Copyright truthout
After the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk — one that I unequivocally found to be unconscionable, unacceptable, and sickening — I thought about his wife and children. I am married, and I have children. I can’t imagine the unspeakable sorrow that Kirk’s wife and children must be experiencing. So, I will continue to mourn his death and their loss. I do so because I believe in love, forgiveness, and the sanctity of human life. I also believe in the First Amendment. So, here we are. In the aftermath of Kirk’s tragic death, a great deal is being discussed now about his legacy regarding free speech and open debate. What I have to offer to readers in this regard is my own very personal experience of the organization that Kirk founded — Turning Point USA (TPUSA). How Kirk’s Organization Targeted Me in 2016 In 2016, TPUSA produced an online list titled “Professor Watchlist,” a site designed to identify professors who purportedly “discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.” I don’t “teach leftist propaganda in the classroom,” and I never discriminate against conservative students, but I was nevertheless placed on the list soon after its creation in 2016, apparently because I am a philosopher who examines the complex ways in which white people are socially and psychically complicit in the perpetuation of anti-Black racism in the United States. There’s no way for me to know whether or to what extent my placement on the Professor Watchlist extended or intensified the ongoing avalanche of racist threats and slurs that I had already started receiving after I published an open letter in The New York Times in 2015 titled “Dear White America” — a letter that sought to challenge the racist “innocence” of white people and was the source that Turning Point USA cited as grounds for placing me on their watchlist. But being placed on the Professor Watchlist undoubtedly magnified the feelings of trepidation and outrage created by the racist invective constantly pouring down on me throughout that time. In response to “Dear White America,” I received an ongoing series of hate messages via email, voice message, and postal mail such as: “Dear N***** Professor… You’re a f***ing smug N*****. You are uneducated with education. You are a f***ing animal. Just like all Black people in the United States of America.” “Hey Georgie boy… You wouldn’t have a job if it wasn’t for affirmative action. Somebody needs to put a boot up your ass and knock your f***ing head off your shoulders…” “There are two ways you can return to Africa: On a passenger ship, or in a coffin freighter. Choose quickly.” “In a sane world, this ugly n***** would be just beheaded ISIS style. Make America WHITE Again.” With apologies to those who already encounter this kind of triggering hate speech regularly and do not need more of it in their lives, I reprint these examples here to show the ways in which there is a failure of vulnerability to truly listen to those deemed “the other,” dreams of returning to a white mythical past of “racial purity,” an unabashed ascendancy of white nationalism, political disinformation about white “victimhood,” an intentional disregard for civic responsibility, and an intentional fomentation of hatred by a Trumpian regime hell-bent on creating and exacerbating racial, political, and religious divisiveness. All of this is at the heart of what is actually shutting down space for civil debate and free speech in this country. And my personal experience of receiving this ongoing avalanche of hate in response to publishing an op-ed, and then being placed on the TPUSA’s Professor Watchlist as an additional response to the same op-ed, underscores how projects such as this watchlist are not really about protecting “civil debate” and “free speech,” as some of Kirk’s fans have argued. The process through which I was placed on TPUSA’s list was anathema to public debate. Instead of writing an op-ed in response to my New York Times op-ed, or inviting me to a public debate on these issues, TPUSA instead added me to an online list that is — as I explained in another New York Times op-ed back in 2016 — essentially a new species of McCarthyism. I would never dream of subjecting the people I disagree with most vehemently to a list like this. I have no desire to create a watchlist that monitors conservatives and fuels their public denial or subjects them to violent retribution; I don’t believe in shaming entire groups of people or targeting individuals through a list such as this. The list — a dangerous and antidemocratic tool — follows a draconian playbook by spying on professors and labeling them as “troublemakers” for the U.S. establishment. It is a site for surveillance, control, name-calling. Functioning like a modern-day scarlet letter, the list can lead to ostracization, condemnation, and even the practice of self-silencing (because of the fear of being the object of actual or potential violence) for those who are placed on it. Before placing me on this list, no one from TPUSA asked to speak with me. Kirk never asked to debate me about my views on whiteness, white privilege, or white embodiment. In being placed on the list, I was falsely labeled and marked in ways that are not true. I have recently listened to clips of Kirk complaining that there are those who didn’t listen to him; in the clips he expresses frustrations about times when others just made assumptions about things that he didn’t say, or distorted what he meant by what he said. I understand his point because that’s exactly what his organization, TPUSA, did to me. I was placed on the list without a mumbling word about making sure that I was given democratic space to debate my position on whiteness. TPUSA sought to tar and ostracize me as an “enemy” of conservative thought without first inviting me for civil debate. Conversations That Kirk and I Never Had Kirk and I would have had much to debate if our engagement had involved an in-person conversation rather than his organization simply placing me on a McCarthyist shunning list. It appears that we disagreed on many topics. For example, though Kirk never said that all Black women lack “the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously,” he did accuse Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Ketanji Brown Jackson as “lacking” such brain processing power. All these women