Editor's note: During his presidential campaign in 1997, Whitley failed to respond to e-mail requests to affirm or explain his remarks herein. Meanwhile, The Texan has twice declined to print Firing Line letters quoting from Whitley's e-mail message.
Some people carry the weight of the world on their shoulders. Other folks simply carry a chip that weighs as much as the world on theirs. Take, for example, UT Student Government President Marlen Whitley.
Despite posing as a leader on race issues, Whitley can barely mask his rage and contempt for people who disagree with him. That became apparent a couple of years ago, during his tenure as director of the Minority Information Center.
On Aug. 17, 1995, Whitley sent an e-mail message to a former classmate of mine, who had recently written a Firing Line letter in response to a piece by Whitley published in The Daily Texan .July 28. Whitley's words in the e-mail message speak for themselves:
"Maybe if you took some time to
educate yourself on the history of African Americans in this
'colorblind' country, you would hesitate to write such a
senseless and ignorant argument like you did when responding to
my article. While I'm on the subject, I am very curious as to how
I can obtain a naturalized citizenship in this 'colorblind'
society that you speak of.
'You were very quick to rule out affirmative action, however, you were very wrong in assuming that I do not understand how affirmative action works. Since your article seemed a little bitter and vindictive toward affirmative action and the MIC, I'm going to give you a five-minute history lesson on African Americans. This history is so complex and so rich that five minutes will only be enough to brief you. Being a law student I am sure you are familiar with briefings.
"Here is a blatant example of how history has a way of repeating itself in this glorious country. There was a time in this country that legislation mandated that blacks were accounted for as only three-fifths of a person, just for representation only. Keep in mind that it was black males only, because even black females were beneath them.
"Now, here we are in 1995, and black males and black families earn only 57 percent of their white counterparts. How is that for three-fifths of a man? This is the same country where white males with only a high school diploma in hand earn more than black males with college degrees.
"Why is that? Is it because whites are smarter than blacks? Hell no! Is it because whites work harder than blacks? Hell no! Or maybe it is because we live in a country with a white male-dominated power structure! Now I think we're getting to the root of the problem.
"When I first read your letter, I got pissed off. Then I stopped and thought. It was then that I realized that your response was more out of anger and ignorance than anything else, so I felt it was my responsibility to correct you personally, since The Texan obviously 'failed' to print my rebuttal. You overlooked some very important facts (yes, facts!) when you made your argument.
"First, I need to correct you on the statement that Asian Americans are the only minority that don't use discrimination as a means ... (you know what you wrote) ['Perhaps it is because Asian Americans do not use their 'victimization' as an organizing principle that other minorities do not welcome them unless as a tool to rail against the white majority']. That, my friend is a crock of shit.
"For your information, or in case you just don't know, African Americans are the only, I repeat only, group that didn't come to America with promise of a better life. We were brought here with the promise that if we didn't come, we would be killed. This is what your history books so subtly refer to as slavery.
"Now, we were freed in 1865. That means blacks were in bondage for some 240 years. The civil rights bill came about in 1964, some 100 years later, in an effort to provide equal rights for a people who were free to do what whites did, but were killed, or badly beaten, if they did so.
"What does all this mean? Let me break it down -- blacks have been in this country for 375 years, have been free for only 130 of these years, and have only been guaranteed civil rights for the last 30 years. What this means is that other ethnic groups who came over by boat in search of the American dream were able to bring with them culture, ideas of how to thrive, economic resources, and did not face nearly any of the obstacles that African Americans have faced.
"So while white America, Asians, Jews, Italians and others were playing on the same level, blacks were still working their way up from the minors, not because we chose to play there, or because we are inferior, but because white America placed us there.
"Now, I ask you to tell me where affirmative action stands in the midst of all this. White America and a few ethnic minorities own everything, and black America works like hell for the two, but don't advance. Why? Because we have never been allowed the same opportunities as the two groups, no matter how qualified we are.
"The mind-state of white America has infested itself in the minds of some ethnic groups who have come to this country and become successful, then look at the state of black Americans and criticize us for what you refer to as 'begging' for government handouts and assistance. That is bullshit. Black Americans deserve everything we ask for, and then some, because we built this damn country and made the wealth for all of the white males who now sit back and criticize us.
