The Race Card and a Stacked Deck

Billy McMorris’ Oct. 3 column “The Jena Six and the Durham Three [1]” compared the story of the Jena Six to the story of the three white Duke lacrosse players who supposedly raped a black stripper, introducing the revolutionary technique of putting facts over emotions. Unfortunately, others have not followed his lead. After two men last month verbally assaulted four female minority students at D.P. Dough, Cornell University and Noyes Community Recreation Center boycotted [2] the restaurant over allegations of racism. While some may give Cornell style points for its actions, the allegations themselves do not have much substance.

First of all, only one of the two men accused of racism had any relation to D.P. Dough, and that man was just a former employee. Punishing a business for the actions of people who do not actually work there sets a highly dubious precedent.

The one employee from D.P. Dough who could be held accountable, the assistant manager who mediated the situation, has landed in hot water for simply following company policy when she overheard the four female students screaming. Now the victims claimed that the assistant manager showed favoritism to the two men (even though the co-owner of D.P. Dough stated she did not have any connection [3] to the former employee), but frankly I trust the assistant manager more. She acted in a much more calm and rational matter than the four women did. While these four women were treated discourteously by the two men, two wrongs do not make a right, and it sounds like these women simply could not control their anger. In that case, one could easily see how their emotions could overwhelm their reason and lead them to misinterpret the actions of the assistant manager.

Furthermore, the only word spoken by the two men that could be interpreted as racist is “ho.” Now in some contexts, I guess “ho” could be racist, but these men (unlike Don Imus) preceded [4] the word “ho” with “ignorant” rather than “nappy-headed.” “Ho [5]” originated in African-American usage, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, whereas “n----- [6]” originated as a word by whites to negatively describe blacks. The two words, one patently racist and the other not, are distinctly different in their origins. The use of “ho” as a racist slur is vaguely possible, but not probable.

In spite of all this information, so many have relied more on emotional appeals to stop racism than the cold, hard facts of the case. The D.P. Dough incident, which may not be that racist at all, has evolved into a huge push for more diversity and a grand pity session. One can only imagine why diversity has become such a loaded term.

Whenever I hear the word “racism,” I always listen with a healthy dose of skepticism. When I only had a vague knowledge of the racially-motivated stabbing [7] by Nathan Poffenbarger ’08, I refused to chalk it up to racism until I researched the crime further, discovering that the stabbing had been preceded by racial slurs. Granted, it was a slam dunk at that point, but I still avoided drawing conclusions until I knew the facts. I never let the threat of racism compromise my ability to think rationally.

To encourage others to engage in a similar form of practical and logical reasoning before jumping to conclusions about the motivations of crimes, I offer the reader here a brief list of logical fallacies to avoid:

• Affirming the consequent: If all trees are green, then are all green things trees? Likewise, if all racially-motivated crimes involve one person attacking a person of a different race, do all crimes against a person of a different race constitute racism?
• Unrepresentative sample: Look at Evan Baker Smith’s Oct. 4 column “Social Justice at C.U.? [8]”, where he depicts the “thriving racism” described at Ujamaa’s Unity Hour: “group of white C.U. males ... when white students ... in which two white men.” Do you see a pattern? Whites are not the only race to have committed racist acts.
• Complex cause: Also, Smith, the causes of racial inequality do not limit themselves to one race and a discussion of white privilege.
• Fallacy of exclusion: Although many whites (and non-whites) value racial unity and live by the premises of diversity, I receive the impression that Unity Hour ironically focuses more on the few who have promoted disunity, excluding many who have promoted unity.
• Illicit minor: Some Cornellians are racists, and racists have not promoted diversity enough, thus Cornell as a whole has not promoted diversity enough. Excuse me, but we are all not Nathan Poffenbargers, so stop holding Cornell accountable because of the crimes of a few.

Now I could continue on, but it comes back to a simple idea: facts over emotions, substance over style. Cornell and Noyes have listened to the latter more than the former at the expense of D.P. Dough, a reputable Ithaca business. Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong emphasized the latter in his bungled attempt to prosecute the three Duke lacrosse players. Now at this point, I should insert a third example, as groups of three make for good writing, but I’ll leave the third spot blank for now. The next time allegations of racism emerge again, just make sure it does not devolve into something which can fill that blank spot.

Mike Wacker ’10 is The Sun’s Assistant Web Editor. He can be contacted at mwacker@cornellsun.com [9].