






|
UCLA in Black and White
Radicalism in the African-American Studies
Department
Chapter 2
More of the Same
(Radicalism)
Professor Cheryl Harris teaches African-American
Studies C191,
titled “Race, Equal Protection and the Law.”[1] Harris assigns
her own Harvard Law Review
article, “Whiteness as Property” which expands on her suspect racial
theories. Also assigned is Omi and Winant’s “Racial Formation in
the
United States,” another pair of the usual suspects from the “Whiteness
Studies” field of academics. The two contend that “racial
meanings
pervade U.S. society,” and argue that “race in the United States [must
be treated] as a fundamental organizing
principle of social relationships.”[2]
In that same vein is Harvard Professor Noel
Ignatiev’s article
“Immigrants and Whites,” from his celebrated – and intellectually
lightweight – publication Race
Traitor.
Ignatiev’s magazine, which caught the fancy of academic radicals when
it debuted in 1992, trumpets the confused slogan “treason to whiteness
is loyalty to humanity.” Ignatiev himself states on the Race
Traitor
website, “It is not fair skin that makes people white; it is fair skin
in a certain kind of society, one that attaches social importance to
skin color.”[3] Fair enough. Since Ignatiev wants to
“abolish the
white race,” we eagerly await, albeit without holding our breath, the
announcement of his desire to abolish the black race as well. But
don’t count on it.
Professor Harris thinks highly enough of academic
hacks like Omi,
Winant and Ignatiev to assign their works in the limited ten-week
duration of the class. And while it’s bad enough that
undergraduates
are being force-fed such rubbish, it’s far worse that Professor
Harris, with her belief that race underlies everything in our nation,
also holds the privilege of educating this nation’s future lawyers.
For an academic field seemingly uninterested with
classic areas of
inquiry, another pop culture class in African-American Studies is
hardly surprising. Professor Paul Von Blum’s “African-American
Film”
“serves as an alternative vision” to the “dramatic disrespect,” and
“racial distortions, caricatures, and stereotypes” of the white film
establishment. Films screened include blaxploitation classics
“Sweet
Sweetback’s Baadassss Song,” “Shaft,” and “Cotton Comes to
Harlem.”
Von Blum also samples more recent, violent fare like Spike Lee’s “Do
the Right Thing,” and John Singleton’s “Boyz in the Hood.”[4] As
with
1970’s funk, pop culture is fun, but hardly academic fodder.
For a developing discipline, African-American
Studies’ amateurish
focus on music and movies does itself no favors. This
shortcoming,
however, is inevitable. African-American Studies, like all
multi-cultural studies, is simply too narrow a pedestal on which to
mount an entire academic field. In slicing and dicing the common
American experience into color-coded segments, multi-cultural academics
miss the forest for the trees, because the story of African-Americans
is the story of America – and the story of America is history.
UCLA’s multi-cultural studies departments make a
brave attempt to
weave their separate, narrow threads into a common tapestry. But
the
attempt backfires. When multi-cultural studies intersect, the
story is
no longer even about the particular minority group as a whole – itself
already too narrow by comparison to broad narrative of American
history. The intersections instead create, for example, tiny
subfields
like African-American women, African-American lesbians, transgendered
African-Americans, and so on. Does the transgendered Chicano have
a
different cultural experience from the transgendered
African-American?
Possibly. But what of it?
Von Blum’s “African American Films” ignoring the
obvious inanity,
indulges this minority-of-a-minority obsession by spending class time
on gay black filmmaker Marlon Riggs’ execrable PBS documentary “Tongues
Untied.” An almost indescribable pastiche of spoken-word
drum-circle
nattering and soft-core gay pornography, it served in 1989 as the
catalyst for Senator Jesse Helms’ condemnation of National Endowment
for the Arts funding practices. Riggs bitterly dismissed the
criticism
as the work of “white arch-conservatives and religious
fundamentalists,” but readily admitted the inclusion of “words like
‘fuck’…images of two black men tenderly embracing…[and] highly
diffused, silhouetted nudity.”[5] The film’s NEA funding and PBS
distribution are clear evidence of these institutions’ cooptation by
political radicals. That a UCLA class would examine Riggs’ work
with a
straight face is abundant evidence that the same has happened to the
African-American Studies department.
“The Psychology of Race and Gender Among
African-Americans,”
cross-listed in African-American and Women’s Studies, has a promising
title, one which might even indicate the possibility of an actual
intellectual discussion on race issues. But Professor James
Cones’
inclusion of the radical author bell hooks [sic] tempers even this
possibility.[6] hooks is famous for her lesbian radicalism,
manifested
in an infamous essay in which she confessed to feeling a “homicidal
malice” toward an anonymous white man on an airplane. Defending
her
fury, hooks noted, “Blacks who lack a proper killing rage are merely
victims.”[7] Nihilism also characterized hooks’ remarks in her
2002
commencement speech at Southwestern University: “Every imperialist,
white supremacist, capitalist, patriarchal nation on the planet teaches
its citizens to care more for tomorrow than today.”[8]
Professor Cones, no doubt cognizant of hooks’
well-known
radicalism, nonetheless assigned the radical’s book, “Where We Stand:
Class Matters.” The Library
Journal
notes that the work “illustrates how everyday interactions reproduce
class hierarchy while simultaneously denying its existence.”[9]
Marxoid theorems aside, the Journal
also praises the book’s “valuable framework for discussing such
difficult and unexplored areas as…the ruling-class co-optation of youth
through popular culture, and real estate speculation as an instrument
of racism.”[10] Knowing the specifics of the book, Cones could
only
properly have assigned it as an example of abnormal
“Pyschology of Race and Gender.” But if the syllabus is any
indication, hooks’ work and its ideas are taught with the greatest
respect, alongside other marginal works like J.L. King’s “On the Down
Low: A Journey Into the Lives of ‘Straight’ Black Men Who Sleep With
Men.”[11]
Professor Cheryl Keyes returns in a Winter 2005
class, cross-listed
with Ethnomusicology, titled, appropriately enough, “African American
Musical Heritage.”[12] This predominance of music and film
classes
within the African-American Studies department serves to outline its
narrow academic boundaries – race, music, film, and political
radicalism. Other notable – but distastefully conservative –
aspects
of the African-American experience, like evangelical religion, are
denied a place at the table.
Keyes’ survey of African-American music returns to
her unfortunate fixation on rap with the caustically titled Ebony
article “Why Whites Are Ripping Off Rap and R&B.” Never mind
that
music is constantly evolving and is owned by no race, ethnicity, or
individual. Keyes’ readings teach her students otherwise.
Unfortunately, the endorsement of childish possessiveness of a
universality like music is characteristic of the political radicalism
and racial rage which permeates the department and its faculty.
|