"We gave 240 years of free labor, 100 million lives, blood, sweat and tears for this damn country, and people like you have the audacity to say that blacks are whining for help when other ethnic groups don't. That is pure ignorance, for the simple fact that no, no other group of people in this country, with the exception of American Indians, have encountered so much turmoil, lynchings, rapes and discrimination as black Americans.
"My next question for you is about merit and honesty. After reading the above information, why the hell would you think that a system designed by white America would be honest? I can assure you that this system, as with any system that they have ever designed, will be for the benefit of no one but themselves.
"Of, course there will be a few minorities that will slip through the cracks and then feel 'accepted,' but they will still be considered 'other' by the white majority. Here is a philosophy that I live by: Imagine a meadow, and in this meadow there is a snake lying low. I see one person attempt to cross the meadow, and their fate is ultimately sealed with one strike from the snake. I see another person try to cross the meadow, and they too are bitten by the snake. I would be a fool to believe that I can cross the meadow and not be bitten by the snake.
"This is how I feel about living in America, where my people are those who are trying to cross the meadow, and white America is the snake. History has proven that this snake has lashed out at my people too many times, too many for me to believe that anything that they design was intended to benefit me. How do you cross the meadow you ask? Simple, you get a tool to cut off the head of the snake so that you can catch up to the others who have crossed the meadow (i.e., white Americans).
"As for an honest system, I can assure you that the people who make the decisions concerning the system do not look like you and I. They look like Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, Pete Wilson and a host of other conservative jerks who are interested in nothing more than maintaining the status quo of a white male power structure.
"You would be a fool to believe that these guys are really concerned about eliminating racism and creating a colorblind society. If you feel they are so committed to providing an equal opportunity for all, then maybe you can explain why it appears that they feel so threatened that they are compelled to banish programs that help discriminated minorities gain the same (not more) privileges as white Americans.
"So before you call yourself 'just American,' stop and think about what these people might call you, those who you side with in dismantling affirmative action. They'll probably call you something you would not like, and I'll be willing to bet all my money on that one. Those guys are the head of the snake that people like me are working so hard to cut off.
"I'm recommending that you read 'We Charge Genocide' (in the law library) and watch the 'Eyes on the Prize' series (also in the law library), so that you can decrease your level of ignorance before making foolish arguments and realize that since you aren't white, you are in the same boat as me!
"P.S. Feel free to write back! On equal planes we can bring forth change!"
Fact vs. Fiction
In typical multiculturalist fashion, Whitley presumes his audience's ignorance of black history. Despite his arrogance in his own knowledge of the subject, Whitley states a number of inaccuracies and outright distortions.
1) Not legislation, as Whitley writes, but Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, of the Constitution, counted blacks as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of taxation and apportionment of representatives to Congress and, hence, votes in the electoral college. Had blacks been counted as full persons, the South would have had greater voting power in Congress and for the presidency, and blacks might have been emancipated much later. The Constitution makes no distinction between black men and black women in the three-fifths rule, but no woman of any race could vote at the time the framers wrote the Constitution.
2) Contrary to Whitley's assertion that black college graduates earn less than whites with only high school diplomas, some economic studies indicate that when adjusted for level of education and employment experience, blacks and whites in equivalent job positions earn more or less the same salaries. The National Jurist, which recently published an article critical of the dearth of minority students in public law schools in California and Texas, reported that blacks and Hispanics average about $1,000 more than whites their first year out of law school, precisely because they are in demand due to their ethnicity.
3) Whitley contends accurately that blacks refusing to come to the New World would have been killed, and white slave traders certainly brought them to the Americas with no prospect of a better life. What Whitley omits is that many blacks would have lived in slavery had they stayed in Africa. Prisoners of war between African societies were regularly condemned to slavery. Many of the slaves purchased by whites were sold to them by black traders who brought the slaves from the African interior to the Atlantic coast.
4) Blacks were freed nationwide by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in 1865, the date Whitley cites. In the states in rebellion, however, the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 legally freed the slaves, although many of them remained in bondage until the end of the Civil War.
