Dr. Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. took one last look at his binder then closed it slowly and looked up to survey the crowd of 1,000 he was about to address. As he did so, he broke into a genuine, open-mouthed, teeth-baring smile. Though Northwestern had officially rescinded an offer to have him appear on campus in June — his presence would be enough to stir up acrimony to sour the mood of graduation, they claimed — the audience convened before him now at this same university was a friendly one.
The Wright on display Friday night, doted upon by For Members Only members as he made his way to the stage and flattered in an almost obsequious tone by the introductions, was not the Wright a Northwestern administration would be afraid of. Gone were the shrill pronouncements of his most famous sermons and his soft tone requiring careful attention in order not to miss a word lulled listeners into submission.
FMO wanted to prove a point, to show the administration that their will need not be done, and they succeeded — the line of attendees was long, the audience was receptive and the whole affair was pleasant. But to whose benefit? Rev. Wright was the most subdued of all the speakers, but the inflammatory tenor of the rest of the speeches not only doomed what could have been a positive conversation on race, but erased much of the benefit FMO accrued by attracting so much attention with a well known figure such as Wright.
“It should be known that FMO does not necessarily agree with everything that Reverend Wright has said and done. Necessarily, necessarily is the key word,” said Zachary Parker in his introduction, smiling, then shrugging and pointing at the audience as if to say, sorry, but we have to keep up appearances of remaining politically correct here.
The crowd loved it. They laughed, clapped and hollered in agreement. But it is precisely this sort of divisive and disingenuous claim of objectivity that shattered any hope for a productive, unifying night. The State of the Black Union was supposed to offer solutions for redeeming and reclaiming the black community. Instead, the parade of speakers succeeded only in further inflaming their base, falling back on tired accusations of elitism and insensitivity on the part of the University.
Most inexcusable was Parker’s remark, “It’s not that the president of the university is racist, per se, but it is his enforcing and mandating racially insensitive policies that were designed for advancing and sustaining white privilege.” He points to “racially insensitive financial aid packages offered to students of color” as evidence. However, Parker is not able to point to where this injustice actually shows up in Northwestern’s race-blind financial aid policies or Northwestern’s various programs to attract minority students. Just what Parker was suggesting remained unclear.
Ironically, it was Rev. Wright who stayed most true to the spirit of the event, offering sobering advice for a discontent generation. Mourning the “rupture in generational consciousness,” Wright exhorted Northwestern students to take their learning back to their communities, to ensure that African American culture and history are passed through the generations.
But instead of sticking to the theme, the rest of the speakers continued to emphasize division and heighten tension. “FMO rallies around Reverend Wright because we are tired of those in our community being held to a different standard than our wealthy and/or white counterparts,” Parker said.
It was hard to decipher just what double standard was at play here. Rev. Wright has “embraced a role of critique” in his work and has felt obligated to represent a “critical dissonant perspective,” said Professor Martha Bionidi. Wherever there’s a status quo agitator, media attention naturally follows. The media was interested in Wright because of his harsh, critical message, not just because of his race.
And that’s the same shortsightedness most of the speakers suffered from. They seemed to miss the fact that a great majority of their complaints grew not from the “culture of white privilege” that Mark Crain spoke of, but could apply to all Northwestern students. Northwestern may be occasionally inattentive and sometimes misguided, but there is no evidence to suggest that race has motivated any of its shortcomings.
Parker railed against the university for failing at simple tasks such as “buying new furniture and updating the Black House.” But consider the Hardy House, home to Northwestern’s 12 time National championship winning debate team. It has a temperamental front door, floors so creaky it’s probably a hazard, and for almost a year, the portrait of its namesake gathered dust on the floor, propped as it was against the trash can. Perhaps Northwestern should invest more in upkeep of its buildings, but that affects all students.
Many of the grievances of Northwestern’s African American community are well-reasoned and thoughtfully composed. But they are the grievances of Northwestern’s Asian, Caucasian, Latino, and American Indian communities.
Jesse Yang, the Asian American member of FMO’s executive board, came closest to articulating this realization, stating that “some of you might be confused by my presence on this stage” but that “none of you support injustice.” His impassioned and earnest request for everyone in the audience — regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation — to work against injustice was moving and on point. Unfortunately, by couching their appeals in racially divisive rhetoric, the rest of the speakers worked to undermine the very spirit of Yang’s appeal.
FMO has, even if crudely, re-started a necessary conversation on race. The “general fear with using strong words like justice” that Crain spoke of needs to be extinguished. No Northwestern administrator has claimed that the diversity problem has been solved. The list of shortcomings is long and embarrassing. But what would serve the Northwestern community more than baseless attacks is an offer to work together, administration and students, to reach agreeable solutions.
Tuesday, Nov. 11, 9:02 a.m. Black House has been properly capitalized. Thanks to Mark C. for the correction.