A documentary on prison gangs from a few years ago included an interview with a member of the Aryan Brotherhood about his beliefs, though one could easily guess at them at first sight. It is true that the swastika is an ancient symbol, appearing in a number of cultures, having various meanings. As a tattoo, however, it very rarely functions as a good-luck sign or evidence of Buddhist piety. (Well, not for the last 70 years anyway.)
But this Aryan Brotherhood spokesman wanted to make one thing clear: He was not a racist. He didn’t hate anybody! (Nobody who hadn’t earned his hate, anyway.) He simply believed in white separatism as a form of multicultural identity politics. I paraphrase somewhat, but that was the gist of it, and he seemed genuinely aggrieved that anyone could think otherwise. He was, to his own way of thinking, the victim of a hurtful stereotype. People hear “Aryan Brotherhood” and get all hung up on the first word, completely overlooking the “brotherhood” part.
The interviewer did not press the matter, which seemed wise, even with prison guards around. Arguing semantics in such cases accomplishes very little -- and as Stephen Eric Bronner argues in his new book, The Bigot: Why Prejudice Persists (Yale University Press), the bigot is even more driven by self-pity and the need for self-exculpation than by hatred or fear.
“To elude his real condition,” writes Bronner, a professor of political science at Rutgers University, “to put his prejudices beyond criticism and change, is the purpose behind his presentation of self…. But he is always anxious. The bigot has the nagging intuition that he is not making sense, or, at least, that he cannot convince his critics that he is. And this leaves him prone to violence.”
Reminiscent of earlier studies of “the authoritarian personality” or “the true believer,” Bronner combines psychological and social perspectives on the bigot’s predicament: rage and contempt toward the “other” (those of a different ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc.) is the response of a rigid yet fragile ego to a world characterized not only by frenetic change but by the demands of the “other” for equality. Bronner is the author of a number of other books I've admired, including Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists (originally published in 1994 and reissued by Routledge in 2002) and Blood in the Sand: Imperial Ambitions, Right-Wing Fantasies, and the Erosion of American Democracy (University Press of Kentucky, 2005), so I was glad to be able to pose a few questions to him about his new book by email. A transcript of the exchange follows.
Q: You've taught a course on bigotry for many years, and your book seems to be closely connected -- for example, the list of books and films you recommend in an appendix seem like something developed over many a syllabus. Was it? Is the book itself taken from your lectures?
A:The Bigot was inspired by the interests of my students and my courses on prejudice. Though it isn’t based on the lectures, I tried to organize it in a rigorous way. As Marx once put the matter; the argument rises “from the abstract to the concrete.”
The book starts with a phenomenological depiction of the bigot that highlights his fear of modernity and the rebellion of the Other against the traditional society in which his identity was affirmed and his material privileges were secured. I then discuss the (unconscious) psychological temptations offered by mythological thinking, conspiracy fetishism and fanaticism that secure his prejudices from criticism. Next I investigate the bigot’s presentation of self in everyday life as a true believer, an elitist, and a chauvinist.
All of these social roles fit into my political analysis of the bigot today who (even as a European neo-fascist or a member of the Tea Party) uses the language of liberty to pursue policies that disadvantage the targets of his hatred. The suggested readings in the appendix help frame the new forms of solidarity and resistance that I try to sketch.
Q: On the one hand there are various forms of bigotry, focused on hostility around race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. But you stress how they tend to overlap and combine. How important a difference is there between "targeted" prejudice and "superbigotry," so to speak.
A: Prejudice comes in what I call “clusters.” The bigot is usually not simply a racist but an anti-Semite and a sexist (unless he is a Jew or a woman) and generally he has much to say about immigrants, gays, and various ethnicities. But each prejudice identifies the Other with fixed and immutable traits.
Myths, stereotypes, and pre-reflective assumptions serve to justify the bigot’s assertions. Gays are sexually rapacious; Latinos are lazy; and women are hysterical – they are just like that and nothing can change them. But the intensity of the bigot’s prejudice can vary – with fanaticism always a real possibility. His fears and hatreds tend to worsen in worsening economic circumstances, his stereotypes can prove contradictory, and his targets are usually chosen depending upon the context.