are Black and all of them graduated from Ivy League schools. So, what was the basis for Kirk’s insult? He can’t simply make such an egregious claim without that claim being mediated by the history of anti-Black racism. Indeed, his accusation was loaded with white racist overtones. So as not to miss Kirk’s nuance, he says these women lack such brain power because they have benefited from affirmative action. He says they stole “a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.” The assumption that because they may have benefitted from affirmative action they are therefore not bright enough is a blatant non sequitur. He assumes that affirmative action involves the automatic lowering of standards. Affirmative action was never designed to discriminate, but to create an equitable playing field. To hold this position about brain power and affirmative action, it would follow, based upon Kirk’s reasoning, that white women, the group that has benefited most from affirmative action, are also cognitively incompetent. Similarly, when asked about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), Kirk responded, “Obviously [DEI is] about trying to destroy the excellence of the country and elevating racial tribal politics.”I’m not cherry picking here. Notice that he says, “obviously.” But to whom is this “obvious”? Certainly not to Black people, who have been enslaved in this country longer than we have been “free.” But let’s face it, the United States was founded upon white racial tribal politics. Kirk also problematically raised the issue of race, affirmative action, and DEI while clarifying a statement that he made about Black pilots. Originally, his comment was within the context of United Airlines saying that it wanted 50 percent of its pilots to be people of color or women, which still disproportionately favors white men. Kirk went on to talk about how there are relaxed standards anytime there are racial quotas. And he extended his reasoning to air traffic controllers, professors, and college admissions. He later clarified, “Boy, if I see a Black pilot, I’m now going to wonder is that individual qualified or were they selected because of their race.” He went on to assert that he had this thought not because of who he is, but because affirmative action and DEI hiring practices made him think that way. Here’s the problem. Being a qualified Black pilot and benefitting from affirmative action or DEI hiring practices are not mutually exclusive. When I’ve seen a Black pilot, I don’t “hope” that they can fly the plane. I’m proud to see them. And if they have benefitted from affirmative action or DEI, this in no way creates trepidation for me about their qualifications. I am fine with the fact that United Airlines cares both about making sure some pilots are Black and also making sure that those same pilots are well-qualified. This is a conjunction that Kirk rejected. Kirk also didn’t seem to understand why United Airlines would be concerned with the color of the skin of the pilot. To wonder about this is to pretend ignorance about white supremacy in this country. Since Kirk didn’t address this, I will. Actually, it is Kirk who was concerned with the color of the skin of pilots. His concern was part of the perpetuation of white racism and had everything to do with the whiteness of the skin of those pilots who have dominated aviation. United Airlines does not hire based upon racial quotas, which are illegal. Its aim was merely to open possibilities and opportunities for those who have been systemically and systematically excluded from the field and from the cockpit. I hope that articulating my disagreements with Kirk here isn’t interpreted as a virulent attack. I just think that he was wrong on these issues. In a functional democracy, to disagree with someone is a politically protected right, and it ought to be productive of greater mutual understanding and clarity. In fact, philosophically and democratically, agonism (a creative tension between interlocutors) is to be valued and treasured. In his book The Multivoiced Body, philosopher Fred Evans argues that agonism exemplifies an enduring creative interplay between voices, “not a reaction to enemies.” The Right Is Weaponizing Kirk’s Murder to Fuel Attacks on Democracy and Speech To engage in critique and productive disagreement should be the lifeblood of a democracy, and of this fragile experiment known as U.S. democracy. Yet, Donald Trump, JD Vance, Stephen Miller, and many right-wing activists are using the tragic occasion of Kirk’s murder to foment retribution on those who disagree publicly with Kirk’s views. Indeed, they are effectively and anti-democratically weaponizing the death of Kirk. Trump and his sycophants are implementing political repression, censorship, and politically targeting free speech, which means that those of us who believe in democratic speech, in dissent, in open and critical debate, are being targeted, are being silenced, are being marked for further violence. This is not new for Trump. As someone who aspires to be a political strongman, his modus operandi is to threaten to use government power to imprison and to prosecutethose who he sees as his political enemies, despite it being unconstitutional. The Justice Department is not, or should not be, a political tool to be wielded against one’s perceived or real political rivals. The soul of this country is at stake, if it has a soul worth saving. I don’t say this flippantly. I say this because I mean it, and I am serious about it. I say it because I refuse to feign ignorance about what is happening to this country before our eyes. It is becoming increasingly fascistic. Is it now a crime to use that term, to speak freely? If it is, then that only confirms the truth that I speak. The reactionary call for blood and collective punishment after the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk is a form of ethical debauchery and warmongering. For those who encourage it, especially those who identify as “Christians,” you might as well spit in the face of Jesus. Some of us — many of us — detest the murder of Kirk, even as we passionately disagree with his politics. I am one of those. As Frantz Fanon writes in Black Skin, White Masks, “Today I believe in the possibility of love; that is why I endeavor to trace its imperfections, its perversions.” My question is, what do you believe in?
