Why my department never issued a statement against racism
“Every structure of wealth, power, or education is based on a presumption of whiteness,” said the music department.
“We reject false neutrality in public policy analyses as complicit,” said the program in public policy analysis.
“We are responsible for righting history,” said the program in gender and women’s studies.
“The violence against Black bodies has to stop,” said the math department.
The genre of the institutional statement against racism flourished in June 2020. Every day (every hour, it seemed) brought new statements from Pomona’s academic departments, programs, and administrative offices. By this means, students learned that their teachers were prepared to do anything, relinquish anything, promise anything, change everything, if by doing so they could dissociate themselves from white supremacy. And each statement placed more pressure on the remainder of the faculty: we were expected to sign and publish similar but not identical statements.
Seeing the cascade of statements pour into my inbox, I knew that I would be asked to sign one of them -- soon enough. In the meantime, I was trying to convince Professor Emmanuel, my friend from Religious Studies who chaired the English department during its years of receivership, that we did not need to issue any statement, nor should we.
Emmanuel and I viewed the statements differently. Emmanuel thought the statements were not serious, so there was no cause for alarm. For my part, I was alarmed by the unseriousness of the statements.
These statements, I said, require professors to say things we do not believe, and profess knowledge we do not have. Why would a literature professor know how to solve a problem like racism, or how to govern a city? I don’t know, I said, and my job shouldn’t require me to pretend to know.
I showed Emmanuel an open letter written by the economist Glenn Loury in response to a statement issued by Christina Paxson, the president of Brown University. Loury compared the president’s statement to a loyalty oath:
I wondered why such a proclamation was necessary. Either it affirmed platitudes to which we can all subscribe, or, more menacingly, it asserted controversial and arguable positions as though they were axiomatic certainties. . . . It often presumed what remains to be established. It often elided pertinent differences between the many instances cited. It read in part like a loyalty oath.
Loury’s piece interested Emmanuel; the idea of a loyalty oath appealed to her. She could easily imagine that her education had been wholly determined by feelings of loyalty.
Maybe, she said, we all swear loyalty oaths all the time, and I am just loyal to other things, and other dead people. Aristotle, and people who were murdered by Nazis, and so on.
She even went so far as to defend saying what you don’t believe, and pretending knowledge that you don’t have.
I also have thoughts about empty speech, she said. Speech that signals rather than states. I think it’s possible that all our speech does this all the time, underneath the reasoned content. So I don’t think all signaling is bad. Sometimes you just have to say something to express empathy, no matter what you say. Like at a funeral.
Hm, I said, I don't follow. You’re talking about two different things. Personal loyalty is different from being pressured by your employer to swear a loyalty oath. The second thing is not compatible with our professional ethic of academic freedom.
These statements, I said, are unserious because the professors who sign the statements are out of their depth. And each statement is less serious than the last because they try to convince themselves of their seriousness by competing for positions more extreme than those staked out by other professors. Like, for example, this statement posted on the website of the English department at the University of Chicago:
English as a discipline has a long history of providing aesthetic rationalizations for colonization, exploitation, extraction, and anti-Blackness. Our discipline is responsible for developing hierarchies of cultural production that have contributed directly to social and systemic determinations of whose lives matter and why.
Look at this, I said, the experts in Chicago have determined exactly how much responsibility they bear for the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. They “contributed directly,” directly, forsooth!, “to social and systemic determinations of whose lives matter.” Systemic determinations! For these professors at one of the world’s premier English departments, none of whom has the faintest idea of how to do quantitative systematic analysis, to assert that there is a system that connects police brutality to the practice of literary studies in the U.S. -- at most, I would say, this is arguable. But I have never seen a version of the argument that did not commit the fallacy of begging the question.
But, I said, this was not enough! The published statement did not sound sufficiently serious to the literature professors, so they promised to accept into their PhD program only graduate students who want to study black authors.
For the 2020-2021 graduate admissions cycle, the University of Chicago English Department is accepting only applicants interested in working in and with Black Studies.
One more thing, I said. These statements insult black students and professors, who may have some interests in common, but do not necessarily think alike on all subjects, and may not wish to hear their colleagues recite the opinion thoughtlessly attributed to them as a mass.
