A.J. Answers a Tricky Question
Dear A.J.,
I’m a black person, and I read what President Wagner wrote about the 3/5ths compromise, but I don’t understand what’s going on. Should I be offended? How should I discuss race in the future?
Sincerely,
Am I an Uncle Ruckus?
Dear Uncle Ruckus,
I’m glad you asked. As a black person, I, too, was not offended. But we both must do our best to be as offended as possible, and here’s why: when anyone outside your racial group references your race, you should be offended regardless of context, intention or actual meaning. This is because race defies logic, like Four Loko or the popularity of Mumford and Sons.
Here is a quick recap. President Wagner, an engineer, wrote a column in a magazine that no one reads, much like this newspaper. In his article, he referenced the Three-Fifths Compromise as an agreement reached by two hyper-polarized parties, explaining that if slave-holding racists in the South and non-slave-holding racists in the North could compromise on how to count slaves, we as a University could compromise on how to cut the liberal arts (read the article again).
Faculty and students are upset because Wagner used the word ‘model’ to discuss the compromise. And because, “in a democracy, it’s unethical to contribute to the culture of discrimination,” and referring to your own history, however flawed, contributes to the culture of discrimination.
If Wagner were not a racist, he would understand that words like “model” are racially-charged. Haven’t you noticed the Model T Ford was always black? Furthermore, even though the Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise, it cannot be a model of compromise because we don’t like it anymore.
Now, how is this racism? Let me use an example: if a non-member of your race says something like, “Martin Luther King, Jr. had a bald spot.” You should immediately label that person a racist, whether the statement is historically accurate or not. Notice in the example, the non-member did not belittle the Civil Rights movement or the plight of blacks in the country — it’s your job to “infer” or create “grey” areas, since things are seldom black and white — and if they are black and white, why are you keeping them separate, you segregationist?
Now then, Uncle Ruckus, scientific advances have come a long way, and sociologists — not scientists — have developed a simple formula to detect racism. It follows:
race + words x (grey area) = racism.
You see, accusations of racism no longer require you to think. All you have to do is supply the grey area, which doesn’t take any thought at all. To put this formula in context, if President Wagner’s statements included the subject of race and used words, plus grey area implying that he lauded the Three-Fifths Compromise in its entirety and believes that black people are only three-fifths of a person, then we can conclude that it is racism, and you should be very upset.
Now then, let’s discuss my new rules for how to talk about race.
#1 Do not bring up race during a Race History Month
Notice a lot of people said Wagner’s comments were worse because it’s Black History Month. Had he saved them for March, it would be less racist somehow.
#2 Always explain you do not support racial injustice whenever discussing anything regarding race. Had Wagner mentioned that he did not support the Three-Fifths Compromise or slavery, he wouldn’t be in such hot water. Here’s an example: “I think Honda makes less reliable sedans, but I don’t support the internment of the Japanese.”
# 3 Be aware of your surroundings
Another reason people are upset about these comments is because Emory is in the South. Again, had these comments been said in Detroit, for instance, they’d be far less incendiary.
#4 Be aware of your privilege
What it basically means is that your opinions are wrong based on your background. If you’re a black female, you have black privilege and have no right discussing the plight of a white male. Your black privilege blinds you to the suffering of white men all over the world. Your opinions on white men cannot be taken seriously because you did not grow up like a white male — and you will never know the pain of being labeled white and male.
#5 Do not discuss race if you are Vice President Hauk
Hauk said in an interview with the Wheel that the editing process was flawed because “all of the eyes on the piece before it was published were white people.” He said this.
— By A.J. Artis
Thank you!
Just gonna put it out there that there’s a difference between being a racist and being an idiot. I think it’s pretty clear that J Wags wasn’t trying to be racist… But comparing the 3/5 Compromise to his goals for Emory was pure idiocy because the 3/5 Compromise a) perpetuated institutionalized slavery and b) was a contributing factor leading to the Civil War, neither of which are good goals for Emory. It’s not racist to refer to American history, but you should probably make sure that you know a little bit about the consequences of your “model” example from the past before you publish it.
Sorry for being a little serious on a humor column, but it’s really bothering me that the two ways to view this are currently “WAGNER IS A RACIST!” vs. “WAGNER IS TOTALLY RIGHT!” because I think he is neither and was just being a bit of a moron.
Thank you for reiterating AJs point!
The 3/5 Compromise did NOT perpetuate slavery. Choosing to continue the transatlantic slave trade until 1808 DID, among other things the Framers did/did not do.
Assume slavery is a given. There is nothing one can do about it. Then look at what the 3/5 Compromise was about. Certainly not about slavery. One could even argue that a 5/5 compromise would have been an insult to slaves– having no representation,
why should they be counted when allotting seats in the House?
I don’t know if A.J. would agree with me, but the only mistake President Wagner made was using such an emotionally charged thing– logically, he said nothing wrong. I would have been critical had he mentioned the 1808 expiry date for the Transatlantic Slave Trade as a compromise, or the Missouri Compromise as idea– but the 3/5 Compromise isn’t bad to refer to, since it assumes slavery is a given.
