It was fitting that moments after the release of House Bill 2, noted editorial writer formerly with Breitbart News, Ben Shapiro, would grace this campus. To the dismay of the UNC College Republicans, Shapiro thought to address who really has an “obsession with race.” Yet, to the surprise of many at UNC, it’s in no way, shape or form the so-called “left.” As two (of three) writers of color currently serving on the editorial board, we, among several of our peers, are critical of notions of race and gender and how they manifest as sites of controversial public discourse.
In all honesty, Shapiro is right to challenge colloquial buzzwords such as diversity, white privilege, trigger warnings, microaggressions and safe spaces. Each represents a Western view of colorblind inclusion and security that relies on large institutions to protect or carry out.
Some problematizing should happen with these terms so commonly and rhetorically deployed without considering their actual meaning. What is a “safe space” that is alienating or opposes disagreement? What is the purpose of a “trigger warning” given before a disturbing image if it is too embarrassing to leave the room? How do we misuse both of these terms when discussing sexual assault, survivorhood and mental illness? What is diversity that goes beyond nominal incorporation?
We do not blame Shapiro and the College Republicans who brought him here for revealing the gaps in commonly used social justice rhetoric. But this board is not sympathetic to the College Republican’s impudent invited guest.
We propose that the Shapiro lecture is indicative of a trend of toxic radicalism (nationalism) on the “left” and “right.”
But how dare anyone indict the radical left as well for its toxicity?
Leftist radicalism was meant to be the saving grace to unscrupulous politics of liberalism and the white savior complex. Yet this politicization has bound our activism and anger into a prison/academic/medical industrial complex without critical thinking. It’s time we named it.
Are you down for the cause? This first point is rampant within the radical activist community. Particularly, activist culture promotes a singular conceptualization of what being an activist means. Rallying to the streets, arrests and disruptions are valuable forms of activism, but they’re not the only types or always necessary. Actions are not inherently revolutionary. We cannot “radicalize” a cause by merely adopting what we perceive to be radical practices. This type of thinking inhibits our ability to think contextually and reach consensus. This type of politics can breed an ego-centered type of activism focused on performative martyrdom.
Arrest. With each passing day, our system pushes forward on the path of regressivism with the dubious appointment of Margaret Spellings or the recent passing of HB2. The demand for urgency clenches on our hearts and souls. We commend the emotional and physical resiliency that it takes to subject oneself to the criminal justice system.
