DYSPEPSIA GENERATION

Read it.

Another day, another person fired from a prestigious writing gig for perceived racism.

You wonder why they even bother.

John McWhorter, a black academic critical of the discipline, wrote for the Manhattan Institute that the mission of most of these departments “is to teach students about the eternal power of racism past and present.” He added, “however, too often the curriculum of African American Studies departments gives the impression that racism and disadvantage are the most important things to note and study about being black.”

Well, duh. You can’t have a victim-industry without victims, and black kids whose parents are doctors and academics who went to prep school and Ivy League colleges have to be trained to realize that they are, in fact, victims (although you wouldn’t know it to look at them…).

A case in point is Zachary Brewster and Sarah Nell Rusche’s article in The Journal of Black Studies titled “Quantitative Evidence of the Continuing Significance of Race: Tableside Racism in Full-Service Restaurants.” Brewster and Rusche analyze the “culture of white servers” in which white waitstaff allegedly infringe on black patrons’ civil rights by profiling them and providing them with poor service. The authors surveyed waiters and waitresses—people who earn most of their income through tips—and found that many of them assume that black patrons tip worse and display worse behavior than other groups.

This research documents a legitimate concern, but it is incomplete and typical of Black Studies research. A more complete study would consider black patrons’ actual tipping behavior.

What!? Confuse the issue with facts!? That’ll never happen….

When Black Studies programs explore the causes of economic and social disparities, they always begin with the conclusion that white racism is the root of the problem. It assumes that all-pervasive racism is tucked behind every political, social, or economic interaction in which blacks participate and that blacks are always the victims. The discipline seems to borrow the format of the popular game show Jeopardy! It begins at the end and works back toward the question. That’s not how academic inquiry should work. And Naomi Schaefer Riley’s ouster suggests that it probably won’t change.

As, indeed, it probably won’t — so long as there is power and pelf to be had in being victims. You always get more of what you pay for.

This entry was posted on Sunday, May 13th, 2012 at 15:46 and is filed under Whose turn is it to be the victim?. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.