<--To CCO Home
Page
Common Questions and Answers about Challenging the Right
by Rich Cowan and Dalya Massachi
1) Do you advocate prohibiting ideas which are not "politically correct"?
There is nothing wrong with influencing opinions. As progressive activists, the challenge is to influence people with facts rather than coercion. Involving people who have historically been ignored in the political process is the responsibility of progressive organizers.
All of these activities are attacked as "censorship" by those accustomed to monopolizing the stage and dominating the decision-making process. It is both ridiculous and dangerous to compare progressive organizing activities to the historical legacies of colonialism and white male supremacy. The danger in the "anti-PC" campaign is that privileged groups will label challenges to their privilege as "fascism" in order to justify a violent response.
Conservative groups have repeatedly indicated a goal of eliminating liberalism and the left. Jack Abramoff, former chair of the College Republicans (CRs), went so far as to say, "we are not just trying to win the next election. We're winning the next generation... It's not our job to seek peaceful co-existence with the Left. Our job is to remove them from power permanently." (CR 1983 Annual Report)
2) By talking so much about the Right, aren't you labeling people and creating an "Us vs. Them" dynamic that only breeds violence?
Identifying and naming the oppressor is fundamentally different from using the oppressor's coercive tactics as an instrument of rebellion. We favor the former, and oppose the latter. As long as power hierarchies exist, it is necessary to name them if we want to understand and/or change the world. Those who commit acts of violence must be held accountable for their actions.
For example, it is O.K. for women to say that men have the vast majority of power in our society or for people of color to talk about the pervasiveness of white supremacy. It is O.K. for people in the Third World to challenge the First World nations' use of the majority of the world's resources. The discomfort caused by questioning these power relationships inevitably brings charges of "us-them" thinking or coercion, but it cannot be compared to the violence involved in enforcing those relationships.
Tactically, there are reasons to avoid alienating those who hold power. But this alienation can only be avoided if people "within the system" (or members of "oppressor groups") take some responsibility for continuing this dialogue.
3) Aren't you lumping together "legitimate" conservative political activity with hate groups such as Neo-Nazis?
No; we are not equating the two groups. Harassment and coercive political activity are quite different from non-coercive persuasion. But to limit our focus to extreme groups would assume that these groups are the sole champions of inequality: if they were to dissolve tomorrow, everything would suddenly get better. This is not the case. More mainstream conservative groups -- whose audience is much larger -- preach an ideology that assumes the "free market" can rectify social inequality. They fan the flames of hate and intolerance -- the sources of violence -- by scapegoating marginalized groups for society's ills. They advocate policies that cause more widespread social and economic devastation than extremist groups could inflict. Challenge racism and sexism no matter where they come from and what form they take.
4) Shouldn't professors be free to be spontaneous in class?
Of course. The problem occurs when professors' assumptions about the students in their classes get in the way of teaching. When they do not use inclusive language or are not respectful of the new perspectives brought by students of diverse backgrounds, they are not fully including these students in the educational process. Nor are they opening the classroom to truly critical thought, including the rethinking of "traditional" canons. Learning and open-mindedness apply not only to students, but teachers as well.
5) To be fair, shouldn't student activity boards refrain from funding political activities, or from funding "left" activities more than "right" ones?
Student fees were established at many schools so that student activities can be controlled democratically by students alone, and not be limited to those which support the policies of the university administration.
With or without funding from student fees, many student governments have enacted policies which forbid the use of student funds for "political activities." While the university's non-profit status justifies a ban on supporting partisan (i.e. Democratic or Republican) political campaigns, a ban on all student funding of political activities -- as approved in 1993 by the California Supreme Court decision Smith v. Regents -- is antidemocratic.
This policy plays into the strategy of the Right by forcing student groups to rely on funding external to the university. Such a policy is hardly "apolitical." It biases student expression to reflect the existing order, thus perpetuating the inequities of our society. In other words, students whose views coincide with the interests of corporations, wealthy individuals, or the Defense Establishment find it easy to obtain funds to express their views. But students with alternative viewpoints will be financially limited, even if their views are popular.
<--Back to Table of
Contents
<--To CCO Home
Page