The Student News Site of Saint Louis University

The University News

The Student News Site of Saint Louis University

The University News

The Student News Site of Saint Louis University

The University News

BLOG: Anti-Racism?: A Conservative Commentary on Tim Wise

Following the grand tradition of only inviting left-leaning speakers, the GIC welcomed Tim Wise to speak on the evils of racism last week. Pegged as an “anti-racism” speaker, Wise ranted for an hour on why it is important to recognize racism for what it is and take the responsibility to stop it when it presents itself. In the words of Wise’s ideological companion, President Obama, “let me be clear,” I do not condone racism in any way and I support SLU’s efforts to solve such problems when they arise, but inviting Tim Wise to speak as an “anti-racism” speaker is not the solution. For an hour, Wise spun a narrative painting small government loving conservatives as racists and lovers of the 4th of July as ignorant.

At a school that prides itself on promoting “inclusion,” I felt, as a conservative, nothing but excluded. Using Wise’s comments as a standard of reality, I am an ignorant, racist, white person who knows nothing about the country I love.

Throughout his speech, Tim Wise’s favorite target was the Tea Party. Actually, his real target was all conservatives, but he just grouped all right-thinking people together and slapped on the label “tea partier.” Wise insinuated that all people who believe it’s time to “take our country back” are 70 years old and believe that the President was born in Kenya. Unfortunately for Mr. Wise, the “birther” rumor was started by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the demographics of the Tea Party run parallel to the demographics of the entire country. During the 2008 campaign, Phil J. Berg, a lawyer acting on behalf of Clinton, filed Berg v. Obama, in which he claimed that the current president was not eligible to take office because he is not a “natural born citizen”

(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2668306447838171173&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr). Although there are birthers in the Tea Party, the movement was started by a liberal politician as a campaign strategy and has since spread to influence minute portions of many diverse groups. Also, according to a recent Gallup poll, the Tea Party is fairly representative of America as a whole. Only 21% of the Tea Party is over 65, as compared to 20% of all U.S. adults.

Twenty-nine percent of Tea Partiers and 27% of U.S. adults are between 50 and 64. The rest of the demographical comparisons between the Tea Party and America as a whole are just as similar and can be viewed at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-partiers-fairly-mainstream-demographics.aspx. Tim Wise’s claim that the average Tea Partier is a 70-year-old white man is a stereotype, and one from which he based many of his arguments. If nothing else, Wise was certainly not the most logical speaker I have heard.

Story continues below advertisement

In addition to stereotyping a large group of people (which, by the way, is not a good example to set from an “anti-racism” speaker), Wise also used extreme quotes from two conservative commentators, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, and applied those ideas to the entire conservative movement. For Mr. Wise’s information, the comments of two men cannot be taken as representative of an entire movement.

In another illogical move, Tim Wise attacked the conservative catch phrase “we want our country back.” Any rational thinker would know that this phrase is in reference to a desire to return to small-government principles. Apparently, Wise believes that conservatives want to take our country back to a specific time. This is perhaps one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Even if conservatives wanted to “take the country back” to 1957, 1789, or any other year, it is again, in reference to the principles of the time, not the literal conditions.

I got the impression that Wise assumes people who want to “take the country back” seek a complete restoration of society from a specific year in the past. Depending on the “year,” Wise assumes that conservatives want to see the return of slavery, racial segregation, or legal inequality. Again, this is absurd. I have heard many people who share my views speak of a desire to “return” to principles of small government, but never have I heard of a yen for the return of slavery. Although, returning to principles of small government seems like a pure pursuit, according to Tim Wise, it is really a desire to oppress minorities. According to Wise, it is impossible to detach small government rhetoric from racism because “people did not have a problem with big government until minorities were given benefits.” Excuse me? If I heard Wise correctly, because I claim to be a small-government conservative, I am a racist and seek to strip minorities of any sort of legal benefit. I am not sure I see the correlation between a political view on the size of government and racism. Statements like these did a great job at making me feel excluded at Tim Wise’s speech. It was not easy to agree with someone who calls your political ideology “racist,” especially when the same person is touted as being “anti-racist.”

