Over the past few weeks, racial tensions have spurred protests on college campuses across the country. At the Claremont Colleges in California, protesters called for the resignations of both the Junior Class President and the Dean of Students of Claremont McKenna College (CMC).
The call for these resignations was entirely unjustified. The Junior Class President’s only offense was appearing in a photo alongside two other students who were dressed in stereotypical Mexican costumes for Halloween; the Dean of Students’ misstep was merely using the phrase “students who don’t fit our CMC mold,” to refer to a student who felt like she didn’t fit in at CMC.
Stay informed.Stay ahead.
Join Washington Examiner for unlimited access to the news, analysis, and commentary that matter most.
Already a member? Log in
When we initially reported on the protests in the Claremont Independent, we were criticized for stating that these small wrongdoings were what caused the protests. Protesters told us that these transgressions were merely the catalyst that triggered a response to the history of racism on campus that had been harming minority students for years. In order to publicize what they believed to be rampant racism plaguing our schools, the protesters posted flyers all over campus listing the instances of racism students had faced during their time in college.
“In October 2015, when a student posted on the CMC’s Facebook page about her experience as a low-income woman of color at CMC, her comment was made private twice,” read one sign. “Professors were reported using terms, like ‘Welfare Queen,’ which are deeply classist and racist, unironically,” stated another flyer.
It takes quite a few leaps of faith to characterize these events as racism. Did the protestors ever consider that perhaps the student’s comment was hidden from CMC’s Facebook page simply because it said unflattering things about the school and created negative publicity? Did they realize that the term ‘Welfare Queen’ can be applied to people of any race, and that the plurality of welfare recipients in America is white? While it’s possible that racism was the cause of these incidents, it certainly is not the most plausible explanation.
Nonetheless, the student protestors addressed the alleged instances of racism on campus by demanding such things as mandatory “anti-oppression training,” and the implementation of a required course in “ethnic, racial, and sexuality theory.” What the protesters don’t seem to realize is that these sorts of demands are the cause of their problems, not the solution to them.
At the Claremont Colleges, the last thing we need is more required “education” about how straight white men are born wrong and evil. Students are already taught that even well-meaning, thoughtful, and educated white people are inherently racist, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic and ableist because all white people are “privileged.” Minority students are taught to view themselves as victims, and the overwhelming PC culture on college campuses leads students to try and construe anything and everything as racist or otherwise “problematic.”
This oversensitivity toward slightly distressing comments has led to the advent of the “microaggression.” At the Claremont Colleges and nationally, microaggresions are now applied so broadly that almost anything can be deemed offensive.
We’ve seen this phenomenon play out countless times at the Claremont Colleges over the past few months: a proposed student club intended to help terminally ill hospice patients was denied because its name — the DreamCatchers Club — was considered offensive to Native American students, even though the Native Americans who lead the organization nationally were supportive of the creation of our local chapter. A party called “Mudd Goes Madd,” a reference to mad scientists, was defunded because its name was seen as offensive to students with mental illnesses. Transgender activists criticized a feminist event because it did not do enough to acknowledge that some women have penises and some men have vulvas. Anything that is even the least bit controversial is immediately demonized, and any students involved are shunned and labeled “racist,” “bigoted,” or any number of other vitriolic pejoratives.
Similarly, campus protesters ostracize anyone who says something they don’t entirely agree with, even if that person is a strong supporter of their movement and its goals. In some cases, protestors go even further than that to ensure their neither their views nor their “comfort” will be challenged: for example, following the student protests, numerous racially segregated “safe spaces” — where white students were not allowed — were created on the campuses of the Claremont Colleges. Similarly, the online description for a campus art show that took place on Dec. 5 stated, “While you may want to invite a white friend or ally, to make this a safe and comfortable space for other POC [people of color], we ask that you do not.”
Creating divisions based on students’ race rather than based on their opinions will further partition the student body. This strategy turns the problems at hand into an issue of one race versus another, despite the fact that many white students are sympathetic to the protestors’ cause, and many minority students oppose the protests. Pitting minority students against white students serves only to increase racial tensions on campus.
Ultimately, the protestors’ demise will result from the fact that their approach emphasizes creating enemies rather than building alliances. As the scope of what is considered “offensive” broadens, and as the shaming directed towards those who ruffle feathers grows wider and more severe, the movement will become too restrictive to grow and will, in time, alienate even its most fervent supporters.
