The Emerald recently corrected an error surrounding the 4J Chavez rally (“Chavez editorial misconstrues important point,” ODE, March 11). But it is important to look at the main argument of the original article, in addition to its mistake, because this is the most recent example of the Emerald missing the point and not understanding the deeper underpinnings of racism.
Brad Schmidt said, “The Emerald Editorial Board does not talk to every individual involved in a discussion.” While not talking with activists, the Emerald has used such heated rhetoric as “some of the worst rhetoric to date, and one of the worst plays of the race card the Editorial Board has seen in recent memory” (“4J Chavez campaign must look beyond race,” ODE, March 10).
In its “Vagina Monologues” editorial, the board dismissed a protest as “a bizarre display that seethes with a distinctly Eugenean brand of irony” (“Protesters undermined the diversity they sought,” ODE, Feb. 17), and said, “The protesters’ arguments … are riddled with fallacies that detract from their message of fairness, tolerance and
diversity,” saying “The protesters’ arguments are ultimately divisive, not diversifying.” This same argument was used in “4J Chavez campaign must look beyond race,” claiming that it “constitutes a more racially divisive policy, harmfully dividing a community instead of unifying it.”
This tendency to blame protesters for being “divisive” when they confront racism, rather than analyze the racism, is disturbing. I don’t have the space to debate the racism that the protests surrounded, but when a person of color perceives a group to be racist, unifying with them is not usually the first thing on that person’s mind. The Emerald’s accusations come down to the argument that it is “divisive” to claim someone is being racist. While examining these claims may be distressing, they are important claims that should be discussed, not set aside for the sake of unity.
The Emerald’s arguments also completely ignore the claims of institutional racism, seeing such conflicts only as personal disputes. While “Vagina Monologue” protesters claimed that a racist environment created a hostile space for performers of color that forced them out, the editorial board said “Some of those who complained that the play’s cast did not represent them didn’t try out for the play, and some of those who did dropped out.” When protesters complained that no outreach was done to minority populations, the Editorial Board said “It would be wholly inappropriate for the producers to ask each auditioner what her sexual orientation or gender identity was, and worse yet, cast parts based on her answer.”
When people pointed out that each Eugene school was named after a white man, the Editorial Board said “Picking a namesake for the school on the basis of race reduces the recognition of legacy to tokenism.” When they pointed out that the lack of representation of people of color, and Latinos specifically, shows that Eugene is still influenced by racism, the editorial board was upset by its interpretation that “One of the common arguments for naming Southside after Chavez is a simple matter of demographics.”
I’ve come to love and depend on the Emerald for coverage of campus activities and activism. But instead of attacking anyone who claims something is racist, I would appreciate it if the Editorial Board would at least begin by analyzing the alleged racism.