Simmering anti-immigrant sentiments exploded in the United States after the financial collapse of 2007-8; Anti-Semites condemned Jews as both capitalists and revolutionaries, super-intelligent yet culturally inferior; cultish yet cosmopolitan; and now Arabs have supplanted Jews as targets for contemporary neo-fascists in Europe. The point ultimately is that bigotry is about the bigot, not the target of his hatred
Q: You've written a lot about the Frankfurt School, whose analyses of authoritarianism in Germany and the U.S. have clearly influenced your thinking. You also draw on Jean-Paul Sartre's writings on anti-Semitism and, in his book on Jean Genet, homophobia. Most of that work was published at least 60 years ago. Is there anything significantly different about more recent manifestations of prejudice that earlier approaches didn't address? Or does continuity prevail?
A: Aside from their extraordinary erudition, what I prize in the Frankfurt School and figures like Sartre or Foucault is their intellectual rigor and their unrelenting critical reflexivity. I developed my framework through blending the insights of idealism, existentialism, Marxism, and the Frankfurt School. Other thinkers came into play for me as well. In general, however, I like to think that I too proceeded in relatively rigorous and critical fashion.
In keeping with poststructuralist fashions, and preoccupations with ever more specific understandings of identity, there has been a tendency to highlight what is unique and about particular forms of prejudice predicated on race, religion, gender, ethnicity, and the like. The Bigot offers a different approach, but then, most writers are prisoners of their traditions — though, insofar as they maintain their critical intellect, they rattle the cages.
Q: Much of the public understands “bigot” or "racist" mainly as insults, so that the most improbable folks get offended at being so labeled. People hold up pictures of Obama as a witchdoctor with a bone through his nose, yet insist that he's the one who's a racist. Sometimes it's just hypocrisy, pure and simple, but could there be more to it than that? How do you understand all of this?
A: Using the language of liberty to justify policies that disadvantage woman, gays, and people of color cynically enables him to fit into a changed cultural and political climate. It is also not merely a matter of the bigot demeaning the target of his prejudice but in presenting himself as the aggrieved party. That purpose is helped by (often unconscious) psychological projection of the bigot’s desires, hatreds, and activities upon the Other.
The persecuted is thereby turned into the oppressor and the oppressor into the persecuted. The bigot’s self-image is mired in such projection. "Birth of a Nation" (1915) -- the classic film directed by D.W. Griffith that celebrates the rise of the KKK -- obsesses over visions of freed black slaves raping white women, even though it was actually white slave owners and their henchmen who were engaged in raping black slave women.
In Europe during the 1920s and 1930s, similarly, anti-Semitic fascists accused Jews of engaging in murder and conspiracy even while their own conspiratorial organizations like the Thule Society in Germany and the Cagoulards in France were, in fact, inciting violence and planning assassinations. Such projection alleviates whatever guilt the bigot might feel and justifies him in performing actions that he merely assumes are being performed by his avowed enemy. Perceiving the threat posed by the Other, and acting accordingly, the bigot thereby becomes the hero of his own drama.
Q: Is there any reason to think prejudice can be "cured" while still at the stage of a delimited and targeted sort of hostility, rather than a full-blown worldview?
A: Fighting the bigot is a labor of Sisyphus. No political or economic reform is secure and no cultural advance is safe from the bigot, who is always fighting on many fronts at once: the anthropological, the psychological, the social, and the political. The bigot appears in one arena only to disappear and then reappear in another.
He remains steadfast in defending the good old days that never were quite so good – especially for the victims of his prejudice. Old wounds continue to fester, old memories continue to haunt the present, and old rumors will be carried into the future. New forms of bigotry will also become evident as new victims currently without a voice make their presence felt.
Prejudice can be tempered (or intensified) through education coupled with policies that further public participation and socioeconomic equality. But it can’t be “cured.” The struggle against bigotry, no less than the struggle for freedom, has no fixed end; it is not identifiable with any institution, movement, or program. Resistance is an ongoing process built upon the guiding vision of a society in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
The board of Howard University has tapped the interim president, Wayne A.I. Frederick, to take on the position on a permanent basis. Frederick holds three degrees from Howard. He was 16 when he first enrolled, traveling from his native Trinidad, seeking a career as a physician. At Howard, Frederick taught in the medical school and was a surgeon at the hospital before rising through the ranks of academic administration. The historically black university has struggled financially in recent years. In an October interview with The Washington Post, Frederick expressed confidence that the university was working through its financial difficulties.
