By David French
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
Americans have become accustomed to student activism.
Progressive Boomer parents and grandparents fondly remember their days in the
quad, protesting the Vietnam War. My generation’s liberal activists built their
anti-apartheid shantytowns and rallied for more faculty diversity. Hollywood
and mainstream historians have whitewashed these movements, emphasizing their
idealism, overlooking their violence and oppression, and proclaiming student
protest as a virtual rite of passage for the good American citizen.
The whitewashing continues to this day. Leftist riots are
excused and often even celebrated, victim status grants moral authority —
regardless of the “victim’s” ideas or tactics — and conservative speech (no
matter how peaceful or reasoned) is deemed suspect at best and “violent” at
worst. But the whitewashing has to stop.
Campus radicals hold a shared vision that has the
potential to rip this nation to shreds. It’s a vision instigated by people with
impossible demands who combine towering self-righteousness, mental instability,
and bizarre utopianism to create a recipe for endless conflict. Indeed, their
vision is not only immune to reason, it rejects reason entirely.
The New Yorker
has published an extended piece by Nathan Heller that outlines the ideas of
Millennial progressive campus activists better than any other piece I’ve read.
It’s effective in large part because it’s sympathetic. The activists opened up
to the writer, told him their life stories, and explained their ideas. And
their ideas are startling indeed.
At the heart of much campus activism is the notion of
“intersectionality,” a theory that Heller identifies as “originating in black
feminism, that sees identity-based oppression operating in crosshatching ways.”
As Heller notes, “The theory is often used to support experiential authority,
because, well, who knows what it means to live at an intersection better than
the person there?”
When combined with “allyship” — a term that allows
privileged whites to join campus social movements, provided that they (to
paraphrase Heller) defer to the experience of the marginalized, learn from
their accounts, and aid in their struggle — the result is a movement that
combines group solidarity with an irrefutable presumption of oppression. No one
can question the demands of the ‘marginalized.’ They can only be granted, or
there is no justice.
And who has the moral authority to make these demands?
Heller profiles students such as Eosphoros, a suicidal, physically disabled
transgender man with ADHD and bipolar disorder. This is a person who labeled
microaggressions a “massive catastrophe” and singled out an incident in which a
work supervisor assumed that employees were working for “pocket money” and not
rent money.
Then there’s Jasmine Adams, a black student activist who
talked about crying and being “ready to self-harm” after allegedly hearing the
N-word. Or there’s Zakiya Acey, a man who doesn’t care about the law: “The
argument was ‘Oh, so students ask for this, but it’s not legal. . . . But it’s what I need. And it’s what this country
needs, and it’s my country. That’s the whole point.” (Emphasis added.)
In other words, the more mentally unstable the person and
the more unrealistic his demands, the more
moral authority he has. And the very act of attempting to rebut their
assertions — especially if that rebuttal comes from a white male — is an act of
oppression. To deny their demands is an act of oppression. To fail to grasp
their subjective emotional need of the moment — even when those needs aren’t
communicated — is an act of oppression.
This isn’t a philosophy, it’s a temper tantrum — but one
that is connected with a raw will to power that renders the movement
exceedingly dangerous. These “delicate” activists have proven that they can
quickly convert their hurt feelings into civil unrest, and the attempt to
impose law and order itself becomes yet another act of oppression.
When political activism is so intimately connected to
subjective, moment-by-moment psychological well-being, conflict is eternal.
There is literally nothing that anyone can do to permanently remove human pain,
especially the pain of people who are already mentally troubled. So their only
solution is to run the place, to take charge. But not even that will ease their
psychic trauma. The ascension to power will inevitably be accompanied by the
quest to root out dissent until everyone — everywhere — knows exactly what will
keep Jasmine Adams from crying.
Administrators or government officials who believe they
can control or appropriate this movement are sadly mistaken. Intersectionality
grants the most authority to the most troubled students. Allyship gives them a
ready army of angry activists. A gullible progressive media magnifies their
power. America, beware: Eosphoros cannot be appeased.
No comments:
Post a Comment