I have no use for Ralph Northam, but on the basic question of whether his alleged offense is unforgivable I’m with Joseph Epstein, Ben Shapiro, and Roger Clegg:
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Northam is in the yearbook image. What does that tell us about him? That he was thoughtless as a young man? That he had bad taste? That he was immature? Yes, all of the above. But does it mean that he was a racist? This is the leap that the sweeping condemnations of Northam implicitly or explicitly make.
In our public debate, we are losing the gray area of things that are offensive and ignorant — the yearbook image is emphatically both — for categorical assertions of racism. The difference is that ignorance can be forgiven and learned from, whereas racism must be punished. The old cliché that used to be repeated during racially charged controversies, “a teaching moment,” now feels quaint in this new era of headhunting.
What is there to be taught or learned, after all, if Northam was an ally of white supremacy? That term once applied to the worldview of skinheads and neo-Nazis. Now, it is becoming a catchall. The lieutenant governor of Virginia, Justin Fairfax, who has been gentler in his denunciations than most, said the yearbook image suggests “a comfort with Virginia’s darker history of white supremacy, racial stereotyping, and intimidation.”
This is why there’s no statute of limitations anymore — any offense is considered too grave for that. As far as Northam’s critics are concerned, his yearbook image might as well have been published last year, not 35 years ago. There’s no allowance that the person who appeared in the image might be different from the person sitting in the governor’s mansion.
Nor is there any inquiry into whether the image was part of a pattern of conduct at the time. Did Northam express hostility to African Americans in any other way? No one has produced any substantial evidence of this, or seems to have any interest in producing any.