The big fad in education these days is “anti-racist” teaching. College leaders and professors who want to stand out are apt to crow about how they are making their schools and courses “anti-racist” so as to combat the omnipresent evil of racism in America. Fortunately, there is some resistance from educators who see it as counterproductive.
One of those educators is Professor Erec Smith of York College. His field is rhetoric and composition, and he has written a book in which he argues that “anti-racist” moves to downplay the importance of mastering standard English do not help students, but instead disempower them. In today’s Martin Center article, I review his book.
One of his most telling points is that earlier black leaders did not wallow in victimhood, but instead sought to master English so they could better achieve their objectives. A notable example: W. E. B. DuBois. At Harvard, he received a poor grade in an English course and after a bit of irritation, realized that he needed to focus on improving his writing and subsequently took the most demanding courses he could. Smith extols his attitude, so completely different from today’s educators who want to play the “sacred victim.”
Not surprisingly, some of those sacred victims have played the race card against Smith for daring to disagree with them. Smith responds that they seem to have an “allergy to the real world,” and would rather have things to complain about than to solve problems. He also suggests that the “anti-racist” educators aren’t concerned about their students, but are pursuing their own agendas.