<Back

Letters to the Editor

Amendments, not emotions

When last week’s S&B came out, I was dismayed to see that my column title, “‘Assimilating’ With Steve King,” had been replaced with: “Student Takes on Congressman Full of Hate.”

My intention was to point out that King’s understanding of assimilation has dangerous repercussions. King is dishonest and misinformed, but not necessarily “full of hate.”

Today, racism is not primarily the result of individual “hate.” Racism today happens when institutions and laws systematically disenfranchise some groups and reinforce the privileges of others.

Growing up, many of us were taught that it was best to be “colorblind,” which meant that you didn’t care what race your friends were. Because you didn’t see color, racism would go away. Unfortunately, eradicating racism is not that easy.

If children born in America are deprived of citizenship; if money that could be used to create jobs is diverted to build a razor-wire fence on the U.S.-Mexico border; if “English-Only” laws deprive immigrants of their rights to read and understand government documents; then it does not matter if everyone in the world pretends racism never existed.

The laws and amendments Steve King advocates would continue to disenfranchise Mexican-Americans, even if hate ceased to exist in the United States of America. Even if no one saw color.

Acting like racism will end when “hate” ends encourages people to overlook the outcomes that will result if proposals like King’s continue to be implemented.

Because I wanted to demonstrate how a Congressman used concepts like colorblindness and assimilation to justify revoking rights, I deliberately emphasized the legal and institutional, rather than psychological aspects of social inequality.

A column title focusing on “Hate” undermined this project by bringing a debate about laws and constitutional amendments to a personal emotional level.

—Dilara Yarbrough ’06

<Back