I'm not racist, I just need someone to disprove African Americans aren't genetically inferior.
Stephanie Grace, racist Harvard emailer.
This is disgusting. Stephanie Grace, a 3L at Harvard Law School, apparently had a conversation about race during a dinner with other law students. Her comments, she believed, were perceived wrongly, and so she sent out an email to a few students in an effort to correct the record. That email was forwarded around, and eventually made its way to several Black Law Students Associations (BLSAs). Here’s what Stephanie Grace wrote to some of her fellow HLS students:
… I just hate leaving things where I feel I misstated my position.
I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances. The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair. (Now on to the more controversial:) Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders. This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria. I don’t think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn’t mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner.
I also don’t think that there are no cultural differences or that cultural differences are not likely the most important sources of disparate test scores (statistically, the measurable ones like income do account for some raw differences). I would just like some scientific data to disprove the genetic position, and it is often hard given difficult to quantify cultural aspects. One example (courtesy of Randall Kennedy) is that some people, based on crime statistics, might think African Americans are genetically more likely to be violent, since income and other statistics cannot close the racial gap. In the slavery era, however, the stereotype was of a docile, childlike, African American, and they were, in fact, responsible for very little violence (which was why the handful of rebellions seriously shook white people up). Obviously group wide rates of violence could not fluctuate so dramatically in ten generations if the cause was genetic, and so although there are no quantifiable data currently available to “explain” away the racial discrepancy in violent crimes, it must be some nongenetic cultural shift. Of course, there are pro-genetic counterarguments, but if we assume we can control for all variables in the given time periods, the form of the argument is compelling.
In conclusion, I think it is bad science to disagree with a conclusion in your heart, and then try (unsuccessfully, so far at least) to find data that will confirm what you want to be true. Everyone wants someone to take 100 white infants and 100 African American ones and raise them in Disney utopia and prove once and for all that we are all equal on every dimension, or at least the really important ones like intelligence. I am merely not 100% convinced that this is the case.
Please don’t pull a Larry Summers on me,
Stephanie Grace
You know you’re an extra-special racist when you send out an email clarifying that your views are actually more racist than those that pissed people off at dinner.
I’m not going to get into why Grace’s arguments are wrong; that should hopefully be self-evident, and I don’t think we need to waste time entertaining completely ignorant ideas about the genetics of intelligence, or whether certain racial or ethnic groups are “naturally” more or less intelligent than others. There are certain ideas that just do not belong in the realm of serious intellectual conversation, and this is one of them.
Instead, I want to discuss (a) the system that made Stephanie Grace feel that her email and her arguments were totally appropriate and within the realm of acceptable academic discourse, and that lead her to believe that her views would be accepted and welcomed; (b) the troubling reaction to the dissemination of her email, some of which has revolved around the ethics of naming her; and (c) why this matters. Because while Stephanie Grace is sending out racist emails, sites like Above the Law are falling all over themselves not only to obscure her identity, but also to say that maybe she was kind of right - and that her email wasn’t actually racist, and that the idea that black people are genetically inferior is one that we should entertain.
In other words, this isn’t just about Stephanie Grace.
The Law School Problem
Harvard Law School is no stranger to racial controversy. I am soliciting a guest-post from an HLS grad who will hopefully be able to delve more into that issue, but suffice it to say that something like this happens almost every year. And Harvard is certainly not alone among law schools in dealing with racist and sexist controversies. I’m not entirely sure what it is about law school that encourages the kind of behavior that Stephanie Grace exhibits here and I didn’t go to Harvard for law school, but I suspect it’s some combination of students with fairly sheltered upbringings and homogeneous social circles, an academic emphasis on logical consistency over actual justice, and an environment where discussions are so hyper-intellectualized that students feel they can say anything so long as they can give it a veneer of logic and rationality.