5) One can only marvel at Whitley's assertion that other minorities in the United States prospered due to their access to a level playing field. Private businesses in the Northeast regularly discriminated against Jews, Italians, Irish and other groups of immigrants in employment and housing. On the West Coast, Asian immigrants faced disenfranchisement for decades. They could not become naturalized citizens, and some states passed citizenship requirements to own real property. Thus, not only could they not vote, but they could not acquire or inherit property, either.
6) No evidence exists to support Whitley's assertion that blacks gave 100 million to the building of America. An estimated nine or 10 million black slaves made the voyage from Africa to the Western Hemisphere. The entire white and black population of the United States just before the Civil War was slightly more than 23 million.
Correcting Whitley's historical mistakes, which are evident even to a law student, requires at least a five-minute briefing. Or perhaps a semester of HIS 315.
Racial Harassment
While Whitley uses his right to free speech aggressively, he isn't as forgiving of other people. Whitley is one of three black student leaders who have filed a racial harassment complaint against Professor Lino Graglia, whose recent comments on culture and academic achievement have attracted national controversy.
Whitley and his cohorts claim that Graglia's comments, at a press conference attended by scores of people and directed at no one in particular, caused them "severe emotional stress." An angry, personal and abusive message sent to a fellow student's e-mail address, berating her for a public exchange of ideas, apparently is not racially harassing or emotionally disturbing in Whitley's view. Has Whitley never heard that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?
Whitley decried the UT Faculty Council's statement about Graglia, which changed its language from "the council deplores views that denigrate the academic qualifications of minority students" to "the council strongly supports the value of diversity in higher education."
"That's weak," Whitley remarked. "They might as well not have passed the resolution." Would Whitley have supported, however, a resolution deploring views that denigrate the sacrifices made by non-black minorities to succeed in the United States, or views that denigrate an entire race, i.e., white people, for their alleged inability or unwillingness to design a system "for the benefit of no one but themselves?"
Witness the abrasive claims on racial issues that Whitley makes in his message:
1) Whitley belittles the sacrifices and gains of other ethnic groups by implying that when they arrived in the United States, they instantly possessed economic skills and resources, and social and cultural acceptance. His theme is that blacks are the only group that faced substantial challenges to achieving success in the United States. Hence, blacks are entitled to "everything we ask for, and then some."
2) Whitley angrily claims that "the mind state of white America has infested itself in the minds of some ethnic groups who have come to this country and become successful, then look at the state of black Americans and criticize us for what you refer to as 'begging' for government handouts and assistance." He insinuates that a) white America harbors some kind of hateful groupthink about blacks and b) non-whites who assume a position contrary to Whitley's are just "being white."
3) Whitley decries the notion that whites can ever do anything to improve race relations and policy: "Why the hell would ... a system designed by white America ... be honest? I can assure you that this system, as with any system that they have ever designed, will be for the benefit of no one but themselves."
4) Most vivid, Whitley likens white people to snakes trying to bite blacks as they cross a meadow. The solution, Whitley concludes, is "simple, you get a tool to cut off the head of the snake." He continues, accusing conservative politicians of being "jerks who are interested in nothing more than maintaining the status quo of the white power structure."
5) Finally, Whitley condescendingly explains to his reader that her Asian ancestry would subject her to racial slurs from the politicians who advocate the policies she supports. He crudely finishes, "realize that since you aren't white, you are in the same boat as me."
Since racial harassment proceedings by a state university
would presumably constitute a violation of the First Amendment,
neither Graglia nor Whitley should even have to answer for their
words. That Whitley would apply such a standard to Graglia,
however, in light of his own statements, is unmitigated arrogance
and abysmal hypocrisy.
Whitley the Healer
A Dallas Morning News article painted Whitley as a moderate on racial issues, determined to bring "a sense of community" to the UT campus. Last summer Whitley wrote a letter to all 344 black applicants accepted to the University, urging them to attend despite the school's history and telling them "as an African-American student with an extremely bright future, you are needed here."
Perhaps someone should also have sent a copy of Whitley's e-mail message to the black admittees, as well as the thousands of white and non-black minority applicants accepted to the University, to show them just what passes for student leadership these days. Whitley's rhetoric doesn't inspire community spirit.
"I just wanted [black admittees to the University] to see that if you choose to come to UT, opportunities are limitless," Whitley noted in the article. "If you choose not to understand that, it's not because the school is racist." The school may not be, but what about the former president of the student government?