Kerux: a portfolio of Calvin Theological Seminary - Volume 42.7 - 20 Dec 2007

The Elephant’s Been Painted

A Response to "The White Elephant in the Room"

by Craig Hoekema, CTS alum

Since I’ve never met Mr. Walton or Mr. Galindo, I do not question the sincerity of their intentions in their conversation on racism. However, I’m quite troubled by these kinds of discussions on racism, and I wish to debate some of the assumptions and conclusions they’ve made. Here is the heart of my response: We ought to oppose racism fundamentally and out of unchanging principles (e.g. all descend from Adam; all are made in God’s image); we ought not oppose racism merely contextually.

Mike and Rodolfo have said some very true things, without question. I totally agree with the need to acknowledge and repent of prejudicial thoughts and feelings, not just prejudicial actions. They have also said things that suggest they do oppose racism fundamentally. But, at the same time, the conversation is tinted (pun not intended) by an understanding of racism that is contextual and thus inconsistent. Mike offers us definitions of prejudice and racism that highlight what I perceive to be the problem (see 4th paragraph of October 31 interview). With help from Merriam Webster, I offer the following definitions instead: Prejudice is a judgment or opinion formed before a careful examination of the facts. Racism is actually a subcategory of prejudice. Racism is an irrational belief in the superiority of a particular group that society at some point decided to lump together as being a certain "race." You might even say that racism is, to borrow a phrase from Mike, "prejudice with regards to race."

Why am I so interested in the particular definition of these words? Because the definitions Mike offers set things up in such a way that certain kinds of people are intrinsically incapable of being "racist." If racism must include the ability to actualize one’s preferential agenda, then the less-powerful and less-privileged are either less likely or even incapable of being "racist." Doesn’t it seem silly to say that a poor black child in a North American ghetto who hates white people from the depth of his being is less racist than a white person who "responds differently" to a group of black people on the streets of Chicago? Yet Mike’s definition would leave room for someone to make this exact argument. His definition would also suggest that if a white person hates black people while living in North America, he’s "racist"; if he hates black people while living in Ghana, his offense drops a notch to "prejudice." I’m not sure that makes sense. Again, let’s oppose racism, especially as Christians, fundamentally out of unchanging principles, not merely contextually.

Arguing that much of what we call "white privilege" finds its genesis and sustenance in racist attitudes is one thing. Using the phenomenon of "white privilege" to then determine who is racist and to what degree is simply wrong. To imply, as Mike’s definition clearly does, that whites are more prone to racism in North America simply because we are the majority is racist. It is prejudging an entire group of people based on the color of their skin. When concepts like "power" and "privilege" get mixed into the definition of racism, this inconsistency is hard to avoid. So again, as Christians, let’s oppose racism fundamentally and out of unchanging principles and not merely contextually.

This interview condemns the hypothetical white person who gets uncomfortable when he encounters a group of a different race. At the same time, Rodolfo calls it "privilege" that whites don’t have to engage with minorities, and then asks us to consider that he has "no choice" but to interact with white people. At one point white people are told that it’s sinful to feel awkward when we’re in the minority, and at another point we’re told to empathize with how different it can feel to be the minority. Again, the confusion results from an inconsistent definition of racism. White people are culpable when they feel awkward around other races, and white people are culpable when the "less-privileged" feel the same way. If CTS is an example of "white privilege" simply because it’s predominantly white (as Rodolfo argues), then by the same logic, black neighborhoods are an example of "black privilege," and El Gigante Supermall is an example of "Latino privilege," and my Englewood apartment building last year was an example of "Korean privilege," etc. Again, I’m not sure that makes sense. CTS would be an example of white privilege in action if it gave preferential enrollment or preferential scholarships or preferential grades to white people because they’re white, not simply because of its Dutch roots.

Mr. Walton and Mr. Galindo, I would simply ask you to consider the goal of your article. If you’re writing because you know of discrimination at CTS, Matthew 18 offers a better course of action than a Kerux article. If your goal is to spur CTS on to being a more racially diverse community, then, rather than simply pointing to its necessity, offer us your insights on how to become that. I acknowledge how different it must feel for Rodolfo to attend CTS as a (visibly) non-Dutch student. I would suggest that one way to help CTS diversify is for people with Rodolfo’s experience to speak positively about the school. I doubt you’ll find anyone on the staff or faculty of this institution who wouldn’t welcome increasing diversity. It seems instead that the interview is interested in promoting a cultural "white-people-need-to-realize-how-racist-they-are" agenda. I’m not sure what you expect to come of that, other than a move toward the very tokenism that you’ve condemned.

Yes, let’s be opposed to racism. Let’s be opposed to all prejudice, and let’s pray for the Holy Spirit to continue to help each one of us. But let’s not promote a cultural understanding of racism that inherently implies the biblical command to love your neighbor applies more to some than others.