To be a member of an
historically disadvantaged group is to be a member of a group with a contested
past, present and future. Americans
cannot stop talking about race, gender, sexual orientation and the like because we disagree on
how past discriminations affect the present, we disagree on what policies are
necessary to combat remaining discriminations, we disagree on what a future
world without discrimination would look like and we think resolutions of these disagreements vital for a just society. To be a member of an historically disadvantaged group, for these reasons, is to
be talked about and scrutinized far more than members of groups whose status on
campus and in society is far less contested.
The consequence is inevitable tensions between free speech and equality,
particular for those of us who think of ourselves as left-center, committed to
achieving a proper balance between values that are not entirely harmonious.
For persons on the moderate
left, affirmative action programs and the latest pronouncements from the
university diversity office are precisely the sort of matters that ought to be
the subject of intense public debate.
They are not truths from which we allow the stupid to dissent only because,
as John Stuart Mill suggested, responding their stupidity or bigotry keeps
those truths vital. Rather, numerous
issues of race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity and the like are matters on which
human reason has yet to resolve certain very fundamental issues. We may favor affirmative action and think
conservatives vastly underestimate the influence of past discriminations on
present statuses. Nevertheless, what
might be called the squishy left thinks that reasoning people might disagree on
issues as diverse as the use of race conscious measures in college admissions, the
explanations for wage gaps between men and women and the proper etiquette for Halloween
customs on campus. Debate over what costumes students should wear
is vital for the same reason debate over the best response to ISIS is
vital. Both are matters on which human
capacities and policies are likely to be improved through the interchange of
ideas.
Persons on the moderate left
also recognize that debating what constitutes egalitarian policies (and how, if
at all, egalitarian concerns should be balanced against other concerns)
generates new inequalities. Given the
state of contemporary knowledge, we will inevitably be talking about some
people more than others. We ask about
the status of African-Americans in the United States for more than the status
of Norwegian-Americans because throughout American history, at the present time
and for the foreseeable future, the status of African-Americans in the United
States has been, is and will be more problematic that the status of Norwegian
Americans. We talk about the rights of
Mary and Mary’s family far more than the rights of Joe and Mary’s family because
throughout American history, at the present time and for the foreseeable
future, the status of Mary and Mary’s relationship has been, is and will be more
contentious than the status of Joe and Mary’s relationship. In short, if you are a member of an
historically disadvantaged group, the conversation at a university is far more
likely to be about your rights, including your right to be a member of that
community, than anybody else’s rights, including their right to be a member of
that community. You are scrutinized for
more than your peers because your place on campus remains far more contestable
than their place. The ultimate cause of that scrutiny may be past discriminations, but its existence is also a consequence of fair dispute over the present significance of those past discriminations.