Talk That Talk: Race, Reparations, and Representations

The words we use matter. This basic proposition should be both familiar and intuitive to any debater. Words are the building blocks we use to construct cases. We quote the words of others to defeat arguments and win rounds. We order and optimize speeches to maximize the quality and quantity of our words; “word economy” is a common indicator of debate excellence. And the difference between the last-place team and the tournament champion is the words used in their rounds. At a basic level, the entire experience of debate reduces to the particular words we use.

The proposition that our words matter has important implications for debating the 2015 September/October Public Forum Debate topic, which reads, Resolved: The United States Federal Government ought to pay reparations to African Americans. The topic gives debaters the chance to explore and engage with the complexities of race relations and racial justice in the United States. For many debaters, it is their first time thinking about the relationship between race, society, and justice. Yet other debaters - specifically, debaters of color - have had no choice but to think about race their entire lives. Whether these debaters are among the Black children who receive less pain medicine on average in hospital emergency rooms, the Black students who attend structurally underfunded schools and face disproportionate punishment by school administrators, or the Black victims scarred by police brutality, the topic is an extension of a lived experience that has involuntarily been thrust on many people for their entire lives. To put it bluntly: this topic may be the first time some debaters have started thinking about race, but students of color never have the option to stop^[1].

The words used to talk about race have profound implications for people whose lives are constantly and involuntarily stratified by race. Words do not only shape the competitive environment of debate; they also shape the social and psychological environment of debate. Debaters have a responsibility to ensure that their words are not actively - even if accidentally - contributing to racial hostility in the community. For debaters who are thinking and talking about race for the first time, some of these debates may be clumsy - the concepts are new and complex, and the pitfalls are unfamiliar. It is nonetheless the debaters’ affirmative responsibility to learn how to effectively talk about race. This article will help start that process by identifying basic behaviors to avoid and to do.

Word to the Wise

A few caveats are worth mentioning before I get into the remainder of the article. First, I am white and I inevitably speak from perspective shaped by the privilege attendant to whiteness.^[2] While my limited engagement with academic critical race theory and the Black community can provide a solid starting point, go read what Black debaters are writing about debate. Second, there is no “speaker for the Black community.” Different Black people will inevitably hold different opinions about what is offensive, what is hostile, and what is acceptable. Being respectful of people as individuals means recognizing that there are no hard-and-fast rules for social engagement other than “listen” and “be respectful.” Here are several guidelines that will assist in both endeavors.

Behaviors to Avoid

The first and most common language issue on this topic deals with how to identify the people in the resolution. Debaters - and white folks in general - struggle with how to refer to the Black community. As noted above, resolving the issue of reference will inevitably vary from person to person; some people may find “Black people” acceptable while considering “African-American” an anachronistic formalism, while others may prefer the propriety of the term “African-American.” The best answer is to ask how people prefer to be identified, and to use their preferred terminology. It is also plausible to listen to how people self-identify and then mirror that usage. As a default, it is likely acceptable to use the term “African-American” because the term appears in the topic.

With respect to reference, the core concern debaters need to avoid is the use of dehumanizing language. Debaters regularly refer to the target group of the resolution as “the Blacks” and “Blacks.” This type of language - especially when paired with a curt or snide tone - strips Black people of their humanity and dignity. Debaters are likely not to go wrong when their language affirmatively humanizes the people they are discussing^[3]. Debaters can actively do that by emphasizing their humanity; “Black people” is better than “Blacks,” which is better than “the Blacks.” The phrase “the Black community” also seems less objectionable because of the humanizing element suggested by the term “community.” Finally, the term “people of color” is commonly used in the literature, though its usage is the subject of vigorous debate^[4]. As long as debaters are guided by the polestar of humanizing language, they are that much better communicatively.

Debaters should be aware that humanizing language deals with both the terms and the tones in which the terms are said. Otherwise acceptable referents may be rendered inappropriate by a dehumanizing articulation. Thus, debaters need to be conscious of both the form and content of their speeches.