Yes, racism is everywhere. It is in law schools, and it is in law students before they ever get to law school. But it plays out in law schools in a very particular way. Law schools are environments that traffic heavily in discussions about logical consistency. In class, you read and discuss cases that all work off of each other in developing law. You start with one basic theory or set of laws, and then look at how the courts apply those theories to new sets of facts and circumstances; you look further down at how the courts use the outcomes of previous cases to draw conclusions in subsequent ones. Law school trains you to think in a particularly linear way - not “what is just here,” but “what is consistent here.” Often, consistency is the closest we can get to justice, and it offers a way to evaluate our laws in light of varying circumstances. It at least attempts objectivity. It’s a helpful way to learn how to think, and it certainly helps in the practice of law.
But it’s also a fairly narrow way of thinking, in a lot of ways. It eliminates, or at least lowers the value of, concepts like justice and social privilege and real-life inequality. In other words, while it is a helpful tool to use in order to be an effective attorney or advocate or debater or writer or thinker, it cannot be the only tool in your chest if you strive to be not only effective, but also conscientious.
For some law students - and for some lawyers - it seems to be the only tool in the chest.
I don’t know what Stephanie Grace was thinking when she wrote this email. But I would imagine part of her mentality was that if she can make a consistent, rational and logical argument for this point then it’s fair game (now, she clearly failed to make a consistent, rational and logical argument, but she wouldn’t be the first law student or lawyer to do that).
None of this is to say that law schools should no longer emphasize logic, rationality or consistency - of course not. But the lack of emphasis on concepts like social justice, and the disparate treatment of non-white people in the justice system, is not a part of the standard law school curriculum. It’s there, certainly, if you seek it out; it’s there in incredible, groundbreaking ways, and some of the best race and gender scholarship and activism in the United States is coming from the legal world. But it’s very easy to get through law school without having very much exposure to in-depth and challenging conversations about racial, gender and other inequalities.
It’s also very easy to get through law school spending time with people who mostly look and think like you, and who have life experiences that are similar to yours. It’s easy to fall into a group of white people who all understand White Person Code - the little things you imply or say that have attached racial meaning, without ever having to talk about race or risk saying something actually racist. I’m white, and believe me, White Person Code gets dropped like nobody’s business, in law school and out. And because its messages are coded, there isn’t a great way to explain what it always looks or sounds like. But, for example, it’s the way that a white student’s mistake in class or inability to answer a question correctly will be read as “they made a mistake” or “they didn’t do the reading,” whereas a black student’s mistake in class or inability to answer a question correctly will be read as “they are not very smart and only got in here because of affirmative action.” It’s the little glance, the raised eyebrow. It’s the implication of understanding - the inference that I don’t have to say that person is only here because of affirmative action, but we all know. It’s the study group of all white kids, who aren’t excluding people on purpose, but who decide they want to study with people who will challenge them. And I know more than a few law students of color who hated talking in class for that very reason - they weren’t just representing themselves, or how much studying they did the night before, or even how intelligent they personally are; they felt like they were representing all black people everywhere, and especially all black people who go to elite academic institutions. The pressure is on to prove that you belong here, and to prove that everyone who looks like you belongs here. And the second a mistake is made, it confirms what at least a few white people in the room are looking to have confirmed: That you don’t belong, that you aren’t as smart, that you aren’t as worthy of your spot as they are.
My guess is that it’s part of the nature of law school discourse that informed how Stephanie Grace wrote her email. And it’s that White Person Code - the understanding that well we all kind of agree on this even if we can’t say it out loud in mixed company, right guys? - that made Stephanie Grace feel totally ok sending it out.
Naming Stephanie Grace
Above the Law refers to Stephanie Grace as “CRIMSON DNA” rather than naming her. I got her name from Jezebel, and from a variety of non-blogger contacts. Above the Law seems primarily concerned with the repercussions for Stephanie - that she could lose her prestigious clerkship in the Ninth Circuit, or that, I don’t know, it might make her sad that her racist remarks are coming back to bite her. They refer to the use of her real name as “troubling.” They say that what set this all off wasn’t a racist email but a “catfight.”