Emmanuel was unconvinced.
I am not averse, she said, to making a statement that will reassure our black colleagues that we deplore racism. It ought to be unnecessary, but at any rate it isn’t a lie. This I regard as murmuring something, as at a funeral. And in a sense the whole nation is at this point at a funeral. So the idea of making a statement that says “we are with you,” as one does at funerals, doesn’t bother me.
But (she went on, partly agreeing with me) it does bother me that we are being pushed to change our pedagogy, or the focus of our research. I do generally think that our mission is to question everything in the name of the truth, and that is not compatible with taking a firm stand on any issue where there is reasonable doubt or disagreement.
At the end of the conversation, I apologized.
Sorry, I said, some of that was overstated. The departmental statements demoralized me. Hyperboles in the statements provoked counter-hyperboles in me -- equally reckless in the opposite direction.
Well, said Emmanuel, conversation will always involve overstatement, I think. Anyway conversation has to involve trying things out. You know me well enough to know I say things that are pretty bananas all the time, partly to amuse but mostly to see where I’m going.
This conversation took place on June 8. On the morning of June 11, I was out walking with my dog when I saw a text message from Emmanuel: “This is so bad. I’m a defender of strategic hypocrisy but this is awful.” This message was the last in a series: “+ 6 more,” my phone said.
Emmanuel: I’ve been on the phone with [Professor Edmund] and then with [Professor Philip] this morning. They think we must produce a statement.
Emmanuel: Will you sign, if it’s not too awful?
Emmanuel: I will try to make it as much like a funeral murmur and as much unlike a loyalty statement as possible.
Emmanuel: Also a thought.
Emmanuel: Maybe I can say that the department is so moved by the state of the nation that each of us will write our own statement.
Emmanuel: Or I could collect them and send all together.
Emmanuel: This is so bad. I’m a defender of strategic hypocrisy but this is awful.
Here was the pressure I had been anticipating. In retrospect, it’s clear that Emmanuel was applying pressure throughout our conversations, working on me as I was doing my best to work on her. Now I resigned myself to the fact that the English department was going to issue a statement, and it was going to be, in Emmanuel’s word, “awful.” The statement was a complete destiny. The question was, what was I going to do?
Aaron: Writing individual statements kind of appeals to me but I don’t know if it’s a good idea.
Emmanuel: I just can’t see any way out of it.
Aaron: Another possibility would be for you to have the statement signed by “English department” rather than individual faculty. But I’m not sure how I feel about that.
Emmanuel: I’m drafting something to send you. The other question is whether I can get anything at all by [Toni]. She might refuse to condone any statement that didn’t condemn the department.
I was heading south toward the park. When the dog stopped to mark a tree, I checked my phone. Then I made a decision.
Aaron: How about this: a general statement saying we support protest, condemn racism and police brutality, and celebrate the achievements of black scholars and artists including our colleagues.
Aaron: For a bonus we could add that we are hopeful that at present there is a real political opportunity to change policing in the US. We could also add that we are working with a mediator I guess.
Aaron: Sign it, “English department,” and anyone who wants to submit a different statement to the faculty email list can do so.
Emmanuel: Good!
Aaron: That would also give me some space to publish my statement later this summer if I decide to do that.
Perhaps in other episodes I have given an impression of stubbornness. In this transaction, at the first sensation of pressure, I caved. I told myself: a straightforward statement representing the sincere beliefs held in common by department faculty, without pretense, without hyperbole, without piety, without smugness, without saying more than we know. Maybe my department could set an example of sanity in organizations. (Incredible though it may seem, this is what I told myself.)
Emmanuel: Can I say that we are working with a mediator to address our own history of exclusion?
Emmanuel: That’s the kind of thing [Toni] is looking for. I want to say something, though, that cannot be construed as being about you.
Emmanuel: Working with a mediator to . . .
Emmanuel: ?
Aaron: To address issues of equity?
Emmanuel: Okay
As of June 2020, the department had been working with a mediator for one year. According to the mediator, we were still in a phase of “pre-mediation.” By this time, I understood that there was never going to be a phase of mediation. In fact, the mediator had been hired to do diversity consulting, not mediating. “To address issues of equity” was her true, unofficial mandate.
