,
24 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
THREAD: On anti-racism advocacy and "civility", responding to this misguided @nationalpost article by Thomas Matthews: nationalpost.com/opinion/theres….
TL;DR: Thomas fundamentally misunderstands racism, the SOP debate, and the SOP itself.
TL;DR: Thomas fundamentally misunderstands racism, the SOP debate, and the SOP itself.
1) THOMAS MISUNDERSTANDS (MANY) SOP OPPONENTS:
He says "[n]o serious person is denying that racism exists, either within society or the bar." I actually agree that no "serious person" denies the existence of racism. Unfortunately for Thomas, however, he's in silly company:
He says "[n]o serious person is denying that racism exists, either within society or the bar." I actually agree that no "serious person" denies the existence of racism. Unfortunately for Thomas, however, he's in silly company:
@jordanbpeterson (), @PardyBruce (nationalpost.com/opinion/our-ri…) and Murray Klippenstein (quillette.com/2019/02/11/how…) all deny racism in the profession. There's 3 examples. And they aren't fringe; they're leaders in the anti-SOP movement. Do your homework, Thomas.
And, while you're at it, settle on a position yourself. Don't claim that the existence of racism in the profession is trite, and then refer to "alleged" racism in the profession, and cite to an op-ed questioning it. Pick a side, assuming you even have one.
2) THOMAS STRAWMANS SOP SUPPORTERS:
He says that "many" launch "personal attacks" against anti-SOP advocates by making "ugly accusations" that they are "racists" and "extremists". Despite his generous use of quotations marks, though, he cites no examples. Not one.
He says that "many" launch "personal attacks" against anti-SOP advocates by making "ugly accusations" that they are "racists" and "extremists". Despite his generous use of quotations marks, though, he cites no examples. Not one.
So, we're left guessing. Perhaps he is referring to this tweet, where I expressed my disappointment in the last bencher election, and referred to "white supremacy": . Indeed, Thomas seems to be "subtweeting" me throughout his piece. Don't worry, I found it.
Note the precise language in my election tweet. I don't call every SOP opponent racist. Indeed, my comment is not *individual*, but *structural*. I am noting how white supremacy—an ideology, not an identity—has contributed to misguided priorities in the bencher election.
This is the opposite of a personal attack. It is a societal comment on how, whenever race enters the conversation, people get uncomfortable; they look for ways to avoid discussing it; they look for distractions (in this case, "free speech"). This is most of the SOP discourse.
Given that comments on racial discourse are not personal attacks, but instead, observations about societal trends, what Thomas is *really* arguing, it seems, is that to comment on trends in racial discourse at all is itself uncivil.
But that's precisely how white supremacy operates. It mobilizes coded language and dog whistles to obfuscate its underlying racial premises. To object to comments on patterns in racial discourse is thus, in effect, to immunize that discourse from scrutiny. This is untenable.
But Thomas does not merely object to such comments, he labels them "unacceptable" and "derogatory". Commenting on white supremacy's subtle modalities is not unacceptable; rather it is a moral obligation of anyone who cares about opposing racism in the forms it typically takes on.
3) THOMAS IMMUNIZES RACISM:
That said, some people really are racist, & calling a spade a spade is neither unacceptable nor derogatory, but necessary. If racists can't be named, racism can't be blamed, which is precisely why "civility" is routinely invoked in racial discourse.
That said, some people really are racist, & calling a spade a spade is neither unacceptable nor derogatory, but necessary. If racists can't be named, racism can't be blamed, which is precisely why "civility" is routinely invoked in racial discourse.
With that in mind, if Thomas was instead targeting my tweets like this one——which, to be clear, are a small minority of the Pro-SOP discourse, then let me reiterate: saying that racial minorities lack "a culture of learning" is racist. If it isn't, what is?
This specific critique does not "set a dangerous example" or "reflect[] poorly on the bar." If anything, anti-SOP positions like @Willweargloves' implicit view that I only succeed in law despite Black people's cultural deficits undermines the reputation of the bar.
As I've said, a racial sleight of hand is collectivization/individualization (). Apparently, @Willweargloves is being civil when he implies *my culture* is deficient at learning, but when I say *his views* are racist, I'm the one lacking civility. Nice try.
Thomas says I owe every anti-SOP advocate the "benefit of the doubt". What doubt? We have the receipts. @Willweargloves suggested racial minorities are culturally deficient for legal practice. If that gets a pass, everything does.
And let's be clear, identifying racism isn't an "ad hominem attack". I've never said the SOP is constitutional b/c some of its opponents are racist; I've only said 1 of its opponents said something racist. If you want my constitutional argument, it should be published this fall.
As for the "intellectual poverty" of our position, until I see something more than the umpteenth recycled argument about the SOP being akin to Nazi Germany policy—in the hallowed pages of the @nationalpost and @Quillette—the only non-intellectual position will be your own.
4) THOMAS MISUNDERSTANDS RACISM:
He says "[a]nother fact complicating the racism narrative" is that some racial minorities, such as himself, oppose the SOP.
This argument is so infuriatingly facile. I honestly can't believe I feel the need to respond to it publicly *sigh*
He says "[a]nother fact complicating the racism narrative" is that some racial minorities, such as himself, oppose the SOP.
This argument is so infuriatingly facile. I honestly can't believe I feel the need to respond to it publicly *sigh*
First, minorities can be racist, Thomas. Stop making this ridiculous argument. Candace Owens is no ally to racial justice. And the same goes for women (who can be sexist) and every other vector of identity. Identity is not dispositive of ideology.
Second, minorities can, more subtly, participate in oppressive systems, but fall short of overt bigotry. Indeed, hierarchical structures have, throughout history, convinced many minorities to hold self-defeating views and subscribe to dominant norms.
This doesn't contradict notions of "lived experience", which Thomas seemingly quotes disparagingly. If Thomas never felt racism in law school, law firms, or court, great. He's fortunate. But for those of us who did experience or witness it, his misguided op-ed is irrelevant.
Indeed, if Thomas truly believes that all "lived experience" matters "equally", than why does the coincidence of his lack of exposure to discrimination overrule his myriad marginalized peers who have described just the opposite (cba-alberta.org/Publications-R…)? Answer: It doesn't.
5) THOMAS MISUNDERSTANDS THE SOP:
The SOP is an annual self-drafted journal entry on racism. His unoriginal analogies to totalitarian thought control are absurd. Comparing genocidal regimes to the "tyranny" of reminder letters from the LSO trivializes actual oppression.
/fin
The SOP is an annual self-drafted journal entry on racism. His unoriginal analogies to totalitarian thought control are absurd. Comparing genocidal regimes to the "tyranny" of reminder letters from the LSO trivializes actual oppression.
/fin
