Dennis Upkins’s “The Myth of Black Homophobia” is one of the more extreme examples of “privilism” making the rounds among Harvard’s liberal vanguard. The blog post, which does contain some valid arguments, criticizes the scapegoating of the black community for homophobia, but it also relies heavily on broad brush recriminations of white people. Upkins, as a gay man of color, feels comfortable stating that “Most whites don’t want to come out of their comfort zone” and referring to straight people as “breeders.” “It’s white female allies who pen the most homophobic bile known as m/m romance..and then want to cry rape when they get called on their bullshit.” However, Upkins does admit that an “elite few” are genuinely supportive, but then quickly contrasts these shining beacons with what he considers to be the vast majority of phony “justice opportunists.” If any straight or white person had made such sweeping and insulting claims about gays or blacks, they would face instant condemnation, yet several of the most liberal members of the Harvard community have praised the blog’s analysis and shared it with friends.
In the midst of Harvard’s liberal circles, an uneasy shift in dialogue is occurring. Feminist and queer groups have begun to shift their focus from policy advocacy (ie. gay marriage, blood donation, and rape policies) to the sphere of culture. Many of their cultural arguments are based on understanding why our society unfairly gives some racial, ethnic, or gender groups more privilege than others, a valid argument in and of itself. Unfortunately, this fight to restore balance often devolves into its own form of discrimination and marginalization. Activists begin to pride themselves on being the ‘most underprivileged,’ or otherwise are expected to castigate themselves for the scraps of privilege they have been awarded. In a bizarre reversal of the usual hierarchy, male feminists are expected to constantly bemoan their male privilege, straight females bemoan their heteronormativity, gay males bemoan their cisnormativity and all of the above lament if they do not happen to be people of color.
A little awareness of the privileges we are allotted by society is a good thing. It helps us to empathize with others who have not shared our advantages. However, when left uncontrolled, awareness of our privilege can quickly transform into a new form of prejudice. Instead of using privilege as a tool to understand different perspectives, too often we use it to silence and shame our opponents into submission. Instead of establishing a society based on equality, activists who push privilege too far perpetuate isolation and resentment. Men who attempt to discuss gender with women and whites who wish to discuss race with blacks are accused of “mansplaining” and “whitesplaining”; because of their privilege, their points of view are immediately dismissed no matter how valid they may be.
Ironically, much of the rage evinced in the activist community at Harvard is not against the many forces who are explicitly opposed to gender and racial equality, but against well-meaning allies. On many a rage filled blog, the word “ally” is bracketed off with scare quotes, as if to question the very existence of sympathetic voices outside the movement. Those who attempt to enter minority spaces are closely monitored and if they inadvertently let slip a sentiment that is less than orthodox they are castigated for failing to “check their privilege.” As a result, fewer and fewer allies feel comfortable attending meetings and meetings in turn become more and more radicalized. The goal of activists is to transform society, but by constantly denigrating those who are not minorities, they weaken their power to affect real change. People who genuinely want to help are discouraged and turned away by a dialogue that constantly devalues them and their efforts.
One of the brightest legacies of the civil rights and gay rights movements has been the focus on fairness to individuals. We have argued that we have the rights to be judged on our own merits instead of as members of some or other group. We have asked that people take a closer look and see that although race, gender, and sexuality influence our identities, they are not the only attributes that define us. Every time we silence or discredit speakers simply because they belong to more privileged groups, we perpetuate the very injustice our predecessors fought so hard to end. By all means, let’s recognize that privilege exists and fight to eradicate unfair privilege from our culture. But don’t use it as an insult.