I do not share their concerns. Law clerks, lawyers, and judges all have real power. As a clerk, Stephanie Grace is going to be interpreting the law and helping to craft decisions that impact not only the individuals involved in the case, but wide swaths of the population. She will, most likely, at some point have to write about civil rights and race issues. Her judge absolutely should know that she believes black people are genetically inferior before he relies on her to interpret and apply the law.
After her clerkship, she may practice as an attorney. As she moves up the ranks in her firm or place of practice, she will have the ability to choose who to work with, who to mentor, who to support and whose work to promote; she will have the ability to review the people she works with, and to potentially influence who keeps their jobs and who doesn’t (or who gets a job in the first place and who doesn’t). It is absolutely not out of line to say that a person with these kinds of views should be outed before they go forward and do serious damage.
Harvard Law School grads are partners at law firms. They hold political offices. They are judges. They are in positions of real power. At some point, Stephanie Grace is going to be in a position of real power. Before those positions are offered, the people who are elevating her deserve to know how she will wield that power - and the fact that she believes that segments of the population are simply not as intellectually adept based on their skin color.
Why This Matters
This isn’t just about Harvard or Stephanie Grace. ATL’s follow-up post on the issue demonstrates as much. This is about how we are and are not allowed to talk about race, and whose definition of rationality and objectivity controls. For example, Davit Lat at ATL writes:
In an academic setting, it should be possible to put any proposition on the table for debate. No position should lie beyond the pale. Some - in fact, many - such positions will be stupid or wrong. But we should be able to debate all issues rationally, vigorously and openly, without having to worry about offending anyone.
Putting aside the fact that an email isn’t an academic setting, why? Why should you be able not only to have the freedom to raise whatever issue you want, but also have the privilege to do so without offending anyone? That simply is not how the world works - ideas, as they say, have consequences, and part of the consequences of raising controversial (or idiotic) arguments is that people will become annoyed, angry or offended. I don’t think that people have a right to not be offended, but you also definitely do not have a right to demand that other people accept without emotion whatever ridiculous or hateful argument you make.
But let’s allow this to sink in for a minute: Not only did one HLS student write an email literally saying that black people are genetically inferior to white people, but she is being defended by other legal scholars under the pretense that any idea should be up for debate and no one should get offended and oh also maybe she’s right. With no recognition of the fact that ideas of genetic inferiority underwrote slavery in this country. That they underwrote genocide.
Lat continues:
Let’s look back on Kash’s original post, which was entitled Harvard Law School 3L’s Racist Email Goes National. I wanted to put the word “racist” in the headline in quotation marks - but since it was Kash’s post, I deferred to her. (In the post you’re now reading, which has my byline, you’ll notice that I’ve placed “racist” in quotes.)
Why did I want to put “racist” in scare-quotes? First, I wasn’t sure the email was actually “racist.” As I stated in the comments:
Let me play devil’s advocate for a second…. If we accept “race” as a biological concept - which I realize is questionable, becoming diluted through intermarriage, etc. - is it really so insane to suggest that some races might, ON AVERAGE, possess certain qualities to a greater or lesser degree than other races?
For example, would it be racist to say that, ON AVERAGE, African-Americans are taller than Asian-Americans? Or that Caucasians are more likely to have blond hair than Asian-Americans? Or is the issue that we don’t think intelligence is at all tied to genetics?
I am just asking questions here. I’m not taking a position. I’m just, as Elie likes to say, “exploring the studio space.”
Hey, guys, I’m just throwing out ideas!
If Grace had taken her argument one step further and said that the genetic inferiority of black people is reason to seriously consider blocking them from all institutions of higher learning, is that an argument that should be rationally considered or debated without taking offense? What if she said that black people are genetically both stronger and dumber, and so maybe it makes more sense to put them to work in the fields? What if she suggested that, say, Jews are genetically inferior to non-Jews, and that they are sneaky and greedy and hog too many spots in law school, and they destroyed our economy by controlling all the banks, and so maybe we should round them up in one place? What if she said that women’s uteruses make us incapable of rational thought, and therefore we shouldn’t be allowed to attend college or vote or even really argue with men because we just can’t do it, you know, biologically?