I have not defended Wagner’s decision to use the 3/5ths compromise. It was a boneheaded choice.
Should I as an engineer feel discriminated upon by the reference to “President Wagner, an engineer” and the “gray area” regarding his writing and communication skills? Does the fact that I have to ask justify the stereotype of engineers as lacking adeptness with words and language? Maybe I didn’t express myself clearly???
Thank you for your concern. You are correct. I specifically called out President Wagner’s occupation/training as an engineer to illuminate the fact that an engineer (aka a subject we have never had at this institution and the reason why Georgia Tech exists) runs this school. Further, I wanted to highlight that his mishandling of history, his dull syntax, and his painful comparison of the 3/5ths compromise to Liberal Arts department cuts, are all results of his background as an engineer.
Ahh, discrimination abounds – even from a satirist! By the way, y’all are making Georgia Tech shine with all this pontification and vitriol. Everyone of us has probably made some statements with good intention that we wish we could reclaim before we have to recant. President Wagner is not a racist. Give him a mulligan because he is an engineer and move on. As a bright engineer (a contradiction in terms to some who discriminate my type), I am sure he has learned from this experiment in communication.
As a science student and a follower of C.P. Snow’s argument of “Two Cultures,” I actually think his ideas are likely more clear due to his background. People in the humanities can often get away with bad arguments, but not so much in the sciences. Especially in mathematics, when you need to prove the smallest statements, such as why 1 + (-1) = 0 or why the identity element in multiplication and addition is unique, you tend to be more careful.
Either that, or don’t bring up his background at all– that’s what I would do.
My favorite humanities argument is Luce Irigiray’s statement that the special relativity is sexist, because the statement that the speed of light is the upper limit for any velocity is an inequality.
She also claims that fluid mechanics is a neglected field in physics because fluids are feminine and “rigid mechanics” is masculine.
Gotta love obscurantism!
Oh whoops. I really didn’t make myself clear. My comment about Wagner’s background was also a joke. Loyal readers of this column know that I often make jokes about how engineers don’t understand how to communicate. That is not the truth. That is a stereotype. It is a stereotype I exploit for humor. I write a humor column. I do not write a truth column.
This column is not an attack on anyone. Wagner’s comments were dumb, but the reaction was a better source of humor. If the people attacking Wagner hadn’t been funnier than his comments, I wouldn’t have made fun of them. This column responds to the funniest part of this controversy.
I cannot defend Wagner’s comments. But I cannot let the reaction to those comments stand without a healthy dose of mockery. That is my job.
Please do not think I lack a healthy respect for the sciences and engineering. Anyone who knows me will tell you that my unrequited love of the sciences borders on fetish. I do not think that Wagner’s background makes him a bad communicator. I think he is simply a bad communicator. But if you couldn’t catch my joke, then I must also be a bad communicator.
I hope this clears up your concerns.
A.J., No concerns, no offense, no foul. I may be an engineer (and physician and Emory parent), but I get and enjoy your humorous view of the aftermath of Dr. Wagner’s comments. Keep up the good work!
I just wonder how many Blacks you’ve asked on this campus about what’s going on and heard their genuine perspective. I think you’d be amazed how wrong you are. This article is based on too many fallacies and unsubstantiated arguments. Its not based on any fact. This is disturbing.
He has no obligation to seek out the perspective of others (especially since this is a humor column) and what they would have or wouldn’t have said needn’t form the basis for his individual view in the first place. Furthermore, what specifically is he wrong about? What fallacies and unsubstantiated arguments are you referring to? What facts is this column not based on that it should have been? Please, enlighten us.
Are you grey?
Bingo. How did you know?
Because grey people are always being so persnickety and demanding of fact-based arguements….
Oh no… my bad. I swear I love you people! One of my best friends is grey!
Please write for The Spoke!
Thank you for you kind words. I had no idea people read the Wheel. Unfortunately I cannot write for the Spoke because I write satire.
Will Alisberg likes that.
My comment above aside, this is brilliant.
Thank you for your kind words. I had no idea people read the Wheel.
I originally had a joke planned where I explained that the compromise to extend the transatlantic slave trade until 1808 was the first instance of Congress “kicking the can down the road” (i.e. the fiscal cliff, the sequester, continuing resolutions, etc.). But, that wouldn’t have fit.
If you would like a full explanation of my views regarding the Constitutional Convention (or whatever we call it nowadays), my email is listed below my name.
As for Wagner’s comments, you and I almost agree. Almost.
Hey, some people are black and some people are white. Get over it. Racism exists because of conversations like this one. President Wagner made an unemotional analytical remark about a historical event. Your emotion and YOUR racism is the difference. Everyone needs to stop being so damn sensitive.
In my opinion- it is racist to have a Black Student Alliance and not a Purple Student Alliance..
Care to elaborate on the Spoke comment?