However, although one may feel guilty for having white privilege, we must collectively insist that one is not guilty simply for being white. One only becomes guilty when he or she refuses to acknowledge a problem that is known to be true (racial inequality), thereby perpetuating the problem by not beginning to work against it. The denial of racial disparities — in the criminal justice system, in opportunities for social mobility, in the ways we are subconsciously perceived by society — serves only to reinforce racial injustice.

While OpenXChange is certainly not without fault, it does have the potential, despite its shortcomings, to promote further engagement. The last event was intended to encourage attendees to go out and to discuss race and white privilege in a “truthtelling” way instead of an accusatory way. Only after the problem of racial injustice is acknowledged, can we even begin to discuss the diversity of opinions on how best to address it. As for the issue of preaching to the choir (warning: this is another metaphor), well, sometimes you have to preach to the choir, especially if they’re the only ones coming to church. At least then they can spread the message to their peers who weren’t in attendance.