Semantic Race-Baiting
On March 2, 2016, BBC News reported that Harvard University will no longer call its dormitory leaders “house masters.” According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a master is “a person having authority, direction or control over the action of another or others; a director, leader, chief, commander; a ruler, governor.” Harvard has infringed on the commonplace definition of the word and has forced us to view “master” from a racist perspective.
By giving everyday words and expressions racist connotations, we only intensify social tensions. Harvard’s approach towards tackling racism is counter-intuitive and counter-productive. Focusing our attention on past events or words that barely harbor racism encourages a passive response to the issue of racism today. Instead of searching for ways to blame our current problems on historical occurrences, we must attack racism head-on. Examples of effective, thoughtful ways to spark change include school workshops, community dialogue and other social events that require personal engagement. More importantly, we will never get anything done if we give history too much influence on our present troubles.
The situation also highlights our skewed perception of racism. We no longer associate individuals with racist personalities; we now define words as racist in our efforts to display our support for political correctness. Harvard had no legitimate argument behind the removal of the name. The faculty members showed a correlation between the two meanings of the words, but failed to demonstrate causation. In other words, I doubt the word was ever used to mean “slave owner” throughout Harvard’s history. By fabricating racism out of rather innocent words, we distance ourselves from the actual instances of racism in our society.
Our society must also alleviate the oversensitivity that exists around racism.
Harvard’s decision serves as an anchor for a conversation about the definition of racism. While there undoubtedly exists a line between offensive and innocuous, I believe that our community places too much pressure on the speaker, but too little accountability on the listener. We need to stop using political correctness as the criterion for social evaluation and instead rely more on emotions (i.e. anger) to understand the legitimate roots of racism. It is time that we stop creating scapegoats for our racial tensions in the same way that Harvard misused the word “master,” because by doing so, we begin to convince ourselves that racism roots not from ourselves, but from external factors.
Our society must also alleviate the oversensitivity that exists around racism. Oversensitivity, especially the type seen in BlackLivesMatter, highlights our differences, but fails to unite us. Though BlackLivesMatter advocates for racial equality, the violence and chaos that it ignites at its protests makes it harder for white Americans to connect with their cause. Harvard will forever be deceived by its decision, because it believes that they spark change, when in reality they condone stagnation.
There is a lesson we can learn from Harvard’s decision. We need to stop throwing the word “racist” around. The more we abuse this word, the less meaning it will have when a truly grave situation pops up (think of the Boy Who Cried Wolf). The next time you decide to call someone “racist,” stop and think; know that there may be more negative than positive consequences.