On June 25th a group of faith-based organizations wrote a letter to President Obama asking him to include “explicit religious freedom protections in any executive order providing nondiscrimination guarantees for LGBT employees of federal contractors.” One week later on July 1st another group wrote an almost identical letter. The first letter was largely ignored by media; the second letter has been criticized by many as calling for the president to tolerate bigotry. The presidents of Christian colleges were signatories and a number have drawn much criticism as a result.
Why were the June and July letters received so differently? After all, faith-based groups have had hiring exemptions embedded in legislation since the civil rights laws of the 1960s.
The key is Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which was handed down five days after the first letter and one day before the second. The Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby, a huge business, could have a faith-based exemption from part of the Affordable Care Act. This was the first time the Supreme Court had recognized a faith-based exemption for a business. While the case made a fairly narrow ruling based on a piece of legislation that can be amended, the implications of the case caused an uproar. The picture of a rich family-owned business getting exemptions at the expense of poorer female employees who struggled to afford IUDs irritated many. So, when the July letter to Obama was made public in the aftermath of Hobby Lobby, the image of religious institutions that want exemptions from anti-discrimination policy turned many Americans sour. Is allowing Christian institutions autonomy in hiring religious freedom or is it institutionalized discrimination? The answer is more difficult than many recognize.
I know most of the people who signed the June and July letters; I grew up in their communities and they are my colleagues, mentors and friends. They are faithful citizens who do not hate the LGBT community. They take seriously Jesus’ summary of the law and prophets when he said, “Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul and mind; love your neighbor as yourself.” Their institutions have done much good in the world, and these leaders are sincere in their belief that they must live and work in accordance with their deeply held religious beliefs.
In addition, most are from Christian traditions that have historically held that homosexuality is a sin. Times are changing, though, and people in these traditions today are struggling to think through two things. First, what does it mean to love someone who lives in ways they believe are wrong? Second, what do we really know about what God intends for gay people? Churches and theologians are demonstrating that there are different ways to think about these things and changes are starting to occur in these institutions. The Christian culture is in transition and these leaders are trying to do good work in the world in the midst of great change. I admire them for this.
I also think it is important to understand exactly what they are asking for. For 200 years our First Amendment jurisprudence has held some form of this principle: Religious belief is to be protected, and sometimes religious belief is not private but is made manifest through policies of institutions like churches, schools and nonprofits.
There are limits to this protection, of course, because some religious beliefs harm others. When courts have tried to balance religious freedom against possible harm caused to others they have used the compelling interest test. They find for religious freedom unless limiting this freedom is the least restrictive alternative to protect others.
So, since the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, we have seen legislators pick up on this protection, particularly in the area of employment. For almost 50 years, faith-based institutions have had a statutory and Constitutional right to make employment decisions according to their religious belief. There has always been some lack of clarity about whether the law protects only the right to hire co-religionists or whether it allows complete freedom from nondiscrimination laws related to race, gender and disability. There has also been ongoing debate about whether faith-based institutions should receive government funding.
It helps to understand the framework that underlies the exemption request. Most of the authors of the letters to President Obama are driven by an appreciation for what is often referred to as structural or principled pluralism. They argue that as far back as the framing of the Constitution, Americans have valued the right to live according to deeply held beliefs. But, they say, it is a mistake to bifurcate belief and behavior. Belief always directs behavior so protections of belief have to be extended to institutions as well as to individuals.
This kind of pluralism has its roots in European democracy, mostly clearly seen in a policy about schools advocated by theologian and statesman Abraham Kuyper in the Netherlands. Kuyper found himself in a conflict between Roman Catholic, Protestant and secular groups with respect to the funding of schools. In an effort to protect pluralism of institutions and pluralism of worldviews, he devised a solution that gave public funds to all schools, saying that all schools contributed to the common good and educated students. Thus, all worldviews that supported the schools should have access to public funding. To limit funding to only one kind of school would elevate one worldview over another. That is not government’s role. Government, to the extent possible, should treat worldviews similarly.
