Facts, Feelings, and Fairness

Dr. Paul Mueller, an assistant professor of economics at The King’s College in Manhattan, wrote an Op-Ed addressing other articles published from this past year. || Headshot courtesy of The King’s College

The opinions reflected in this OpEd are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of staff, faculty and students of The King's College.

How can we live well together in our common enterprise at The King’s College? By cultivating Christian community in charity and forgiveness. How certain conversations around race and racism among members of the King’s community have played out over the past few months should give us all cause for concern. Ideas, and the words used to convey them, have far-reaching consequences - and we have yet to see all the consequences of our current conversation for our community.

Let me be clear. It is never wrong to speak the truth in love. Racism is sinful and should be unequivocally rejected. The experiences, perspectives, and yes, feelings, of everyone in our community matter. I don’t criticize our minority students asking for respect or asking that we try to understand their background and appreciate their perspectives. I don’t mind students asking tough questions about the legacy of slavery or Jim Crow, or about current issues that disproportionately affect minority communities like overcriminalization, mass incarceration, occupational licensing, rent control, or civil asset forfeiture. I applaud our minority students for their willingness to persevere in an environment that feels foreign or at times even hostile. And I commend their willingness to call out acts of racism as sinful and contrary to the principles of Christianity and the college.

However, charity requires that we all refrain from over-generalizations regarding racism in the King’s community. And justice requires that we not impugn the character of others, either by insinuation or misrepresentation. Unfortunately, there are examples of both in Trivette Knowles’ open letter that have yet to be corrected publicly. While Knowles’ letter voiced the frustration and disappointment many minority students in our community feel, he gravely mischaracterized multiple interactions with faculty and disparaged some of my colleagues unjustly, while casting the entire institution in an unfair light.

One example I want to highlight is that while suggesting that he was “berated” by a professor for “an unprofessional outfit of a cardigan and khaki pants,” he fails to mention that the cardigan was complementing a white tee, not a collared shirt, which violated the dress code. Much worse, he claims a faculty member “presupposed that my attire reflected my low income and unprompted placed $50 before me for clothes.” This is not true. He had talked with that professor about his difficult social and financial circumstances. Upon hearing this, the professor kindly offered some financial help. Knowles accepted the offer and expressed gratitude, at least over email.

There are some valid concerns in the letter. But levelling the charge of racism where there isn’t any and distorting certain facts to the point of deception is the wrong way of pursuing reconciliation and peace. What we say matters and can damage reputations, fairly or unfairly. We should be careful to only speak the truth about others - and to do so in love. The Bible tells us that “Love is patient and kind,” it keeps no record of wrongs. 

An example of over-generalization and lack of carefulness can be seen when Knowles argues that: “Students of color are forced to study and accept leaders who devalued us in every meaningful way.” In every meaningful way? Who, one wonders, is he talking about? Ronald Reagan? I won’t explain how this caricatures Reagan because others have already done so.

But where does this general charge of racism lead? When will we know when we have moved beyond “tokenism” at The King’s College? Well, when we have changed the content of what we teach – when we have “actual diversity within our curriculum, incoming students, and full-time faculty.” I am concerned about how specific instances of racism have quickly led to uncritical condemnation of people, policies, ideas, and history. Consider how Sha Sanders writes in the EST that there are “political ideologies” that “are rooted in the oppression of my existence” or that are “in contrast to the call of Christ” and “discredits the existence of minorities down to mere statistics” held or voiced by faculty members.

What does this mean? How are we to decide if political ideologies or public policies are racist or oppressive or anti-Christian? Well, let me suggest that we shouldn’t decide based on our feelings, intuition, or hearsay. We ought to be clear about how and why a policy or idea is racist before calling it so. Does it explicitly treat minorities differently because they are minorities? Is the policy targeted at specific characteristics of minority communities for the sake of excluding them and doing them harm?

Certainly such policies have existed in the U.S. and continue to exist. Besides explicitly racist laws such as segregation and Jim Crow, many laws have caused disproportionate harm to minority communities. Drug policy and overcriminalization is one such area. Other examples include zoning laws, minimum wage laws, housing projects and welfare policy requirements, or restrictions on people’s ability to choose their children’s school.

Many laws benefit or harm groups in society disproportionately - but that does not make them automatically racist. Take welfare reform during Reagan’s administration. Was it racially motivated? Was Clinton’s welfare reform racially motivated? Is there evidence of racist motives? The use of the “welfare queen,” cited as blatant racism by Knowles, was an illustration of Linda Taylor who used over 80 names and 30 addresses to gain more than $150,000 in cash (besides noncash benefits) from the welfare system. It was a real example meant to highlight abuses and  fraud in the welfare system. Did some people use the term to stereotype African-American women in general? Yes. Did everyone use the term that way? No.

And let’s consider whether the substance of the welfare reform, adding stricter requirements or expectations for those receiving benefits, was racist. First, African-Americans were not the only ones affected by this reform - there were even more Caucasians using welfare programs at that time. Second, there is also the possibility that stricter requirements would be more effective at helping welfare recipients get back on their feet. Those are empirical questions. One must offer arguments, reasons, and evidence to support one’s claims. Otherwise we are left with my assertion versus your assertion, my feelings versus your feelings. As we learn in Proverbs (19:2), zeal is not good without knowledge to guide it.

So, to the minority students and alumni of King’s, let me tell you that the faculty love you. You’re the students God has called us to serve. We want you to succeed. We are fallen and imperfect - I can’t promise that we will never say anything that you find insensitive or offensive - but it will never be out of malice or hate. Come and tell us when we do, so that we can be reconciled. Venting on Facebook or Twitter is not a loving, nor the most effective, way of addressing whatever racism lingers in the King’s community. We all, faculty, staff, students, and alumni, ought to treat one another fairly and to seek one another’s good patiently and without bitterness. We may have honest disagreements, but at the end of the day we are all committed to the love and lordship of Christ, in whom we place our hope.