magine a university where people—faculty and students alike—do not free to wrestle with ideas and to engage in rich discussions about alternative points of view.  Why because an unofficial pall has been cast over the university owing to a fear in the air that does not speak its name.  The fear to which I am referring is the rhetorical charge that one is racist or, if not that, then one is sexist or, if not that, then at least one is homophobic.  Charges of this sort tarnish one’s reputation whether they are true or not.  Accordingly, such charges are an extremely effective way to silence one’s opponents.  Imagine a university where this sort of thing goes on, and one place that you will have imagined is Syracuse University.

If this is right, then in a most important respect Syracuse University has become a de facto police state.  And as the history of de facto segregation in the United States makes abundantly clear, de facto practices can be very real and efficacious.  Neighborhoods in the United States remained predominantly white owing to none other than de facto segregation practices: the apartment had just been rented or the announced rent is now 3 times more than what was “mistakenly” advertised.  And so on. 

There are many respects in which I profoundly admire Chancellor Nancy Cantor.  She is clearly a very capable and very ambitious individual.  And I like that in a person.  Before arriving at Syracuse University, she was known for her pro-diversity stance.  Needless to say, she is not open to criticism for having a pro-diversity stance.  She is as entitled to have that stance just as I am to have my stance to the contrary.

But imagine that every time my students disagreed with me, I implied that in some way or the other—sometimes explicitly; sometimes implicitly—that they are racist.  Suppose I argued as follows: “If you are for affirmative action, then you do not truly believe that blacks are the intellectual equal of whites; hence, you are a racist”.  You see, one get “racism” out of just about anything if one is creative enough. 

Now, as a matter of fact, I do worry about pushing affirmative action so hard that the issue actual intellectual wherewithal of blacks drops out of the picture; and increase in diversity numbers may be wonderful, such an increase is not logically connected to intellectual excellence on the part of blacks.  More blacks or Latinos or whatever the minority group does not thereby mean greater intellectual excellence on the part of the minority group in question, any more than it is obviously the case that a vastly white Syracuse University campus has not entailed greater intellectual excellence on the part of whites.  No one can call me racist for saying this if only because in addition to being black I am a tad too smart to be beguiled by that sort of rhetoric.  But it a white professor can easily be dismissed for making just the point that I have made.

Welcome to Syracuse University.  The issue is not whether Chancellor Cantor is pro-affirmative action and pro-diversity.  Rather, the issue is that she is playing in a most vicious way with the idea that those who are not are racist in some way or the other.  And one result of that is a pall of silence across the campus regarding her ideas.

I know this in a very personal way.  In April of 2006, an email was sent out across the campus asking people to sign a petition in support of Chancellor Cantor’s policies.  This email appeared after what is known as the Hill TV-fiasco, where Chancellor Cantor rushed to support the view that the stupidity of the 20 or so students involved was indicative of deep racist throughout the student body. 

Now, I know for a fact that there were many faculty members who quite angry at the way Chancellor Cantor handled the Hill TV-fiasco; and I also know that many roundly disagreed with the email of April 2006.  But there was deafening silence on the part of those who disagreed.  And make no mistake about it, the explanation for that silence is very simple: no white male professor, no matter how tenured and distinguished, wants to have to deal with the issue of appearing to be racist or sexist. 

I know of the disagreement on the part of a number of faculty members because I did write a response to the April email in which I made it manifestly clear that I, as a black man, did not come this far in life to be told that I must be silent when I do not accept a point of view.  Surely, so I insisted, I am entitled to disagree in a respectful manner.  I circulated the letter; and I received enthusiastic responses from a number of people—some in high places, in fact. 

The poignant point here is that I, the black male, could do what none of my white colleagues could do, namely express my view in a peaceful and respectful manner, precisely because I, as a black man, have a certain immunity to the charge of racism.  True, I can as a black man still be quite the sexist.  It is also true that blacks can in fact be racist.  Just so, the charge of racism against does not stick easily, if at all.

Now, what ought Chancellor Nancy Cantor have done?  Needless to say, she has every reason to be grateful for those who support her policies.  In general, public support is a very good thing.  Yet, all the while expressing gratitude to those who support her policies, she could have also affirmed the importance of others to examine critically her policies. By that single move, she would have changed the moral climate of Syracuse University.

I am not a fool.  A fortiori, Chancellor Nancy Cantor is not a fool.  The supporters of that email were effectively saying “If you do not see it our way and support the Chancellor, then you are a racist”.  This was not lost on Chancellor Cantor.  The Hill-TV fiasco committed by 20 students and the rest of the campus was entirely unaware of the ordeal.  But it was used as an excuse to indict the entire campus and to indicate the extent to which the campus was laced with latent racism.  This morally warped and ignominious strategy was not lost on Chancellor Cantor.  Had the stupidity of the 20 not been reported in campus student newspaper, The Daily Orange, the campus-at-large would not have known about it.

The very nature of things is such that to be president of a major university is to have a significant amount of discretionary power, not the least of which is the power to set a moral town.  But there is an unspoken power that Chancellor Nancy Cantor has, namely that she is a woman who very strongly advocates a pro-diversity program.  If one is a white male, it turns out that the most prudent thing to do is to keep one’s mouth shut, lest one be called a racist (not pro-diversity) or a sexist (criticizing a woman, especially a woman who is pro-diversity).  How does she use the power that dares not speak its name? 

Let me illustrate.  My signature course is Philosophy 191.  It routinely attracts around 400 students a semester.  Imagine, then, if I conducted that course in such a way that every white student had reason to suspect that I regard her or him as a racist.  No matter how polite and charming I was; no matter how funny I was: it would be impossible for a white student to not walk away with the sense that I take her or him to be a racist.  Imagine further that I could see racism in just about anything: “A white student is late for class: racism—a lack of respect for a black professor”; “A white student asks a tough question that puts me on the spot: racism—a desire to make a black professor look stupid in front of white students”.  And so on.  In this supposed-class, I never call anyone racist.  But my, oh my: Everyone knows. 

Now, I presume that the enrollment would drop precipitously.  But suppose that students were required to enroll in the course, I take it to be manifestly obvious that my approach to teaching would cast a devastating pall upon intellectual inquiry and discussion.  There would be a deafening silence that had nothing whatsoever to do with the majesty of my lectures or the strength of my argument.  No, the deafening silenced would be due to none other than moral intimidation.  And, of course, students would make every effort to parrot my view so that they could get a decent grade.  But would this have anything to do with learning?  Clearly not.  Needless to say, to teach in this way would be an egregious abuse of my power as a professor and of my social leverage as a black. 

What we would have in such a class is none other than a mini police state.  It would be a de facto one.  If by parity of reasoning a like atmosphere prevails over Syracuse University, then what we have is none other than a de facto police state—the tyranny of the power, to transpose the words of John Stuart Mill. 

If there is one thing that Mill what was unmistakably clear about it is that silencing reasonable discussion could never be justified; accordingly, it could never be virtuous. 

Chancellor Nancy Cantor has the institutional and moral power to invigorate Mill’s ideal of free speech.  Whether she does so not, it remains an unvarnished truth that when people of decency and good will are afraid to express their opinions lest they be deemed racist or sexist, then what we have is a morally scandalous environment and none other than the making of a de facto police state. That is the university climate over which Nancy Cantor, as Chancellor and President, presides.  More importantly, it is also the climate that she has created. For she has, and has always had, the power to affirm ever so magisterially intellectual diversity even as she proceeds full speed ahead with her program of racial diversity.  The simple truth of the matter is that she has chosen not to exercise that power.  Accordingly, that simple truth is telling about her.