Last week, one of my fellow columnists, Sydney Peregoy, wrote a column titled, “Breaking news: white men have egos.” I was so shocked that the DTH would publish something so blatantly racist, misandrist and humorless that I wasn’t sure how to respond at first. My conscience demands, however, that I provide a counterargument. Judging individuals by elements of their identity which are out of their control should never be considered humorous, normal or acceptable.
The piece is supposed to be funny, but hiding behind a thin veil of sarcasm lies a deeper truth about self-righteous hatred, and how every element of our lives has become politicized. According to Peregoy, even something as simple as acknowledging what (specifically) white, (specifically) male students have to say in class, we contribute to the “contagion” known as “the white male ego.”
She encourages us to, “Promote an inclusive environment by maybe shutting down the white guy for once. He may not have said anything offensive or hurtful, he may have even positively contributed to the conversation, but you have to admit that constantly promoting the white guy’s ego is not really positively contributing to anyone but that white guy.”
UNC’s policy on prohibited discrimination defines discrimination as: any unlawful distinction, preference, or detriment to an individual as compared to others that is based on an individual's Protected Status — which includes gender, sex and race — that interferes with or limits a student’s ability to participate in, access, or benefit from educational programs, services or activities. Some might argue the article simply seeks to shut down certain students to provide a more inclusive environment for everyone. This would be fine, except that this piece is specifically targeted at white male students. This is a distinction based on protected status which uses that status “as compared to others” to limit a student’s ability to participate in educational activities. This article encourages readers to engage in a cut and dry violation of the school’s policy.
But beyond the contradictions with inclusivity as taught by the University, Peregoy's argument goes against basic principles of decency.
I agree that racism against white Americans by Black Americans is less harmful than the reverse
— there are instances where the majority/minority distinction doesn’t matter, i.e., colonialism in India, South Africa, etc. I also agree that misandry is historically less harmful than misogyny. Nevertheless, these provisions don’t change the fact that grouping people by race or sex and then venting one’s resentment onto those groups is racism. It is wrong, and, worse, it encourages them to do the same. Tell people that they are "the other" and soon they will come to believe it, viewing themselves and their in-group as their tribe and those outside it as their enemy. We've seen this play out across the country, as young, white men who feel under attack on the basis of their identity quickly become radicalized and lash out in ways that aren’t always pretty.
If you think racism is always wrong, reread Sydney’s article and replace “white male” with “Black female.” If you aren’t outraged, let me suggest that there is something wrong with your worldview. I implore Peregoy and those who share the views expressed in her article to rethink their arguments. In encouraging such divisive behavior, we only continue the seemingly never-ending cycle of justified hatred and polarization plaguing our campus and the country.
