When I first read the Nov. 1 op−ed entitled "What happens when integration and assimilation fail?" I was upset and puzzled by some of the questions and intense statements, but I decided that it was a legitimate attempt to stir up campus debate on the subject of race. However, after the second Nov. 8 op−ed, "Empathy + assimilation = fail!", I cannot help feeling that Samuel Murray has started to take things to an unproductive place. I would like to start out by asking Samuel, genuinely, about his "cordial" invitation to the next meeting of the Association of Latin American Students. I am truly curious as to what kind of reception I, as a member of the so−called "majority," would receive should I choose to accept this invitation, because, to be frank, the language in Samuel's articles has been neither cordial nor inviting. Why is it that he wishes ostracism upon me because of the color of my skin? Interestingly Samuel chose to close his first article with Martin Luther King, Jr. saying he dreamed of a land "where men no longer argue that the color of a man's skin determines the content of his character," yet Samuel has passed judgment on the majority of the individuals on this campus based on the color of their skin.
When I first read "What happens when integration and assimilation fail?", what intrigued me most was that one line, buried amongst all of his other inflammatory language, where he claims that he has been "perceived as a lesser individual because of [his] socioeconomic status." Since Samuel had just previously spent a great deal of time and ink railing against racism at Tufts, I had to ask if he was claiming that only minorities are of a lower socioeconomic status here at Tufts, a connection that left me flabbergasted. In his second article, he backtracks quickly, claiming he never meant that all "minority individuals grow up impoverished," and he even goes on to attack white students for "claiming they can relate to minorities because … they grew up impoverished." I just want to point out that it was Samuel himself who first made that ludicrous connection between race and lower economic class. I, for one, was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that slip−up because I was so relieved that someone was finally going to start talking about the realities of socioeconomic discrimination here at Tufts. As a member of the only current Tufts class to be admitted totally "need blind," financial discrimination has been the elephant in the room for my entire Tufts career. (I suppose this is the point in the op−ed where I am required to own up to my own identifiers that are apparently relevant to any discussion about race, class or gender. Therefore: I am a white woman, from a less financially privileged, though comfortable, background.)
However, that is not where Samuel went. Instead Samuel asked for empathy and perspective ("So to my fellow peers, I ask that you challenge yourself to not just empathize with us, but to take on a new perspective"), yet showed neither himself. He decried ignorance, yet he himself was ignorant. He challenged all of us to take on a new perspective and yet did not face that challenge himself. I stand with Sarah Tralins in asking Samuel to see that the road to empathy is a two−way street, and I stand by the idea that empathy is the first, and most important, step towards any sort of integration or human connection.
More importantly, I would like to take this opportunity to ask Samuel, and all of you, a question: Why is it, exactly, that his oppression as a man of color is somehow more valid and worthy of a voice than my oppression as a woman?
My white skin has not granted me "immunity" from fear of sexual assault. Perhaps he should think of this the next time he walks home alone after dark. Perhaps he should think of this the next time he doesn't have to think about what time he'll be coming home from class when he gets dressed in the morning, as his choice of dress won't make him a more appealing victim. And while he is attacking my "white privilege" perhaps he should take a step back and think about the privileges that being male affords him. Interestingly, he makes no mention of the doors that his gender will open for him.
Samuel spoke of an "ominous, omniscient oppression… in the atmosphere," and all I have to say is: welcome to life in the patriarchy! Samuel claims that he is "systematically denied opportunities and acceptance that [he] so rightly deserve[s]." I think he should know that even with the wage−gap closing, economists predict that in the year 2031 he, as a man, will be earning 22 percent more per year than I will as a woman, for no reason other than our different genders. Samuel says, "Too often have I heard defamatory racial slurs used by majority individuals without repercussions or reprimands." I ask him: when was the last time you called, or heard someone else call, someone a b−−−h, a p−−−y or a c−−t, "but didn't mean it like that"? Samuel lumped in the Women's Center when he listed the places that Sarah could show her support, yet in the same way that I will "never understand" his racial oppression, how dare he casually claim to speak for me as a woman?
Personally, I don't believe that Samuel and I will never be able to empathize with each other. In fact, I think that we are in a unique position to understand one another. I was angry once, just like Samuel is, but then one day I realized that by saying "you'll never be able to understand" I was burning a bridge when I should have been building one. The danger in continuing the "who has been more oppressed" competition that I may have just inadvertently started is that all of us have our own stories, whether it's Samuel struggling with exclusion, Sarah losing her father or women being victimized because of their sex. If Samuel was in favor of true integration for everyone, if he truly stood by his idea of being accepted with open arms, he would be able to see that the world is a rough place, in one way or another, for most of us. I would like to add an MLK quote of my own: "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
Perhaps, instead of ranting and raving in the Daily, Samuel should take the aforementioned advice of Martin Luther King, Jr. I would be more than willing to support a fair, open and real dialogue about race or gender or class. However, when I am having an "injustice" shoved down my throat, and someone else is telling me, without ever having met me, that his or her oppression has somehow been greater than mine, it does nothing but make me defensive and angry. I think Mr. Murray has done a great disservice to our campus community with the tone of his op−eds, and I would strongly suggest he take some of his own advice and find some empathy and perspective before he continues to spout his accusations.
--
Emily Cox is a senior who is majoring in English.