You guys, I’m just throwing out ideas.
Back to Lat:
Second, in an academic environment, it’s not helpful to respond to ideas - even bad ones - by throwing around “-ist” labels: e.g., racist, sexist, Fascist. Instead of calling your opponents names, like “racist” or “sexist” or “homophobe,” you should respond to arguments you don’t like with better arguments, accompanied by evidence.
Rational debate. Isn’t that what free speech and academic discourse - and, incidentally, the practice of law - are all about?
Rational debate, though, demands rationality. It’s very easy to make a totally irrational and factually incorrect argument in an even tone to give it a gloss of rationality, which is what Grace did here. But her argument was, to begin with, an absolute absurdity - and an absurdity that has had profound, damaging and deadly historical consequences for lots of different kinds of people.
And Lat isn’t suggesting a truly open and rational debate, here - he’s asking that we only debate on certain terms, as defined by people who are in an historically more powerful position. We can’t call something racist or sexist or homophobic, because that is not a good enough argument - he says it’s name-calling. “Racist,” “sexist” and “homophobic,” though, aren’t epithets so much as identifiers and descriptors - they allow us to put a word on a certain type of behavior or statement. Words like “logical” and “rational” operate in the same way. I agree that saying “Stephanie Grace is a racist” is not a good argument; but saying “The content of this email is racist, and is therefore inappropriate and suggests that Stephanie Grace hold some very troubling viewpoints” is, in fact, an argument as to why the emails are inappropriate and indicative that Stephanie Grace holds some very troubling viewpoints.
Stephanie Grace sent out an email suggesting that black people are genetically intellectually inferior to white people. That is not a new point; it is not a point that should have to be rationally debated anymore, any more than we would rationally debate whether or not the Earth is flat. If a PhD candidate in a science program suggested that the sun revolved around the Earth, I can just about guarantee that there would be no calls for rational debate on the issue - whoever she said it to would roll their eyes and label her a complete jackass. If she sent out an email screed about it, it would probably be forwarded for laughs and for shared outrage at how a person this ridiculous could have gotten into this academic program and institution. It would not be defended under the pretense of free speech or academic freedom or “Isn’t this program all about rational scientific discourse, you guys?”
But I want to go back to this line: “Rational debate. Isn’t that what free speech and academic discourse - and, incidentally, the practice of law - are all about?” Well, yes and no - free speech is, unfortunately, not all about rational debate, not hardly. But that aside, free speech is not a shield from criticism and consequence. Yes, it is a shield against government persecution for your speech, but it does not mean that other people are not permitted to speak out against you; it doesn’t mean that other people should have to accept what you say without attaching words like “racist” or “sexist” or “bigoted” to what you say. The right to speak and to control how other people feel and respond to your speech is not a right that any of us hold. And it is not a sign of irrationality to point out that some arguments are, yes, racist, any more than it’s a sign of irrationality to point out that some arguments are ad hominem or illogical or red herrings or anecdotal.
I’m obviously troubled and disgusted by Stephanie Grace’s email and her arguments. But I’m even more disgusted by many of the responses - the ones that say the email wasn’t really racist, that it’s somehow irrational to use terms like “racist” or “sexist,” and that any idea, no matter how horrific, should not only be introduced but also should not be met with any level of offense. I wonder if the people making those arguments - and David Lat is only one of them - have for even a minute put themselves in the shoes of individuals whose family members were enslaved or gassed or rounded up for their perceived genetic inferiorities. I wonder if they’ve put themselves in the shoes of people who hear all the time that they don’t deserve to be where they are; that they’re lazier, stupider, just not as naturally intelligent or adept.
Some comments and beliefs do not merit a rational response. The fact that we are not only debating the merits of Stephanie Grace’s argument that black people are racially inferior, but also suggesting that the people who are offended are the ones with the problem, is more demonstrative of a profession-wide and society-wide race problem than any single email or racist tome.
This article was written by jill
Source
ETA: Some Follow up from the Above the Law blog
I know it's long guys, but it's an important (albeit infuriating) read. The analysis.
