To the Editor:

Many senators and other students seem to be under the impression that talking about racism is getting in the way of Senate’s productivity. When Senators Acey and Gil bring up racism or other forms of oppression, it is received as a disruption to Senate’s ability to do its job. Mr. Apel’s letter to the editor last week quoted many senators who felt that that talking about identity is unproductive, or, as he put it, “a tool to oppress and negate the opinions of other senators.” Senators have also expressed that they feel personally attacked by terms like “racism,” “sexism” and “oppression.”

In my opinion, these feelings come from a fundamental misunderstanding of what Senators Acey and Gil have been talking about at plenary sessions. To clarify: When they use words like racism, sexism, oppression, etc., they are referring to the historical and institutional power of white men at Oberlin College and in the world in general. Calling someone or their comments racist, sexist, oppressive, etc. is not a personal attack. It is an attempt to call attention to the fact that someone’s actions or words are upholding or reinforcing the institutional patriarchy and white supremacy that structures Oberlin College. This is what makes Senate meetings and so many other places on Oberlin’s campus unsafe.

Being uncomfortable because someone called you racist is not the same as feeling unsafe because you are experiencing racism. The difference, for those who were quoted in Mr. Apel’s letter last week, is that racist actions and words are backed by a very real system of violence and white supremacy. So when racism is directed toward a particular senator or student and they say that they feel unsafe, it is because their safety is literally at risk. This is not the case when the word “racist” is used to describe somebody or their actions. There is no institutional power behind calling somebody out for being racist. Being called racist does not come with a threat against your safety or ability to remain at the College. All it does is provide an opportunity for personal reflection and growth. This can be uncomfortable, but it is not unsafe.

This letter is not meant as an attack on those senators who say that being called words like “racist” makes them feel scared or uncomfortable. What I hope this can be instead is a call to think carefully about how we use words like “unsafe,” and why we demand for people to change their language or delivery before we will listen to what they are saying. Myself and many other students who have attended the recent plenary sessions can attest to the fact that Senators Acey and Gil are not making anything up or throwing around words like “racism,” “sexism” and “oppression” just for fun. I would hope that each time racism is mentioned at a Senate meeting the first response from all senators at the table is to reflect on their own actions and intentions and the ways that logics of white supremacy are influencing their decisions, not to become defensive in a way that negates the potential for growth. It is not conversations about oppression that are getting in the way of Senate’s productivity — it is this violent defensiveness.