Perhaps the greatest complaint I had against Tim Wise was his views on patriotism and the 4th of July. According to Wise, “we love to live in the past as long as the past feels good,” and this includes celebrating Independence Day. Yes, although, there is a grain of truth in his statement, the love Americans have for our country goes much deeper, especially on the 4th of July. Patriotic Americans love the country for her triumphs and for her faults. We love the principles of limited government, freedom, and hard work that constitute the American Dream, but we also remember the scars. In this country, nothing causes an American’s heart to swell more than overcoming adversity. Think the American Revolution or 1980 Miracle on Ice. We even look to our own failures as examples of overcoming the adversity of our own faults. Although slavery was a horrific time in our nation, we feel pride in the successes of the Abolitionist and, later, Civil Rights movements, and seek to overcome any inequality that still remains. This same principle is evident literally in our Constitution. It is generally agreed that Prohibition was not the greatest idea, and; therefore, it was eventually repealed. Although the 18th Amendment is not longer in use, it is still present in the Constitution. The 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition, but it did not erase it from our memory. According to Tim Wise, patriotic Americans only respect our history because it “feels good,” but I disagree. Real patriotic Americans love our country, flaws and all. Unfortunately, Wise does not seem to agree with this position. Honestly, I sometimes got the impression that he was disgusted with the nation in which we live. Wise could not resist making a comment on one of the darkest times in our nation, 9/11 when he said that “banks have done more harm than the 9/11 attacks.” Although Wise was using this example to attack the banks in this country, it still came across as insensitive to an event which resulted in the deaths of 3000 people.

Personally, I have no preference if far-left speakers are invited to present on campus; I have the choice whether I want to attend or not. What I do have a problem with is while liberal speakers such as Tim Wise are allowed to speak; right leaning activists such as David Horowitz are specifically banned. A year ago, the administration barred conservative speaker David Horowitz from giving a speech entitled “An Evening with David Horowitz: Islamo-Fascism Awareness and Civil Rights” because they “expressed concern that the program in its current form could be viewed as attacking another faith and seeking to cause derision on campus” and requested a counter-speaker. The assertion that Horowitz would have “attacked another faith” and “caused derision” is absurd. His speech was not to be one of over-generalization like Tim Wise’s speech. Horowitz’s critiques are more focused on Islamic extremism as opposed to Muslims in general. Tim Wise, on the other hand, directed broad attacks at conservatives and tea partiers by citing very specific, extreme examples. Also, where was the Wise’s counter-speaker? Although his views are practically opposite those of Horowitz, Wise cannot certainly be described as less controversial, and thus, according to the restrictions set on his conservative counterpart, should have been given an opposing opinion to counter his statements. Not surprisingly, a conservative opinion was nowhere to be found. I am not asking for a ban on speaker with any opinions that differ from mine, nor am I asking SLU to fill a “quota” of conservative speakers. All I ask if for equal treatment for speakers of all political ideologies, and at a school that prides itself on a tough stance against prejudice and inequality, that should not be too much to ask.

View Comments (6)
Donate to The University News
$1410
$750
Contributed
Our Goal

Your donation will support the student journalists of Saint Louis University. Your contribution will help us cover our annual website hosting costs.

More to Discover
Donate to The University News
$1410
$750
Contributed
Our Goal

Comments (6)

All The University News Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • W

    Washington.IrvingDec 30, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    This is and always will be a tough issue. I think one way we can solve it is by coming to the realization that “left” and “right” are generalizations in and of themselves. Furthermore, the real danger is when these things start to become true.

    We’re lucky to live in a world in which SO. MUCH. INFORMATION. is available by barely touching a button. But we’re also unlucky in that we tend to want to form a “tribe” mentality; that is to say we click on links our like-minded-friends send us, we watch the same TV shows because they suggest we watch other, similar shows. And so forth.

    If I read “The Daily KOS” or if you read “RedState” it’s all too likely that you or I are only going to be further entrenched into a fervent political belief system totally disconnected from the real issues. It doesn’t matter, to me, what political orientation a speaker has: rather, I’m worried about the content of what he or she has to say.

    I don’t care so much if a speaker advocates one thing or another: it’s whether or not he or she encourages hatred of people who think otherwise. I was unfortunately unable to catch Tim Wise’ speech, but reading his other commentary I can see why those on the right might be offended. But the thing is: there are, sadly enough, some entrenched levels of bigotry in our society. We can argue racial/gender/class politics some other time, but you have to admit that we have not overcome our biases one way or another. I do not think that white people should feel “guilt” over slavery, but I think that we should be aware of the still painfully existent divide between people of different color skin, different religions, different socioeconomic statuses, even different genders.

    This kind of thing isn’t made any better when people on the ultra-right make claims like Horowitz’s or when people on the ultra-left act disgustingly patronizing towards minorities.

    SO WHAT CAN WE DO?

    We can act to (1) make education better (2) rebuild/cleanup our cities (3) work to reduce the gap between the nation’s highest earners and the nation’s lowest (4) encourage people to just sit down and talk to each other

    Now. I don’t know how best to do this. In an ideal world, I don’t see why corporations couldn’t step up and – in a matter of months and a few billion dollars in the right place – deal poverty and the education/achievement gap a major, major blow. I’m not convinced, sadly, that people in search of better profit margins would do this, and so I must turn to the government for help.

    I could be wrong, though!

    But why don’t we invite people who are concerned with changing and improving our nation (on all extremes!) rather than people who are concerned with yelling at people who disagree with them?