It’s this kind of pluralism that drives the authors of the letters to argue that their institutions should receive the same public funding that other schools and nonprofits receive. They are doing the same work: they educate students; they feed the poor; they heal the sick. Government should not treat them differently because of their worldview. Their request for exemption from employment law isn’t really related to LGBT people. It is a broad request that asks for room to define themselves by their deeply held beliefs, and also to be treated the same as other similarly situated groups contributing to society in the same way.
This, of course, is the irony. The LGBT community, and in particular the Christian LGBT community, is asking for the very same thing: treat us the same as others with similar qualifications.
I have spent my life studying First Amendment jurisprudence and the kind of pluralism that these faith-based groups are asking for. I, too, am a pluralist. I believe that government should try to protect a diversity of worldviews and should also fund a pluralism of institutions that are shaped by different worldviews. I think this leads to a healthy society where minority voices have room to grow and to try and influence their communities. If we do not have pluralism we have only majoritarian processes. Majorities often tread on the toes of smaller groups. Allowing for pluralism does not mean that we give up on a fight against discrimination; rather it means that government is not the tool by which a good life is defined. Government protects the rights of institutions to exist according to their beliefs (subject to the compelling interest test), but within the institutions the fight for justice and nondiscrimination can flourish.
But, as a pluralist I am troubled by those letters. President Obama has signed the executive order without the exemption and already a number of lawsuits are planned to challenge his action. I understand that the lawsuits are designed to protect religious freedom, but I hope most who signed the letter will not join the litigation. I think those of us who advocate for religious pluralism have more thinking to do, and along this line, I offer those faith-based institutions a two-part challenge. My challenge comes from a place of understanding because they are my people. But it is a serious challenge because I think that my people have neglected an important responsibility.
First, are these people of faith arguing for pluralism for others? Political pluralism is supposed to protect a variety of worldviews that shape institutions. This means that even in family policy, pluralism rather than majority perspective must prevail. It is no surprise that the Netherlands, home to Kuyper, was the first country to recognize same-sex marriage. But the groups that have been advocating for pluralism to protect their own views did not lead the discussion for legal recognition of different sorts of marriage and family structures. In fact, some led the opposition. People who favor pluralism should have been the first in line to support public, legal recognition of different sorts of families.
Second, what obligations do faith-based institutions have? Many of the same groups that ask for this employment exemption heralded Hobby Lobby as a clear victory for justice. There was no caution; they expressed no worry about poor women’s access to contraception and no concern for the religious freedom of employees. Instead, they expressed triumph in the Supreme Court’s movement toward the autonomy of faith-based institutions.
The problem is that the pluralism they advocate for is not based in autonomy. Structural and worldview pluralism has its political roots in the sphere sovereignty of the Reformed tradition and the subsidiarity of the Roman Catholic tradition. The emphasis is on responsibility of institutions and on connectedness in communities. Autonomy has little place in the discussion. Faith-based institutions must focus on the responsibility they have in the public sphere and they have an obligation to explain what sorts of government regulation would be legitimate. Would they argue that faith-based businesses should be allowed to discriminate against customers? If so, on what basis? Sexual identity? Race? Gender?
I think the key here is to consider what it means to have an institution that reflects religious belief. Consider two different organizations: the first says we will employ anyone other than gay people because of our belief; the second says we will employ only the kind of Christian that believes along with us that homosexuality is a sin. Are these two organizations the same? I’d say the first is not articulating a worldview but the second is. The Supreme Court says it will not get into deciding what is and is not legitimate religious belief but I think that faith-based institutions that want exemptions from law should at a minimum be required to spell out who they say they are. And they should be required to be consistent. I do not care for behavior covenants at schools, colleges or nonprofits, but I think a democracy can make room for them. However, if an employee is fired for violating a behavioral covenant that excludes homosexuality, employees that violate other parts of the covenant should likewise be fired. Transparency and consistency of treatment are very important.
I am committed to fighting for just treatment of the LGBT community. For Christians like me who believe the historical context of a few verses in the Bible has been misunderstood, sexual identity justice at this point in history seems as critical as suffrage for women centuries ago or civil rights for African Americans during emancipation.
But in the final analysis I wish President Obama had put an employment exemption into his executive order, bringing it in line with other civil rights laws. Now, a renewed “government war on religious institutions” will be declared by leaders, and we do not need this going into the next two election cycles. I am worried that the litigation is going to further damage LGBT people in these faith-based institutions and I think that change would have been better and more permanent had it come from within. I know that some of the organizations represented by these letters have members who are actively pursuing policy changes that would result in nondiscrimination of the LGBT community. For many of us, treating gay brothers and sisters in Christ as full members of our institutions is required by our goal of following Jesus.
