Everyone is Wrong about Robin DiAngelo

I.
There is a scene in Good Will Hunting in which Professor Gerald Lambeau and Sean Maguire (Robin Williams) are discussing the future of Will Hunting. Lambeau, an MIT professor and Fields Medal winner, contends that he would not have had his success if he hadn't been pushed.

His belief is that Will should be pushed since that approach worked for him. Sean thinks it will have the opposite effect on Will.

II.
This is a post about the death of George Floyd and the cultural impact of Black Lives Matter. But it's also a post about white people and how they respond to the death of George Floyd and to Black Lives Matter.

First, some data:


Almost two-thirds of white people, to some degree, support Black Lives Matter, including one third who lean republican.

We've seen republican Mitt Romney speak up in favor of Black Lives Matter, and even show up to a protest. We've also all come to know the name Bubba Wallace, the black NASCAR driver who may or may not have had a noose tied to his garage.

I'm interested in understanding how the same movement can prompt opposite responses in people. I think the best example is people's response to Robin DiAngelo's White Fragility.

There are countless articles--including here, here, and here-- of why people think the book is trash. (My favorite is this podcast episode featuring a graphic designer who had to do a year of diversity training with DiAngelo. When a co-worker complained that one of the designer's posters had something resembling a Nazi symbol, DiAngelo insisted it must have bubbled up from the subconsciousness of the white graphic designer.)

And yet, her book has been at the top of Amazon's bestseller list since the protests began.

One of the common themes I see in the criticism is that it teaches white people to almost hate themselves. Therefore, it must be bad. But if that is so bad, then why do people keep reading and recommending the book?

III.
It is old news by now that antiracism behaves very much like a religion, and the whiteness-as-original-sin comparison isn't as revelatory as when I first read it years ago. But the analogy should help us understand that while the same concept of how the guilt of being a sinner can strengthen some Christian's faith and works, it can drive others from the Church altogether.

A lot of DiAngelo's training that led to her theory came from working in colleges. Her biggest criticism is of white, well-educated progressives who are against racism (ie the types of people who work in colleges), saying they are not doing enough. Her book is for them because it compels them to action. It makes them better antiracists.

This is what the critics don't get. For these people, DiAngelo's guilt works.

Here is what the DiAngelo stans don't get: not everyone is Professor Lambeau. Some of us are Will Hunting and seeing signs like "White Silence is Violence" doesn't make everyone want to be an antiracist. It makes them feel excluded, unwanted. Worse, it makes other ideologies more appealing.

As a White Nationalist person, I'm rubbing my hands together in glee that critical race theory, BLM thuggery, & other rogue Golems are increasingly driving self-respecting white people toward unapologetic white identity politics. https://t.co/OEmbGtHPYt

— Counter-Currents (@NewRightAmerica) June 26, 2020

Gross.

Now that we've learned that guilt does not have the same effect on everyone, it should make sense that this type of argument, while compelling to the DiAngelo critics, will not have the same effect on the antiracists who read her work. In other words, guilting them by pointing out DiAngelo's potential impact on empowering actual Nazis won't work because that is not the effect it had on them.

So what should we do?

First, I would go back to the Pew data. It's more helpful to think of support for Black Lives Matter as a spectrum; with Louis Farrakhan on one end and some average Joe on the other end. Joe doesn't pay much attention to racial matters but saw the Georgy Floyd video and answers the Pew pollster, saying "well of course black lives matter."

In other words, not every person showing support is equally versed in Critical Race terminology, understanding terms like "white complicity" or the ever-evolving definitions of "racism." Some people just sympathize.

I'm not interested in the strong supporters in the Pew chart. I'm interested in the 30 percent of white people who lean republican and the 30 percent of white people who lean democrat, down at the bottom of the chart. They both "somewhat support" Black Lives Matter. It seems to me that this is the group up for grabs. Let's call them the Fencers.

So if antiracism is about viewing everything through the lens of "does this create equity or inequity for black people" then we might think of how we can craft an antiracist message that moves the Fencers toward antiracist work (which would create more equity) and away from racist work (which would create inequity).

But in order to do that, you have to stop talking to them like an antiracist.

IV.
Words matter. And the way we talk about antiracism can have an effect on whether your movement is building coalitions or enemies.

So picture a Fencer who is disgusted with the deaths of Floyd, Taylor, and Arbery. But his brother is a police officer. Does he hear "Defund the Police" from Black Lives Matter supporters and think "Surely they just mean reimagining the responsibilities and structure of the police department, and not terminating my brother,"? Not if he reads the New York Times.

Picture a Fencer who is not politically active and is unfamiliar with the term "ally" but wants to show support for her black co-worker. Should she reach out to check in? Bad look for the Times again.

What about a white Fencer who learns about the government's role in housing segregation and wants to know how to help. If the first step is being told that he's racist and can never not be racist but can become an ally if he practices constant antiracism, does that make him feel welcome in the movement? Maybe just point him in the direction of a town meeting to abolish single-family zoning.

If the message starts with guilt, you're going to lose the Fencers. But if the tone sounds more like "you can help fix this," rather than "this is your fault," you might have yourself a coalition.