I have to hand it to him. After he told my accuser how much help I had been in a time of need, my friend put the accuser in an awkward position. Though he made him stammer incoherently, I think I could have handled the situation even better.
I have a form-response to spurious accusations of racism taken from the brilliant criminologist William Wilbanks. It involves asking the accuser these two questions: 1) “What is your definition of racism?” and 2) “How does it apply to the situation at hand?”
The response to my two questions is usually either a) total silence, or b) an apology. Had I been there last week to ask these questions of my accuser, it is likely that he would have chosen option “a.” But, since my recent columns on race have been drawing such bizarre criticism, I have decided to adopt a new strategy.
My new strategy is actually based on responses to two of the columns I published this school year. The “Change Your Ethnicity Day” column caused some black readers to dub me a racist for opposing affirmative action (because it is a form of racial discrimination). My “Welcome to UNC-We Love Black People” column caused some black readers to dub me a racist for opposing “African American Centers” and other measures that promote racial segregation.
Years ago, people who supported racial discrimination and racial segregation were called racists. Today, people who are opposed to racial discrimination and racial segregation are called racists - at least they are on campuses all across America. If the diversity movement has accomplished anything at my university, it has been to teach young blacks to model themselves after members of the Ku Klux Klan and the John Birch Society.
But there is another rather obvious conclusion that comes from watching the “progress” made by the Offices of Campus Diversity in recent years. It is that these people are so arrogant as to presume that they may redefine racism whenever they see fit in order to garner support for whatever initiatives they deem fashionable at any given point in time.
So, perhaps, it is no longer advisable to ask the diversity nabobs to inform us of their most recent postmodern definition of racism simply because they are, yet again, making spurious allegations. Perhaps, instead, it is time for those of us who are tired of the diversity movement (that includes those tired of paying for it with hard-earned tax dollars) to come up with our own definition of racism.
Today, in my capacity as a candidate for the Office of President of the United States of America, I am proud to offer a new definition of racism. It follows here in all its simplicity:
Racism – is a pathological tendency to interject race into situations where it is not relevant, merely for personal gain.
And, of course, a racist can be defined as follows:
Racist – one who interjects race into situations where it is not relevant, merely for personal gain.
Under my new definition of racism, David Duke is still a racist but George Bush isn’t. And Bill Clinton is no longer our first black president. He’s our first racist president. And I’ll be damned if Hillary Clinton will be our second.
When I become President of the United States, I pledge to work hard every day to see that racists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton get what they deserve; a very small but well-deserved federal unemployment check.
As your 44th President, I will also pledge to ignore racists rather than to spend all my time fighting racism. I have more important things to do like making the Fair Tax a reality and bombing Iran (in no particular order).
I realize that my strong language may turn off a few voters but that’s okay. If you don’t get the logic of my argument I really don’t want your support. In fact, you’re probably just a racist. I suggest you vote for the other candidate.