This is disgusting. Stephanie Grace, a 3L at Harvard Law School, apparently had a conversation about race during a dinner with other law students. Her comments, she believed, were perceived wrongly, and so she sent out an email to a few students in an effort to correct the record. That email was forwarded around, and eventually made its way to several Black Law Students Associations (BLSAs). Here’s what Stephanie Grace wrote to some of her fellow HLS students:
… I just hate leaving things where I feel I misstated my position.
I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances. The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair. (Now on to the more controversial:) Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders. This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria. I don’t think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn’t mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner.
I also don’t think that there are no cultural differences or that cultural differences are not likely the most important sources of disparate test scores (statistically, the measurable ones like income do account for some raw differences). I would just like some scientific data to disprove the genetic position, and it is often hard given difficult to quantify cultural aspects. One example (courtesy of Randall Kennedy) is that some people, based on crime statistics, might think African Americans are genetically more likely to be violent, since income and other statistics cannot close the racial gap. In the slavery era, however, the stereotype was of a docile, childlike, African American, and they were, in fact, responsible for very little violence (which was why the handful of rebellions seriously shook white people up). Obviously group wide rates of violence could not fluctuate so dramatically in ten generations if the cause was genetic, and so although there are no quantifiable data currently available to “explain” away the racial discrepancy in violent crimes, it must be some nongenetic cultural shift. Of course, there are pro-genetic counterarguments, but if we assume we can control for all variables in the given time periods, the form of the argument is compelling.
In conclusion, I think it is bad science to disagree with a conclusion in your heart, and then try (unsuccessfully, so far at least) to find data that will confirm what you want to be true. Everyone wants someone to take 100 white infants and 100 African American ones and raise them in Disney utopia and prove once and for all that we are all equal on every dimension, or at least the really important ones like intelligence. I am merely not 100% convinced that this is the case.
Please don’t pull a Larry Summers on me,
Stephanie Grace
You know you’re an extra-special racist when you send out an email clarifying that your views are actually more racist than those that pissed people off at dinner.
I’m not going to get into why Grace’s arguments are wrong; that should hopefully be self-evident, and I don’t think we need to waste time entertaining completely ignorant ideas about the genetics of intelligence, or whether certain racial or ethnic groups are “naturally” more or less intelligent than others. There are certain ideas that just do not belong in the realm of serious intellectual conversation, and this is one of them.
Instead, I want to discuss (a) the system that made Stephanie Grace feel that her email and her arguments were totally appropriate and within the realm of acceptable academic discourse, and that lead her to believe that her views would be accepted and welcomed; (b) the troubling reaction to the dissemination of her email, some of which has revolved around the ethics of naming her; and (c) why this matters. Because while Stephanie Grace is sending out racist emails, sites like Above the Law are falling all over themselves not only to obscure her identity, but also to say that maybe she was kind of right - and that her email wasn’t actually racist, and that the idea that black people are genetically inferior is one that we should entertain.
In other words, this isn’t just about Stephanie Grace.
The Law School Problem
Harvard Law School is no stranger to racial controversy. I am soliciting a guest-post from an HLS grad who will hopefully be able to delve more into that issue, but suffice it to say that something like this happens almost every year. And Harvard is certainly not alone among law schools in dealing with racist and sexist controversies. I’m not entirely sure what it is about law school that encourages the kind of behavior that Stephanie Grace exhibits here and I didn’t go to Harvard for law school, but I suspect it’s some combination of students with fairly sheltered upbringings and homogeneous social circles, an academic emphasis on logical consistency over actual justice, and an environment where discussions are so hyper-intellectualized that students feel they can say anything so long as they can give it a veneer of logic and rationality.
Yes, racism is everywhere. It is in law schools, and it is in law students before they ever get to law school. But it plays out in law schools in a very particular way. Law schools are environments that traffic heavily in discussions about logical consistency. In class, you read and discuss cases that all work off of each other in developing law. You start with one basic theory or set of laws, and then look at how the courts apply those theories to new sets of facts and circumstances; you look further down at how the courts use the outcomes of previous cases to draw conclusions in subsequent ones. Law school trains you to think in a particularly linear way - not “what is just here,” but “what is consistent here.” Often, consistency is the closest we can get to justice, and it offers a way to evaluate our laws in light of varying circumstances. It at least attempts objectivity. It’s a helpful way to learn how to think, and it certainly helps in the practice of law.
But it’s also a fairly narrow way of thinking, in a lot of ways. It eliminates, or at least lowers the value of, concepts like justice and social privilege and real-life inequality. In other words, while it is a helpful tool to use in order to be an effective attorney or advocate or debater or writer or thinker, it cannot be the only tool in your chest if you strive to be not only effective, but also conscientious.
For some law students - and for some lawyers - it seems to be the only tool in the chest.
I don’t know what Stephanie Grace was thinking when she wrote this email. But I would imagine part of her mentality was that if she can make a consistent, rational and logical argument for this point then it’s fair game (now, she clearly failed to make a consistent, rational and logical argument, but she wouldn’t be the first law student or lawyer to do that).
None of this is to say that law schools should no longer emphasize logic, rationality or consistency - of course not. But the lack of emphasis on concepts like social justice, and the disparate treatment of non-white people in the justice system, is not a part of the standard law school curriculum. It’s there, certainly, if you seek it out; it’s there in incredible, groundbreaking ways, and some of the best race and gender scholarship and activism in the United States is coming from the legal world. But it’s very easy to get through law school without having very much exposure to in-depth and challenging conversations about racial, gender and other inequalities.
It’s also very easy to get through law school spending time with people who mostly look and think like you, and who have life experiences that are similar to yours. It’s easy to fall into a group of white people who all understand White Person Code - the little things you imply or say that have attached racial meaning, without ever having to talk about race or risk saying something actually racist. I’m white, and believe me, White Person Code gets dropped like nobody’s business, in law school and out. And because its messages are coded, there isn’t a great way to explain what it always looks or sounds like. But, for example, it’s the way that a white student’s mistake in class or inability to answer a question correctly will be read as “they made a mistake” or “they didn’t do the reading,” whereas a black student’s mistake in class or inability to answer a question correctly will be read as “they are not very smart and only got in here because of affirmative action.” It’s the little glance, the raised eyebrow. It’s the implication of understanding - the inference that I don’t have to say that person is only here because of affirmative action, but we all know. It’s the study group of all white kids, who aren’t excluding people on purpose, but who decide they want to study with people who will challenge them. And I know more than a few law students of color who hated talking in class for that very reason - they weren’t just representing themselves, or how much studying they did the night before, or even how intelligent they personally are; they felt like they were representing all black people everywhere, and especially all black people who go to elite academic institutions. The pressure is on to prove that you belong here, and to prove that everyone who looks like you belongs here. And the second a mistake is made, it confirms what at least a few white people in the room are looking to have confirmed: That you don’t belong, that you aren’t as smart, that you aren’t as worthy of your spot as they are.
My guess is that it’s part of the nature of law school discourse that informed how Stephanie Grace wrote her email. And it’s that White Person Code - the understanding that well we all kind of agree on this even if we can’t say it out loud in mixed company, right guys? - that made Stephanie Grace feel totally ok sending it out.
Naming Stephanie Grace
Above the Law refers to Stephanie Grace as “CRIMSON DNA” rather than naming her. I got her name from Jezebel, and from a variety of non-blogger contacts. Above the Law seems primarily concerned with the repercussions for Stephanie - that she could lose her prestigious clerkship in the Ninth Circuit, or that, I don’t know, it might make her sad that her racist remarks are coming back to bite her. They refer to the use of her real name as “troubling.” They say that what set this all off wasn’t a racist email but a “catfight.”
I do not share their concerns. Law clerks, lawyers, and judges all have real power. As a clerk, Stephanie Grace is going to be interpreting the law and helping to craft decisions that impact not only the individuals involved in the case, but wide swaths of the population. She will, most likely, at some point have to write about civil rights and race issues. Her judge absolutely should know that she believes black people are genetically inferior before he relies on her to interpret and apply the law.
After her clerkship, she may practice as an attorney. As she moves up the ranks in her firm or place of practice, she will have the ability to choose who to work with, who to mentor, who to support and whose work to promote; she will have the ability to review the people she works with, and to potentially influence who keeps their jobs and who doesn’t (or who gets a job in the first place and who doesn’t). It is absolutely not out of line to say that a person with these kinds of views should be outed before they go forward and do serious damage.
Harvard Law School grads are partners at law firms. They hold political offices. They are judges. They are in positions of real power. At some point, Stephanie Grace is going to be in a position of real power. Before those positions are offered, the people who are elevating her deserve to know how she will wield that power - and the fact that she believes that segments of the population are simply not as intellectually adept based on their skin color.
Why This Matters
This isn’t just about Harvard or Stephanie Grace. ATL’s follow-up post on the issue demonstrates as much. This is about how we are and are not allowed to talk about race, and whose definition of rationality and objectivity controls. For example, Davit Lat at ATL writes:
In an academic setting, it should be possible to put any proposition on the table for debate. No position should lie beyond the pale. Some - in fact, many - such positions will be stupid or wrong. But we should be able to debate all issues rationally, vigorously and openly, without having to worry about offending anyone.
Putting aside the fact that an email isn’t an academic setting, why? Why should you be able not only to have the freedom to raise whatever issue you want, but also have the privilege to do so without offending anyone? That simply is not how the world works - ideas, as they say, have consequences, and part of the consequences of raising controversial (or idiotic) arguments is that people will become annoyed, angry or offended. I don’t think that people have a right to not be offended, but you also definitely do not have a right to demand that other people accept without emotion whatever ridiculous or hateful argument you make.
But let’s allow this to sink in for a minute: Not only did one HLS student write an email literally saying that black people are genetically inferior to white people, but she is being defended by other legal scholars under the pretense that any idea should be up for debate and no one should get offended and oh also maybe she’s right. With no recognition of the fact that ideas of genetic inferiority underwrote slavery in this country. That they underwrote genocide.
Lat continues:
Let’s look back on Kash’s original post, which was entitled Harvard Law School 3L’s Racist Email Goes National. I wanted to put the word “racist” in the headline in quotation marks - but since it was Kash’s post, I deferred to her. (In the post you’re now reading, which has my byline, you’ll notice that I’ve placed “racist” in quotes.)
Why did I want to put “racist” in scare-quotes? First, I wasn’t sure the email was actually “racist.” As I stated in the comments:
Let me play devil’s advocate for a second…. If we accept “race” as a biological concept - which I realize is questionable, becoming diluted through intermarriage, etc. - is it really so insane to suggest that some races might, ON AVERAGE, possess certain qualities to a greater or lesser degree than other races?
For example, would it be racist to say that, ON AVERAGE, African-Americans are taller than Asian-Americans? Or that Caucasians are more likely to have blond hair than Asian-Americans? Or is the issue that we don’t think intelligence is at all tied to genetics?
I am just asking questions here. I’m not taking a position. I’m just, as Elie likes to say, “exploring the studio space.”
Hey, guys, I’m just throwing out ideas!
If Grace had taken her argument one step further and said that the genetic inferiority of black people is reason to seriously consider blocking them from all institutions of higher learning, is that an argument that should be rationally considered or debated without taking offense? What if she said that black people are genetically both stronger and dumber, and so maybe it makes more sense to put them to work in the fields? What if she suggested that, say, Jews are genetically inferior to non-Jews, and that they are sneaky and greedy and hog too many spots in law school, and they destroyed our economy by controlling all the banks, and so maybe we should round them up in one place? What if she said that women’s uteruses make us incapable of rational thought, and therefore we shouldn’t be allowed to attend college or vote or even really argue with men because we just can’t do it, you know, biologically?
You guys, I’m just throwing out ideas.
