ne thing that I utterly despise is the use of the charge of racism as a weapon—a way of bullying and silencing others.  The charge of racism has become a way of taking the moral high ground even when there is no merit to what one claims.  

This is what I hold to be the case with reaction on the part of various individuals to the Hill-TV fiasco that happened on the Syracuse University campus.  I find myself bristling and resenting the way in which the Hill-TV fiasco was construed, by those who ought to know better, as being representative of the entire University community.  For those who do not know:

The Hill-TV fiasco is about 4 or so white male students, with a weekly program, who essentially tried to pull off a Saturday Night Live type of sassiness and unbridled mockery of any and everyone.  The students used various bits of racial imagery in some instances.

I would be the first to admit that much of what the Hill-TV students said was tasteless.  Further, I think that the students deserved to be reprimanded.

What I vehemently object to is that the Hill-TV fiasco was presented as some deep cancer that was widespread throughout the entire University community.  Most students did not watch that Hill-TV program; and most did not even know of the various tasteless remarks made until these were remarks were brought to the attention of the University community by the school newspaper, The Daily Orange. 

But judging from judging from the reaction of various individuals affiliated with Syracuse University, including the Chancellor of the University, Nancy Cantor, one would have thought that just about anyone who was white tacitly approved of the silly remarks made by the Hill-TV group, though nothing of the sort was or is true.  From the way in which the Chancellor reacted, one would have thought that it was as if people were cheering on the sidelines that finally blacks had been put in their place.  Again: Nothing of the sort was or is true.

It gets even worse.  At a discussion of the Hill-TV students that took place in the Killian Room of the Hall of Languages, 6 December 2005, a university faculty member, who is a minority, spoke of being tired of being afraid of walking across campus.  The conversational implicature of that remark is that the racial climate of the Syracuse University campus is such that non-whites have to fear for their well-being in moving about on campus.  That is an extremely serious charge.  And I know of no evidence that warrants it.  In fact, I am not aware of the professor who uttered the remark ever claiming to have been in such a situation.  The best evidence suggests that insofar as Syracuse University folks have reason to be fearful as they move about on campus, this is owing to violence from non-members of the Syracuse University community.  And in many instances, these have crimes have been perpetrated by non-white individuals against white Syracuse University students. 

Now, I am indeed aware that some white Syracuse University students have painted themselves in black-face; and I understand that this is offensive to many members of the black community.  But this behavior, however despicable it may be, is a very long ways from committing violence against minorities.  There is considerable moral space between the former and the latter; and it is wrong to ignore that.

It is wrong to besmirch the moral character of others.  A fortiori, it is wrong to do such a thing for political gain.  And I utterly resent this kind of posturing. 

The students of that Hill-TV program were acting by themselves to an ever so limited audience.  And it is morally despicable for anyone of any rank to engage in a kind of moral profiteering from the inappropriate behavior of the 4 or so students. 

Chancellor Cantor could have admonished and reprimanded the students while acknowledging the Syracuse University community disassociates itself from such behavior.  Indeed, she could have praised the University community for being the kind of community that did not take an interest in the trash that the 4 students produced; though I must confess to being puzzled as to what on earth made Saturday Night Live so popular. 

At any rate, had the Chancellor taken this approach, I would have applauded her in her behavior on the grounds that it did too things at once: On the one hand, it properly spoke to the distasteless actions of the Hill-TV students; on the other, it acknowledged the moral quality of the community of which she choose to be apart.  But instead she came across as if she were a moral gift sent from the heavens to life the University out of the moral cesspool in which it had found itself. 

In so behaving, Chancellor Cantor has done more harm than good.  For she has given people an excuse to excoriate the moral character of others in the name of advancing their agenda.  And this is precisely what far too many people have done.  Indeed, the Chancellor has sullied the image of the University in the naming of purging it of its morally obnoxious character.  And this is wrong. 

How is this possible?  Because we as a nation have allowed the term “racism” to have a moral standing that cannot be diffused.  It has indefeasible moral leverage.  This is not even true of sexism.  Talk about some forms of sexist behavior and, in some instances, people will say, even now, that she was “asking for it”.  With racism, however, no one is ever “asking for it”.  Not only that, if one protests too much against the charge of racism, then that is proof in and of itself that perhaps one is racist after all. 

The white who points out racism against blacks is, of course, ever so sensitive.  And the black, of course, is always affirming her or his self-respect as a person.  This is indefeasible moral leverage; for it is all but irrelevant whether the claims are true or not.  Accuse a person of being, say, homophobic or sexist, and this can be discussed.  Accuse the person of being racist, then the individual stands guilty as charged. 

There has been enormous moral progress in the area of race; and it goes without saying that much moral progress remains to be made in this area.  But an impediment to that moral progress is the reality that the charge of racism has indefeasible moral leverage.  Everyone can be mistaken or have untoward motives.  Making the charge of racism against someone is no guarantee of immunity in this regard, whatever social high it may give one momentarily.  More to the point, insofar as the charge of racism has this indefeasible leverage, then those who readily avail themselves of it are, in the end, doing more harm than good.  

The existence of racism is real enough, without the nonsense of those who are given to flights of fantasy, and so who escalate every moral impropriety along racial lines to that of an actual lynching.  Flights of fantasy at the expense of the moral innocence of others is not moral progress; and nothing on the face of this earth, including position or title, will make it so.