|
Published 26 November 1997 in the News & Record (Greensboro, NC)
Is Duke guilty of perpetrating double standard?
The doll "lynching" at Duke University reminded me of a similar "racist" incident at Ft. Bragg. Black Special Forces soldiers awoke one morning to find swastikas painted on their doors. The Army investigation revealed that the perpetrator of the "racist hate crime" was a black Sergeant. The Army kicked him out.
Perhaps the two black Duke students were trying to make a sincere "political statement" but were indeed too young and naive to be aware of its full meaning and impact. This is doubtful as they are bright enough to attend Duke, and it took them two days to claim responsibility for their act while watching it being "misinterpreted."
Duke administrators never considered the "lynching" to be anything less than a "racist hate crime." They were intent on finding those culpable and expelling and prosecuting them; this was entirely appropriate even if it arose from a faulty assumption. When they found that the criminals weren't (white) racists, but black students indulging in a "bit of political theater," they said, in effect, "Oh, that's different! Never mind."
Had they been white students indulging in a "bit of political theater" with no more malicious intent than to demonstrate the absurdity of some of their fellow elite students' claims of "victimhood" ... they would certainly be facing expulsion and prosecution. The media, politicians and community leaders would be pontificating about "racism on campus." And newspaper editorialists would react far less dismissively and refer to them as students who simply had missed "the mark when experimenting with symbolic speech."
James M. Wallace
Greensboro
Original unedited Letter to the Editor as submitted to the News & Record (Greensboro, NC)
To the Editor:
The doll "lynching" at Duke University reminded me of a similar "racist" incident at Ft. Bragg. Black Special Forces soldiers awoke one morning to find swastikas painted on their doors. The Army investigation revealed that the perpetrator of the "racist hate crime" was a black Sergeant. Knowing how to deal with people who incite racial animosity, the Army kicked him out of the service.
Perhaps the two black Duke students were trying to make a sincere "political statement" but were indeed too young and naive to be aware of its full meaning and impact. This is doubtful as they are bright enough to attend Duke, and it took them two days to claim responsibility for their act while watching it being "misinterpreted." It's a sad day for racism when its "victims" have to perpetrate a "racist hate crime" against themselves to gain sympathy and support.
Duke administrators never considered the "lynching" to be anything less than a "racist hate crime." They were intent on finding those culpable and expelling and prosecuting them; this was entirely appropriate even if it arose from a faulty assumption. When they found that the criminals weren't (white) racists, but black students indulging in a "bit of political theater," they said, in effect, "Oh, that's different! Never mind."
Had they been white students indulging in a "bit of political theater" with no more malicious intent than to demonstrate the absurdity of some of their fellow elite students' claims of "victimhood" by using absurdly "racist" "political symbols," they would certainly be facing expulsion and prosecution. The media, politicians, and community leaders would be pontificating about "racism on campus." And newspaper editorialists would react far less dismissively and refer to them as students who simply had missed "the mark when experimenting with symbolic speech."
James M. Wallace
| 
