AOL News has a new home! The Huffington Post.

Click here to visit the new home of Politics Daily!

Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

MAIL

Politics Daily

Obama: Allies Will Soon Take Control of Libyan Campaign
- Politics Daily Staff
Democrats Could Lose Senate, Biden Warns Party
- Politics Daily Staff
South Dakota Governor Signs Tough Abortion Bill Into Law
- Politics Daily Staff
Obama Getting Heat From Left and Right for U.S. Role in Libyan Attacks
- Politics Daily Staff
Allied Airstrikes Buoy Libyan Rebels; Obama Stresses Limited Military Goal
- Politics Daily Staff
Opposition Rises to Increased Nuclear Power Use; Offshore Drilling Support Rebounds
- Bruce Drake
French Warplanes Enforcing Ceasefire in Libya After Gadhafi Keeps Up Attacks
- Politics Daily Staff
Economic Issues Underpin Obama's Trip to Brazil, Chile, El Salvador
- Politics Daily Staff
Obama to Gadhafi: Stop the Attacks or Face Military Action
- Politics Daily Staff
House to Consider Bill to Defund National Public Radio
- Politics Daily Staff
New Fire Breaks Out at Damaged Japanese Nuclear Plant
- Carla Baranauckas
Japanese Nuclear Power Plant Rocked by Second Explosion in Quake's Aftermath
- Carla Baranauckas and Bruce Drake

FEED

In a Harvard E-Mail, White Privilege on Full Display

2 years ago

0 Comments Say Something »

Text Size

Mary C. Curtis

National Correspondent

Author Bio »

Contact Author »

Subscribe :

I've heard the words, or ones like it, for a long time. Sometimes they are couched in qualifiers, sometimes accompanied with "I'm only kidding" nervous laughter. Sometimes no words are necessary, as intent is conveyed in a sideways glance or eye roll.

Stephanie Grace just came right out and said them, then wrote them in an e-mail. The Princeton graduate and Harvard law school student, educated within an inch of her life, revealed she had not learned very much when she wrote: "I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African-Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent."

Whatever she's been studying, it's obviously not genetics, since the race and intelligence link has long been debunked. (I'll see your "Bell Curve" and raise you "Race and IQ," with essays by folks who actually know what they're talking about.) And it's not history, or she would realize that her noxious musings have been used to justify genocide, slavery, segregation, eugenics, forced sterilization and discrimination in everything from housing to schools to employment.

Grace may say, "I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances." But her heart doesn't seem to be in that part of it.

In her e-mail, Grace, after talking men and women and prenatal levels of testosterone, says it all suggests to her "that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria." In one breathtaking passage, she manages to insult women, Nigeria and orphanages. (Does she not believe there are any beautiful, orphaned Nigerian baby geniuses?)

Grace has apologized, now that her prime clerkship is on the line, writing, "I never intended to cause any harm, and I am heartbroken and devastated by the harm that has ensued." So is she upset her thoughts were made public, or does she really think that suggesting a whole race of people could be genetically inferior wouldn't actually hurt anyone? Missing was any concern about those she maligned. Grace certainly has the right to express any view; she can't and shouldn't be able to control how people react to it.

But then, it was never about the African-Americans in the e-mail. It's as though they are specimens in a not-very-intelligent intellectual argument and don't even have the right to be offended. Calling Grace's sentiments "racist" is worse, some defenders say, than the racism embedded in them.

My colleague Sarah Wildman writes about Grace and others tripped up by their own words. It's more than a random slip after too much wine, of course.

It's all about her – and a particularly odious excuse for white privilege. I've seen it in action when the accomplishments of minorities belong to affirmative action but their failures are all their own. I've seen the sense of entitlement, not only but occasionally on the lovely and genteel Harvard campus. (I spent a fellowship year there.) The belief in innate superiority may not make sense but it absolutely confirms the certainty of those on top that they deserve absolutely everything they get – and money and opportunity and connections and luck have nothing to do with it.

That kind of thinking defies logic. But logic left the argument long ago, even before the ones sitting on the shaded porch drinking lemonade or something stronger judged the field hands working dawn to dusk the lazy and shiftless ones. The argument of inferior intelligence was used then; it's no surprise that it's still with us.

Growing up in a neighborhood diverse in every way but race, it didn't take me long to figure out that people are different. They can be nice or nasty or both, clever or slow, hard-working or not. Some of the people I saw every day were gifted in music, others in athletics. You could trust some and dare not turn your back on others. It had nothing to do with skin color, since that was the one trait we all shared (though, now that I think of it, even that ranged from very black to very white).

It wasn't until I moved into the wider and whiter world that I met those who would shove all the interesting characters in the old neighborhood into one not very desirable pile. I always knew better. But when people with those views have the power, it means something. That's why I don't buy the argument that what Stephanie Grace said was merely theoretical, harmless and not that bad. And even if it was, well, she shouldn't have to pay a price.

Everything has consequences, even words, especially when you are tasked with interpreting the law.

One wonders what Grace makes of two lawmakers at the top of her chosen profession -- Yale Law School graduates Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas. Both were dogged by whispers that disparaged their hard work and accomplishments as they rose to the Supreme Court; Thomas turned against the affirmative action that he believes tainted his law degree, he wrote in "My Grandfather's Son."

The thing Thomas doesn't seem to realize is, the taint didn't come from a policy that gave him an opportunity to achieve, but from the casual assumption of white privilege that -- in the rare case of Stephanie Grace -- might actually hurt more than help her. Then again, given the history of this country – even a history that includes the election of her fellow Harvard law grad -- I'm not so sure.

Filed Under: Scandal, Education, Race Issues, Woman Up, Law

Tagged: Clarence Thomas, ClarenceThomas, Harvard Law School, HarvardLawSchool, PrincetonUniversity, SoniaSotomayor, stephanie grace, StephanieGrace

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

Sign in »

2 Comments

Filter by:

alyssablaire88

Referring to affirmative action as "a policy that gave him [Thomas] an opportunity to achieve" is the exact type of attitude that taints the program. In one phrase you have suggested that Thomas was somehow inferior to other applicants and would not have had the opportunity to study at Yale Law School had it not been for affirmative action. It is clear from his academic record prior to attending Yale that he was accepted based upon merit, not for the color of his skin. It is this assumption which taints degrees, causing others to assume that minority achievements are somehow inferior becaues of the program.

This is not an attack on the program or a defense of the ignorant opinions espoused by some, but rather meant to point out that statements of this type play an equal role in "tainting" achievement.

June 22 2010 at 9:39 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply