A Monkey in Silk is a Monkey no less: A reply to the ‘Critics’

3/10/2016

JASMINE ALI
Volume 10, Issue 10
This article is a response to comments underneath last week's De Minimis article, MLS’ “Diversity Problem: It’s Just Not Going Away.
I have canvassed response, after response, draft after draft, hoping to find some way to satisfy the ‘critics’. I thought that I needed to display my intellectual prowess, to wave the logicians wand, and dispel blow, by blow, the line of ‘reasoning,’ offered by the nameless and faceless challengers.

But so evident in the ‘reasoning’ of the ‘critics’ was an unwillingness to treat the subject of the article, in the same manner, and with the same standards and generosity, as has been given to other articles in De Minimis, that something else is going on. When I looked further into it I found an article recounting an incident of sexual assault at an MLS event printed last year. Tellingly, I did not see the perils of subjectivity, or the poverty of anecdote reprimanded there. I have concluded therefore, you do not warrant a response of the kind that you demand.

And so, after searching for tools to make sense of this experience, I found that this extract sums up our interactions well:

“When you removed the gag that was keeping these black mouths shut, what were you hoping for? That they would sing your praises? Did you think that when they raised themselves up again, you would read adoration in the eyes of these heads that our fathers had forced to bend down to the very ground? Here are black men standing, looking at us, and I hope that you-like me- will feel the shock of being seen. For three thousand years, the white man has enjoyed the privilege of seeing without being seen…The white man - white because he was man, white like daylight, white like truth, white like virtue- lighted up the creation like a torch and unveiled the secret white essence of beings. Today these black men are looking at us, and our gaze comes back to our own eyes; in their turn, black torches light up the world and our white heads are no more than Chinese lanterns swinging in the wind.” – Black Orpheus, Jean- Paul Sartre

And so, with your responses, you have demonstrated not only that the issues of racism persist in the fine corridors of Melbourne Law School, but have also provided a glimpse into the attitudes that Aboriginal people and certain ethnic communities confront within the legal system; perched as it is, on-top of the deep racist foundations of denial and dispossession.

I am reminded of this every semester, when I show up to the exam hall in the Royal Exhibition Building, the place where the beginnings of the White Australia Policy was first legislated. I am reminded of it when I see Pauline Hanson, relaxed, smiling in Parliament, and when the Minister for Women wraps her in a warm, gentle embrace; happy, together, in Australia.

See you in class.

Jasmine

Jasmine Ali is a second-year JD student

The rest of this week's issue:

Your racist critic

4/10/2016 07:06:22 pm

Sorry for being racist

I am also sorry for the last 3000 years, and the royal exhibition hall

Apologies for Pauline Hanson winning a Queensland election too, I should have done more to stop her

Next time I will refrain from critique of your well-thought out, courageous, and articulate articles

5/10/2016 12:04:45 am

Hi Jasmine,

I'm sure you're a very kind and intelligent person, but I think you've gone over the top here. Your original article pointed out a few examples of dumb stereotyping and careless language directed at you at MLS. Unfortunately you have likely faced this many more times in your life, and you may perhaps have more examples from your time at MLS, but surely you must admit that those given examples, as frustrating as they are, are not particular onerous forms of discrimination that have prevented you from achieving your potential at MLS. MLS generally affords terrific opportunities to all members of its community, although I am happy to be contradicted.

You also pointed out there seems to be a relative lack of diversity at the law school (some debated this). Indeed, the MLS student body is probably not as ethnically diverse as metropolitan Melbourne today, and certainly economic diversity is lacking, most students having come from private schools.

In response to your article, you received numerous showings of support. However, 'Probably a Privileged White Cis Male' doubted the veracity of your claim, and a small number of others questioned the role of a law school in manufacturing diversity. None of the comments suggested any attitudes that any individuals at MLS believe some races to be inferior to others, or less deserving of an education at MLS. The strongest views displayed were: that MLS should function as a 'meritocracy'; that to try to manufacture diversity may result in the reduction of Asian students at MLS; and that the scientific method of fact-finding still has strong support in the face of post-modern critiques.

To conclude from these responses (only a few of which were critical) that 'issues of racism persist' at MLS and to refer to the 'deep racist foundations' of our legal system is, in my view, counter-productive.

Those statements seem to lump together the majority of non-racist people at MLS with the miniscule and pathetic minority who are actually racist. I don't think this helps your cause.

Instead of being reminded about racist MLS when you see the Royal Exhibition Building and when you see Pauline Hanson, I think it would be more fair to the sentiments of the student body if instead, you were reminded about how the MLS is a lot more diverse than could be fathomed 40+ years ago and how probably not one person at MLS would have voted for Pauline had she been a Victorian candidate.

And lastly, I think this is the reason why your original article received the limited backlash that it did. Those people would have defensively drawn the inference that they were being accused of taking part in a racist system, and so they decided to refute some of what you said.

It doesn't mean they are racists themselves. It just goes to show that racism is a very difficult issue to tackle, and while those who have historically enjoyed unearned privilege do not expect adoration from minorities to whom that historical privilege has been begrudgingly ceded in recent history, they also do not always respond too kindly to overreach regarding accusations of racism.

Thank you for sharing your experiences, Jasmine - discrimination should be called out.

Thumbs Up

5/10/2016 09:52:05 am

Great response

Duncan

5/10/2016 10:35:23 am

Lol "do not always respond too kindly to overreach regarding accusations of racism". Jasmine overreached because she was not facing particularly "onerous forms of discrimination"? Seems like you might fit into the definition of 'white moderate' who Martin Luther King invoked in the following passage:

"I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season.""

Lol like omg

5/10/2016 11:43:32 am

Neither you nor that quote refutes anything that MM said, it's just a general expression of disdain for 'white moderates' without an explanation of why that approach is wrong.

BBB

5/10/2016 01:03:13 pm

'Lol like OMG'
I believe what you're looking for is below, see BBB's post.

You raise an interesting point, I had not considered the idea that Duncan or anyone else could be a living rebuttal, the embodiment of a refutation. More likely, you didn't raise that point, and its appearance here is a mere accident of your inability to properly use the English language.

If you can't see the critical significance of the quote in Duncan's post above, there is no point in engaging with you. Either stop trying to post and contribute, or at least make the effort like MM did to put your position out there. As we have seen, that could well be very constructive.

Improper user of the English language

5/10/2016 01:29:13 pm

"If you can't see the critical significance of the quote in Duncan's post above, there is no point in engaging with you."

Yet you engaged me with nevertheless

Jokes on you?

5/10/2016 03:40:14 pm

@Duncan

Thank you for the MLK quote - there is always much to learn from his learned views on the topic.

There is always a balance between pursuing goals as a categorical imperative whatever the cost (perhaps like fighting a war to end slavery), and pursing them in a manner that attempts to calculate them against other goals in society.

With regards to my post, I don't believe I have made any argument regarding any 'schedule' of fixing race relations, or some time of invocation to not move too fast (although my comparison of today's world with 40 years ago may imply that I am). My main point is rather that being delicate in arguing delicate matters might be more effective in persuading people who are sensitive on the topic than being strident on those views. Thus, such a strategy might actually bring reform faster!

By way of comparison, I support gay marriage, yet I think it should be immediately legisalted, rather than by way of a plebisicite. Nevertheless, given that the Liberal Party seems intransigent on the issue of a plebiscite, I think the best course of action or those who support gay marriage is to hurry up with the plebisicite and to vote in droves in support of gay marriage, and to seek to persuade those who might be against it in a way that does not alienate them.

Such a path could be complete within the year, whereas an impasse that could arise in our system from a rejection of the plebisicite might mean that gay marriage will not be legislated for years to come. My approach is more 'realpolitik' than 'white moderate'! But yes, perhaps I can afford to hold that view given that my freedom or rights aren't being contested!

5/10/2016 06:18:20 pm

@ Improper Use of the English Language
Touche

No way im putting my name now.

5/10/2016 11:16:50 am

Want to know why people were posting anonymously last time? It was because they knew any kind of debate on the article would have them blindly labeled a racist as we can see here.

Jasmine Ali

5/10/2016 12:03:04 pm

Dear anonymous commentators,

If you wish to have a genuine debate I invite you to put your name to your posts or better still, write your own article and submit it to De Minimis.

If your ideas and arguments have the intellectual soundness, merit and rigour, you believe they do, you should not be cowed by labels of racism. If you can summons the courage to do this, I will take your arguments seriously and duly respond.

Until then, you can languish here, commenting on this thread to your hearts content, ensuring the irrelevancy of your position and your ideas.

He who must not be named

5/10/2016 01:22:47 pm

The degree of intellectual soundness, merit and rigour of an argument is inherent in the argument itself and has no relation whatsover with the identity of the individual expressing it.

It is not logical to consider an argument more or less seriously depending on whether or not you can identify the person making it.

AAA

5/10/2016 02:04:39 pm

Unfortunately, in the era of identity politics the merits of an argument can ONLY be ascertained from knowledge of the individual expressing it.

Intellectual soundness and rigour are not of concern to those who place greater value on a person's claimed "lived experiences" over objective facts when constructing an argument. Oh and if you think such an approach is questionable, you're racist.

5/10/2016 03:02:02 pm

Hi Jasmine,

I choose to remain behind this pseudonym because I am indeed cowed by labels of racism. The main reason for this is follows from the propositions below:
1. The word 'racist' is bandied about willy-nilly nowadays, so that many comments that refute even minor points on the topic of racial relations will attract unreasonable accusations of racism.
2. Those accusations, however unfounded, are potentially damaging in a defamatory way. I would rather avoid any position where my reputation or name could be defamed. In addition, when mud is slung, some will stick.
3. I am not ashamed of my views, yet I would rather not have them attached to my name publicly. This is so that those in the cohort do not immediately think of me as 'that person who refuted Jasmine on DeMinimis'.

If possible, I hope you can take my arguments seriously, considering that I took the time to write them carefully, sensitively and in good faith.

To clarify my above post, I have enormous respect for you for writing the original article in particular. I don't happen to think that MLS is very racist, but because I am white, my perspective is of course limited, since I have not been the target of racism at MLS.

I personally believe that most individuals at MLS are like me - I respect human beings on the basis of their inherent worth, irrespective of their race. This is not to say that people who are respectful of all 99% of the time are not capable of the occasional slip-up. Indeed, tribalism and cultural loyalty are atavistic traits of humans in all parts of the world. We must continually strive to defeat our natural tribalism and patriotism to the extent that it discriminates unfairly against people of others races or nations.

I encourage all to continue to highlight racism where it occurs, and to discuss how we can improve our relations with each other in the law school and society at large.

In conclusion, I hope that you can see the relevance of my original post and this one, despite the fact that it is pseudonymously offered.

5/10/2016 12:27:02 pm

MM
Para 1 - weirdly paternalistic. To paraphrase: 'you have a legitimate grievance - responding to the extent of reiterating that grievance is excessive.' What can we infer from this? What would be a lesser response? Is the implied point here, next time don't say anything at all? A possible construction of your words 'you've gone over the top here' is an attempt to silence. Specifically what part of Jasmine's post is over the top?

Para 3 - subjective. May as well not include your interpretation of the views expressed given your orientation to the issue. If you insist on including it, be prepared to support your interpretation with a reasoned explanation or don't waste words and time.

Para 4 - without more, this is tantamount to saying that affirmative action movements are counter-productive. This is plainly wrong as a basic grasp of modern history and the successes of various egalitarian movements

Para 5 - again this 'seeming' is your interpretation, Jasmine's statements do not necessarily carry that inference (of 'lumping together' the racists with the non-racists). The other possible interpretation is that she has identified race issues within the institution generally - history, basic tenets of race theory, and the examples cited by the author (I could go on) should make such an assertion uncontroversial. Is the interpretation you have chosen perhaps a reflection of your own personal prejudices / biases or insecurities?

Para 6 - this is stupid. Imagine your car is stolen, and you regularly see the thief driving it about your neighborhood. For whatever reason (lack of evidence say) you have no means of redress. Imagine being told not to dwell on the wrongful theft, but to focus instead, and that you ought to feel grateful that you live in a society that affords you the opportunity to take public transport? Perhaps an extreme analogy (perhaps not), nonetheless it illustrates the problem with the basic dynamic of this paragraph.

Para 7 - this is an explanation of conduct that says nothing about the wrongfulness or otherwise of that conduct. It explains the internal processes leading the relevant individuals to respond to Jasmine's OP. It begs the question whether those people were right to draw the inference and feel defensive, and the further question of whether their attempts to refute Jasmine were appropriate or constructive.

Para 8 - thank you for your concluding thoughts on how to properly deal with issues of racism. I feel very comfortable accepting this advice having read your careful and eloquent treatment of those issues in the above post.

Para 9 - very neat, I like the way you have dovetailed your conclusion with your opening sentence, thereby very cleverly managing to both legitimize and distract from the load of trollop sandwiched in between.

5/10/2016 03:28:52 pm

Hi BBB, I will attempt to clarify my position in accordance with your concerns.

Para 1 - I believe that this second article of Jasmine's has gone 'over the top' in the sense that it features more explicit accusations of racism levelled at the MLS student body. I would not for one moment seek to silence Jasmine, and I uphold her right to draw whatever conclusions from her experiences as she thinks fit. I happen to disagree that the last week betrays some type of racist underbelly at MLS.

Para 3 - my subjective conclusion that the commenters did not express racist views was indeed supported by reasons. This was that the commenters refuting Jasmine seemed concerned with broader notions of meritocracy and social fact-finding, and not with the entitlement of people of certain races to have a place at law school. In the alternative, if one interprets the commenters to have been racist in substance, they add up to a handful of commenters in a law school of about one thousand.

Para 4 - I have not said that affirmative action is counter-productive. I go on to say that I think the accusation of broader/institutional racism at MLS is counter-productive for the reasons that follow in the rest of the post. That is, that people get defensive when accused of racism, and I think that perhaps racial victims may be better off calling out individual racists, without trying to denounce society as a whole, In so doing, some who may have joined your cause will be less enthusiastic about doing so because, for example, they feel as if they are being labelled as racists just because they are in a white majority.

Para 5 - Yes, this is a fair point. The 'lumping' interpretation is a possible interpretation of Jasmine's comment about 'racism persisting in the fine corridors of MLS'. I don't actually agree with that interpretation, and I don't think that Jasmine is lumping racists and non-racists together, but I think it is a better explanation of 'Probably a White Cis Males' comments than the bare accusation that he is racist. My experience of debate concerning racism in Australia is that people get very defensive on the topic, and start believing that they themselves are being accused of racism. They therefore try to refute and confine the conclusions drawn by people who discuss the problem of racism in our society.

Para 6 - a better analogy would be to not blame every person who didn't steal your car for the actions of the person who DID steal your car.

Para 7 - Yes. I deliberately leave that question begging in a way. People probably should not get defensive, but I'm a keen observer of human behaviour, and it happens in nearly every argument. People internalise the substance of debates and sometimes respond in an undesirable way because they feel as if they are being personally attacked. My advice for Jasmine is to not be perturbed by such people, and to continue calling out racism. Furthermore, those people may possibly not be racist themselves, but merely overly defensive regarding their white ethnicity (which they cannot help!).

Para 8 - I do not expect condescending and sarcastic responses to my sincere attempts to analyse the events of the past week. It is a shame that you do not respect my views on racial harmony to the same extent as you respect Jasmine's. Racial harmony between say, blacks and whites, will be most effective if it takes into account the feelings and views of both blacks and whites. This may sound like 'white privilege' again, given that PoC have historically been the wronged party, but I just see it as being realistic.

Para 9 - my conclusion is to re-affirm that I support Jasmine's efforts, despite the fact that I disagreed with her conclusion in the second piece.

5/10/2016 06:38:41 pm

@MM
Fair play to you, you are clearly making a genuine attempt to engage with this in a constructive way.

I apologise for flaming it is not particularly constructive, and mean, and hidden behind a pseudonym in this case. Sorry specifically for being condescending and sarcastic.

I partially agree or at least entertain some of the points in your most recent post. Specifically the point about an inclusive dialogue and process for working out issues of racism within society. I think that is more likely to be constructive long-term, and from a pragmatic perspective the sensitivities (whether appropriate or not) of persons becoming defensive may need to be accommodated to some degree. That is not to say there is no place for educating a more appropriate response. But it remains a fact that, while it may be (some version of) just to tell someone becoming defensive to pack it in, that approach could be divisive, inflame tensions and be counterproductive. The counterargument, of course, is to point to Duncan's post and the MLK quote, and realise that the truth and reality is harsh, and people's feelings may be a necessary and trivial casualty of progressive social change.

Another observation, is that taking any position that even remotely diverges from the progressive 'mainstream' will draw heat. This is an unhappy consequence of the history of paternalistic colonialism. It is a feature of the situation in which this dialogue takes place that can't be changed, so you will need a sturdy constitution if you want to be a 'moderate' commentator.

Comments are closed.

A Monkey in Silk is a Monkey no less: A reply to the ‘Critics’

Archives