Aaron: You could ask [Toni] if she would pledge to have an audit of all English department expenses. I’d sign that pledge!
Emmanuel: Lol
Aaron: Sorry I’m being reactive again. Of course racist exclusion is part of lit[erary] history and I assume part of the history of the dept, very possibly part of [Toni]’s career too.
Emmanuel: I’ve realized that you use the word reactive when I would use the word cranky
Aaron: Yeah
Aaron: I wouldn’t describe the racism I’ve seen here as exclusion precisely. People don’t treat [Toni] like a human being. They don’t think she’s a real moral agent.
Emmanuel: You know something. The department did not get a request this spring to give money to the inner crystal temple or whatever it is. So that’s interesting.
Emmanuel: Oh. So can I say the mediator is helping us with a history of dehumanization?
Emmanuel: That’s quite strong.
Emmanuel: I have [Philip] helping with a draft. He offered.
Emmanuel: I’ve sent him something, including your ideas. Did not say they came from you, though I could.
Aaron: Interesting. Maybe the Innerlight Sanctuary was just a fad from 2018-2019.
As I recall, this entire text exchange took place while I was out walking. I felt weightless, as a traitor feels, my feet not quite striking the earth.
My route took me past Emmanuel’s house.
Aaron: Just walking through the park. Your new fence looks good!
Emmanuel: Yes! Let’s hope the city agrees to pay for it.
Emmanuel: I’ve sent something to [Toni]. I hope to hear back from her today.
Emmanuel: I’ll send you what I sent her if you like. Or we can wait to see if she accepts it or demands changes.
Aaron: Sure I’ll take a look at it.
Emmanuel: Sent.
Subject: draft statement: please let me know what you think
Dear Colleagues,
The faculty of the English department acknowledge and deplore the police murders of Black American adults and Black American children. We acknowledge and deplore the ongoing history of American antiblackness. We find hope in the protests on the streets of our cities, and express our solidarity with the protestors. There is a real political opportunity to change policing in the US.
Such opportunity can be effectively supported, and such solidarity meaningfully expressed, by institutions and departments that have transformed themselves first. The English Department has significant work to do. We continue to work with a mediator to address our own history of exclusion and inequity. We commit ourselves now to programing and curricular development that highlights American antiblackness and the way it has played out within the discipline of English and the study of literature. We commit ourselves to hiring that combats racism. We commit ourselves to listening to our colleagues to making space for the diverse views and experiences of our students. We celebrate the achievements of Black scholars and artists including our colleagues.
The English Department
I cringed when I read, “We find hope in the protests on the streets of our cities,” not because it was pretentious but because it revealed some of my own pretense. My proposal, “we support protest,” was supposed to be neutral, but it was a subtle equivocation: I tried to suggest the genuinely neutral interpretation that “we support the right to public protest,” but I didn’t entirely want to avoid the interpretation that “we find hope in the protests.” I wanted to suggest both without endorsing either one.
My position was as false as possible. I was playing a double game: I wanted to control the language of the statement, but I didn’t want to be responsible for anything stated therein. And I fervently wished to avoid putting my name on it.
A true statement of my position might say: “This official morality, which I am helping to shape, is fine for you guys, but it won’t do for me.”
I felt that I was in no position to demand revisions. Still, I kept texting with Emmanuel.
Aaron: I don’t know about the “we commit ourselves” part. The pressure to commit to altering the curriculum is alarming (although the proposal in your draft is at least not manifestly insane, unlike some other department statements).
Emmanuel: Like the RS [Religious Studies] department?
Emmanuel: Hahaha
Emmanuel: At any rate I tried to be a bit vague.
Emmanuel: We can commit to curriculum change without specifying how.
Emmanuel: I think.
Emmanuel: Let’s see what [Toni] says.
Emmanuel: [Herman] is freaking out. I did not send it to her. She’s just having a random freak out.
Aaron: But here’s the real issue. These commitments overlap with unresolved conflicts in the dept.
Aaron: “we commit to curricular development that highlights anti blackness”
Aaron: “but not in courses taught by Aaron Kunin which must not cover race”
Aaron: Oh brother
Emmanuel: They must not cover those issues. And they also must cover those issues. I’ll see if I can get that line out of there.