    Reply
  • A

    AmeliaDec 30, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    Read that entire article. Although I am assuming you disagree with his entire point, Horowitz was simply giving reason why he disagrees with the concept of “white guilt” and “white oppression.” The quote you referenced plays on a couple common stereotypes; it does not mean that Horowitz actually holds those views. He even explains the latter stereotype in the next paragraph.

    If we want to argue about whether or not David Horowitz is hateful or incendiary, we could go on all day. That is not the point I was trying to make. I was simply questioning why we could have several far left speakers on campus every year, and at the same time ban conservative speakers just because some people disagree with them.

    Am I correct in assuming that you only want SLU to invite moderate conservatives? The gist I am getting is that you are ok with SLU inviting liberals from all ends of the spectrum, but if a conservative says one thing that could be taken wrong, or that you disagree with, we should ban them. So what if SLU invited conservatives “who hate people who complain, who have a legitimate complaint against a system that seems poised against them?” You do not have to attend and no one is forcing the people to attend to blindly follow the speaker. I think this is the key difference in our arguments. I think that people are able to form their own opinions, even after listening to “hateful” rhetoric, and you seemingly do not share that view. I do not care if SLU invites the most radical, revolutionary leftist out there to come speak. I might be strongly opposed, but in the end, I am left with the final decision to attend the event or agree/disagree with the speaker. It sounds like you believe that people who attend speeches given by “hateful” rhetoricians are automatically taken in with their words and adopt such hateful views as their own. I think we are smarter than that. As college students, we are able to make up our own minds about what we believe and can make the choice to listen to opposing views or not. You are simply not giving people enough credit. At this point, I think we can agree to disagree. I will always think that people like Tim Wise are wrong and, at times, hateful, but I am able to sit through his speech and make my own opinions about what he said. Wise said a few things (indicated in the complete blog) that were extremely offensive to me, but I came out unscathed. Sticks and stones.

    Reply
  • W

    Washington IrvingDec 30, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    “Am I alone in seeing this as an absurd act of political desperation by the civil rights establishment? What’s next? Will Irish-Americans sue whiskey distillers, or Jews the gas company?” Mr. Horowitz himself. (http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/1999/08/16/naacp/)

    I always want to hear from people with differing views from myself. I think that books/media which include racial epithets should not be banned. This is because such language is not harmful: it is clearly (a) a relic of the past or (b) a legitimate part of the vernacular in which the book was written.

    But.

    When you use language such as Mr. Horowitz’s above (and I’m not even including the worst of it) you aren’t trying to get across an idea or encourage a debate. He is contributing to the worst kind of simple-minded bigotry, exactly the sort of thing the Tea Party gets accused of participating in.

    Invite conservatives – as many as you want! I’ll go listen to them! I can’t wait! But don’t invite “conservatives” who hate people who complain, who have a legitimate complaint against a system that seems poised against them. For instance: I’d love to hear Christopher Buckley speak, or someone like Robert Gates. Bring Huckabee back, or other people who are conservative but not reactionary, conservatives who don’t just try to be more outrageous and try to get real work done.

    Reply
  • A

    AmeliaDec 30, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    Well, to be completely fair myself, I am not sure you fully read the last paragraph of the blog. I agree with you that attacking an entire religion is detrimental to democracy, but I specifically said that Horowitz’s critiques are directed at Muslim extremists, not all Muslims. Horowitz has actually spoken extensively on promoting the rights of Muslim women. I also critiqued Wise for the same over-generalizations you directed at Horowitz. Although a political faction is different than a religion, it is not any less diverse. Wise attacked the entire Tea Party based upon the unsubstantiated “violent” and “racist” claims of a few or off the cuff statements from a single political commentator like Glenn Beck. It is not fair to the millions of people associated with the Tea Party to be called “violent” or “racist” simply because they attended a rally or two. I agree that I think it’s wonderful that debate is encouraged in a republic like ours, and; therefore, Tim Wise has every right to say what he wishes, even if I believe it is incorrect. Accordingly, you and I have every right to express our opinions, and David Horowitz should have been given the same opportunity.

    Reply
  • W

    Washington.IrvingDec 30, 2010 at 1:29 pm

    To be totally fair – Mr. Horowitz was attacking a specific religious group. Mr. Wise has an issue with a political faction. The great thing about a democracy is that this sort of thing is in fact encouraged – debate, sometimes vicious, about political parties. Attacking one religion based on perceived notions about a TINY subset of people is directly detrimental to democracy: it alienates a group of people and makes them less willing to participate.

    Reply
  • E

    EllenbNov 11, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    WOW!!! What an excellent and courageous article. You have spoken the words that most people won’t say in fear of being labled “racist”. Thank You!!!

    Reply