As the controversy over Catt Hall’s symbolism continues, I have several comments and questions. Milton McGriff, a prolific member of the Movement, insists that Iowa State is permeated with institutionalized racism or white supremacy. Vilifying all whites for their active participation or acquiescence, the evil influence of the whites is seen to pervade all.

Successful blacks are simply “Oreos,” while blacks who do not tow the party line are called “Uncle Toms” by McGriff and extremists such as Leonard Jeffries and Louis Farrakhan. Worse still, numerous black children are discouraged by their parents and mocked by their peers for achieving in school.

Apparently, there is one standard “black” way to think. Several weeks ago Rhaason Mitchell wrote, “They are my brothers and I support the hopes, dreams and goals of my brothers, not because I believe in them, but because they do.”

In 1994, Yale law professor Stephen Carter told Stanford’s graduating class that black conservatives lacked “any claim to blackness other than biological. They have forgotten their roots. They may look black, but they are not, we might say, the black people who matter” (Stanford Review, April 4, 1994).

Paradoxically, “diversity” means that all blacks must think the same way.

Those who disagree with this “group-think” mentality are, by definition, race-traitors or racists. Broader arguments are fashioned to fit the a prior assumption of pervasive racism. Why do so few blacks play professional tennis or golf? Racism.

Why do blacks dominate professional basketball, football and baseball? Racism. Why does the media focus on Tiger Woods? Racism. Why does the media focus on Mike Tyson? Racism.

Whether overt or covert, racism is everywhere. Seek and ye shall find it. Just as Marxists view all of history through the lens of class conflict, so the protesters of Catt Hall view all things, past and present, as determined by “race, gender and class” (the fashionable triumvirate of academic discourse).

Unfortunately, history is neither so simple nor so reductionist. It is odd that McGriff calls us to study history, when he himself views it through distorting race-gender-class spectacles. Is that all there is to the study of history?

For example, while the ancient Greeks were undoubtedly influenced by Egyptian culture, they did not “steal” everything from “black” Egyptians because of racism. Not only did American blacks not descend from ancient Nubians/Egyptians, but the Greeks did not view Egyptians in racial terms. History is much more complex than “race, gender and class.”

The Movement’s arguments are rife with contradictions. For example, Catt’s “racist” rhetoric (in the South) to further women’s suffrage was unacceptable. The political ends did not justify the means.

Yet, Allan Nosworthy’s hunger strike/threat ‘blood on Jischke’s hands” was a perfectly acceptable tactic. The ends did justify the means.

On the one hand, we are told racism is wrong and always has been. This is a timeless absolute, even though scientific “racism” did not always exist.

On the other hand, multiculturalism assumes everyone’s ideas, cultures and lifestyles are equally valid. Hence we must embrace non-Western historical practices such as foot binding, clitorectomy and human sacrifice. When moral and cultural relativism reign, there are no absolutes. Nonetheless a double standard shines brightly: we can only criticize the West because it is the root of all evil.

Taking Catt’s remarks in context does not mean white-washing them, it means balancing positive with negative. Yet, McGriff and others are not interested in Catt’s positive accomplishments. All is bad because Catt was a Western racist.

Ironically, no effort has been made by Catt’s detractors to “walk in her shoes.” This is particularly true regarding her alleged “classism” and “xenophobia.” Diversity is a one-way street.

As currently presented the mantras of “multiculturalism” and “diversity,” there are political buzz words rather than intellectual concepts. In fact, distinctions between political and intellectual have completely vanished. Diversity has a very narrow political definition. For instance, at the spring commencement ceremony, more than half of the doctoral recipients were from countries all over the world, yet President Jischke lamented the lack of diversity at ISU. What, then, does diversity mean?

As you attend your mandatory multicultural class, consider these questions. Can anyone legitimately disagree with the Movement’s positions without being called ignorant, apathetic, insensitive or a racist? What do the labels African American, Asian American, European American, etc. really mean? Is there a typically African, Asian or European way of thinking about things? If so, what is it?

Is “multiculturalism” about the study of different cultures, religions, and languages? Or is it about political indoctrination by black lesbians, militant feminists, and transsexual economists? Does “diversity” strive to understand, for example, the hundreds of African cultures from the Berbers and Ethiopians to the Khoikhoi and Swahili? Or does it desire a society in which “race, gender, and class” is all we see?

---

Robinson M. Yost is an Iowa State alumnus from the Class of 1997.