Julia K. Stronks has practiced law and is the Edward B. Lindaman Chair at Whitworth University, in Spokane, Washington. She is the author of Christian Teachers in Public Schools and Law, Religion and Public Policy. She also wrote OneJesus: A Response to the World Vision LGBT Policy.
Some gay M.B.A. students are frustrated that straight students are attending job fairs set up to recruit gay talent, Bloomberg Businessweek reported. At a recent Reaching Out M.B.A. event, only 1 of the 15 students who attended from Rice University was openly gay. The job fairs are theoretically designed to help gay students navigate the corporate world, and feature programs in addition to the chance to meet with recruiters. Gay students report being offended when they hear straight students at the event say things like “Dude, I’m not gay” or “There needs to be less focus on gay stuff at this event.”
President Obama is expected to sign an executive order today that bars federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The executive order is not expected to exempt religious organizations, as some Christian colleges and other Christian organizations have sought, The New York Times reported. Other religious organizations have said that no exemption is needed -- and many gay rights groups encouraged the president to proceed without an exemption. Within higher education, much of the impact may be symbolic as the largest federal contractors tend to be research universities that, public or private, are secular institutions.
On the latest edition of "This Week,"Inside Higher Ed's news podcast, Shapri D. LoMaglio of the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities and Campus Pride's Shane Windmeyer joined Inside Higher Ed Editor Scott Jaschik and the moderator Casey Green to discuss efforts by religious institutions to seek exemptions from key federal civil rights laws; also, the constitutional scholar Rodney A. Smolla analyzed a federal appeals court's ruling last week upholding the University of Texas at Austin's consideration of race in admissions.
Stream or download the podcast here. And click here to receive an email notification when we air a new edition of This Week.
As Christian colleges seek exemptions from parts of some federal laws, two institutions face legal challenges to their treatment of transgender students -- and Education Department exempts one from part of Title IX.
The University of California at Los Angeles has agreed to pay $500,000 to settled complaints of use of excessive force and racial profiling against a black judge during a traffic stop, The Los Angles Times reported. The UCLA Black Alumni Association will receive $350,000 of the payment, to be used for scholarships. UCLA has also agreed to hold a one-day forum on police-community relations, including the issue of racial profiling.
The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees is ending an internship and grant program for students at United Negro College Fund institutions, to protest the UNCF's acceptance of a $25 million grant from Koch Industries and the Charles Koch Foundation. The gift had critics from the moment it was announced, with people noting efforts by the Koch brothers that they viewed as inconsistent with the interests of many black Americans. In a letter to Michael Lomax, the UNCF president, Lee A. Saunders, president of AFSCME, pulled no punches. His title for his letter -- "A Principle Is a Terrible Thing to Waste" -- is a play on the UNCF's slogan.
"Like many supporters of the UNCF, I was deeply troubled by your decision to accept $25 million from David and Charles Koch. But I assumed that in accepting those funds you were in no way supporting or lending the name of the UNCF to the political or social causes or substantive views of the Koch brothers," wrote Saunders. "So I was truly stunned to learn that less than two weeks later, you attended and spoke at the Koch brothers summit in California. This was a betrayal of everything the UNCF stands for. The avowed purpose of this private event was to build support -- financial and political -- for the Koch brothers' causes. Your appearance at the summit can only be interpreted as a sign of your personal support and the UNCF's organizational support of the Koch brothers' ideological program. The Koch brothers and the organizations they fund have devoted themselves for more than a decade to attacking the voting rights of African Americans. They support voter identification laws. They seek to restrict early voting and voter registration. They support laws that threaten organizations that register voters in the African American community."
Lomax issued a statement about the letter. "UNCF has over 100,000 donors with a wide range of views, but they all have one thing in common: They believe in helping young students of color realize their dreams of a college education. For over 70 years we have never had a litmus test and we have asked all Americans to support our cause," he said. "While I am saddened by AFSCME's decision, it will not distract us from our mission of helping thousands of African American students achieve their dream of a college degree and the economic benefits that come with it.”