Later that same day, Emmanuel announced, “I guess this idea is dead.” She forwarded her correspondence with Toni.
Date: June 11, 2020 at 12:15PM
Subject: draft statement: please let me know what you think
[Toni], here’s what I have. [E]
Date: June 11, 2020, at 12:50PM
Hi [Emmanuel],
I think I see what you’re hoping to do here. And I guess I should have been more clear in stating that any statement on racism and anti-blackness from this department at this time is pure hypocrisy; it even goes so far as to represent this group as a cohesive unit which is also a lie. Now, you can post whatever you want as it isn’t up to me, but if anything goes out from “the English Department” I will denounce it and call out the evidence for denouncing it. Maybe individuals want to write, and that’s up to them. Or if you put out a “statement on racism” from this department as a unit you can write into it that “this does not include Professor [Toni] whose position is that this department has no credibility on race, antiblackness, diversity, inclusion or equity whatsoever and advised us to sit down, be humble, make concrete changes and start educating ourselves before we presume to spout empty rhetoric.”
Best regards,
[Toni]
Date: June 11, 2020 at 1:22PM
[Toni], I get this. Yes, I misunderstood. I thought that acknowledging our own failures explicitly could be a ground for saying something aspirational. But I fully see why that won’t work. As to putting out a departmental statement that didn’t include you, that’s unthinkable.
[E]
When it dawned on me that Toni had prevented the department from issuing a statement, I laughed giddily. At the same time, I could not ignore the fact that I had utterly debased myself in the past two hours. That was funny, too, although it gave my laughter a sting.
Aaron: Can we just post [Toni]’s email?
Emmanuel: See more. She is suggesting a statement from white faculty.
Aaron: I’m sorry, it’s too good, it’s too funny. I agree with roughly 75 percent of what she says: these statements are empty rhetoric, and literature professors have no credibility on these topics. This is what I’ve been saying! Why would you go to a literature professor to solve a problem like racism?
Aaron: Oh okay never mind -- she has lost me.
Emmanuel: Yep.
Aaron: You could call her bluff. But I rather like the idea of not submitting one of these statements. I do agree with her about that.
As was her habit, Toni wrote a second reply.
Date: June 11, 2020 at 1:49PM
Subject: more
The only possible English Dept public statement that expresses any actual reality or pays any respect to George Floyd and other victims of white supremacy would be, “This department has an uninterrupted tradition of racism and antiblackness. [Toni] and [Herman] kept telling us to stop it; we didn’t. Instead we treated them like a problem. We are here to own up to how racist this department is in our practices and systems, to apologize publicly, and we are just here to learn as long as you don’t make us uncomfortable.” Even then you cannot think I’m included in that statement.
[Toni]
Then a third reply.
Date: June 11, 2020 at 2:23PM
I know you have the best intentions. You are also unaware that that proposal is violent and directly disrespects George Floyd’s memory and the spirit of the protest movement his lynching mobilized. Or seriously, organize a Caucasian faculty caucus in English and let them figure out an antiracist statement on their own behalf that won’t force me to have to denounce it out if having no other way to avoid erasure and complicity. In addition it would have to say “this does not include [Toni] and [Herman]” and “we’re just stating publicly that we want to try humility for once and learn how to not be racist and we commit to read the book of the same title and discuss it amongst ourselves and then with our mediator. And when we ask our POC faculty to consult about it we plan to compensate them for their emotional and professional labor.”
Bests,
[Toni]
Date: June 11, 2020 at 2:37PM
[Toni], I’m listening and I’m learning. I don’t want to ask you to think more about this or work on it. I admire your forthrightness. You are right now nailing problems in my own approach. I just wanted to say that right away.
[E]
Most departments at my school published a statement in the summer of 2020. The English department might be the only one that did not. Or we might be one of a few, I’m not sure.
I’m proud of that fact, but I’m not proud of my part in it. My part was weak and vacillating, my hypocrisy far deeper than Emmanuel’s. I wasn’t able to resist the temptation to meddle in the process of drafting a departmental statement.
Only Toni stood on principle. I thought it was her finest moment.