Back to Lat:
Second, in an academic environment, it’s not helpful to respond to ideas - even bad ones - by throwing around “-ist” labels: e.g., racist, sexist, Fascist. Instead of calling your opponents names, like “racist” or “sexist” or “homophobe,” you should respond to arguments you don’t like with better arguments, accompanied by evidence.
Rational debate. Isn’t that what free speech and academic discourse - and, incidentally, the practice of law - are all about?
Rational debate, though, demands rationality. It’s very easy to make a totally irrational and factually incorrect argument in an even tone to give it a gloss of rationality, which is what Grace did here. But her argument was, to begin with, an absolute absurdity - and an absurdity that has had profound, damaging and deadly historical consequences for lots of different kinds of people.
And Lat isn’t suggesting a truly open and rational debate, here - he’s asking that we only debate on certain terms, as defined by people who are in an historically more powerful position. We can’t call something racist or sexist or homophobic, because that is not a good enough argument - he says it’s name-calling. “Racist,” “sexist” and “homophobic,” though, aren’t epithets so much as identifiers and descriptors - they allow us to put a word on a certain type of behavior or statement. Words like “logical” and “rational” operate in the same way. I agree that saying “Stephanie Grace is a racist” is not a good argument; but saying “The content of this email is racist, and is therefore inappropriate and suggests that Stephanie Grace hold some very troubling viewpoints” is, in fact, an argument as to why the emails are inappropriate and indicative that Stephanie Grace holds some very troubling viewpoints.
Stephanie Grace sent out an email suggesting that black people are genetically intellectually inferior to white people. That is not a new point; it is not a point that should have to be rationally debated anymore, any more than we would rationally debate whether or not the Earth is flat. If a PhD candidate in a science program suggested that the sun revolved around the Earth, I can just about guarantee that there would be no calls for rational debate on the issue - whoever she said it to would roll their eyes and label her a complete jackass. If she sent out an email screed about it, it would probably be forwarded for laughs and for shared outrage at how a person this ridiculous could have gotten into this academic program and institution. It would not be defended under the pretense of free speech or academic freedom or “Isn’t this program all about rational scientific discourse, you guys?”
But I want to go back to this line: “Rational debate. Isn’t that what free speech and academic discourse - and, incidentally, the practice of law - are all about?” Well, yes and no - free speech is, unfortunately, not all about rational debate, not hardly. But that aside, free speech is not a shield from criticism and consequence. Yes, it is a shield against government persecution for your speech, but it does not mean that other people are not permitted to speak out against you; it doesn’t mean that other people should have to accept what you say without attaching words like “racist” or “sexist” or “bigoted” to what you say. The right to speak and to control how other people feel and respond to your speech is not a right that any of us hold. And it is not a sign of irrationality to point out that some arguments are, yes, racist, any more than it’s a sign of irrationality to point out that some arguments are ad hominem or illogical or red herrings or anecdotal.
I’m obviously troubled and disgusted by Stephanie Grace’s email and her arguments. But I’m even more disgusted by many of the responses - the ones that say the email wasn’t really racist, that it’s somehow irrational to use terms like “racist” or “sexist,” and that any idea, no matter how horrific, should not only be introduced but also should not be met with any level of offense. I wonder if the people making those arguments - and David Lat is only one of them - have for even a minute put themselves in the shoes of individuals whose family members were enslaved or gassed or rounded up for their perceived genetic inferiorities. I wonder if they’ve put themselves in the shoes of people who hear all the time that they don’t deserve to be where they are; that they’re lazier, stupider, just not as naturally intelligent or adept.
Some comments and beliefs do not merit a rational response. The fact that we are not only debating the merits of Stephanie Grace’s argument that black people are racially inferior, but also suggesting that the people who are offended are the ones with the problem, is more demonstrative of a profession-wide and society-wide race problem than any single email or racist tome.
This article was written by jill
Source
ETA: Some Follow up from the Above the Law blog
I know it's long guys, but it's an important (albeit infuriating) read. The analysis.