Another linguistic issue to avoid is the creation of hierarchical us/them dichotomies. I have heard debaters argue that “we” need to give “them” reparations. At a basic level, such phrasing oversimplifies the complexity and heterogeneity of race relations to a simple narrative: an active white “we” gives to a passive Black “them”. This is troubling because it reinforces a power hierarchy between whiteness and Blackness, where whiteness embodies a savior narrative that acts upon needy and vulnerable Blackness. It also reinforces the concept of whiteness as a social default by using the term “we” as a stand-in for “those who ought to give reparations,” or “white people.” Finally, it is linguistically inaccurate. No debater is giving any other person anything. The debaters are imagining the hypothetical implementation of a policy by government actors -- the most accurate description is that “the government” is offering reparations to “African-Americans”.

Finally, debaters need to avoid playing to racial stereotypes. A number of debaters intend to respond to cash grant affirmatives with arguments that suggest that the money will be misspent by the recipients of the grants (e.g. the Black community). The racial stereotypes that underlie this argument become immediately apparent upon a simple inquiry: why? The only commonality between resolutional recipients of the grants is that they are Black, because the topic is not limited by class or social status. What about Blackness alone innately suggests financial irresponsibility? Even if the focus of the question is on poor Black communities, what about the intersection of poverty and Blackness suggests a reckless disregard for basic and obvious financial common sense?

As these questions demonstrate, even subconscious and subtle stereotypes may creep accidentally into debaters' arguments. Debaters must therefore be cautious to vet their arguments and reflectively inquire to what extent - if any - their arguments rely on stereotypes of Blackness as poor, criminal, violent, irresponsible, ignorant, and the like.

Behaviors to Engage

Debaters should be willing to call their opponents out on problematic behaviors.^[5] The call-out should identify the behavior or statement, explain clearly and concisely why the conduct at issue is problematic,^[6] and suggest an alternative. The alternative can be anything from avoiding the conduct (e.g. “stop saying that”) to affirmative advice (e.g. “try using humanizing language”).

The converse to that advice is that you should be open to being called out. No one is perfect, and everyone is likely to make mistakes at some point. The best response is to remember that the call-out is not about you, that your intentions do not absolve the impact of problematic conduct, and that your focus should be on remedying the wrong - even if it is not immediately apparent to you that a wrong has been done. Emphasize and practice listening over argument. When someone is vulnerable enough to suggest that your behavior has serious interpersonal significance, respond sensibly by focusing on them. After the call out has occurred, apologize with specificity by identifying the problematic conduct, and then identifying what was wrong with it (e.g. “I am sorry for _____, and I recognize that it was wrong because _____.”). Commit yourself to avoiding such conduct in the future, and be glad that you have left the encounter that much wiser.

Conclusion

Champion debaters are not simply debaters - they are leaders and community builders. No community is unified if it is divided by the scourge of invidious racism. On this topic, debaters have a chance to authentically grapple with serious issues that confront a substantial portion of the community and the people in the United States.. Champion debaters will rise to the occasion, recognize that their words matter, and make a difference in the community.

---

References and Citations

^[1] Professor Russell Robinson is a distinguished professor at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law who has explored a related phenomenon he terms “perceptual segregation.” Professor Robinson argues that Black communities are likelier to recognize racism because they are implicated by the risk of racist violence and discrimination. White communities, in contrast, have the option to ignore racism - and very often do - because white lives are not placed at risk by racism in the same way Black lives are. I strongly suggest that students read the full paper; it’s an easy read and it’s highly engaging. The paper is available here: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=facpubs

^[2] Dr. Linda Alcoff offers a thoughtful engagement with the issues involved with speaking for and about communities to which one does belong. Her essay has been extensively cited, and is available here: http://www.alcoff.com/content/speaothers.html

^[3] People-first language is a linguistic movement in the dis/ability community that may provide insight for the discussion of this topic. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language

^[4] For a defense of the term “person/people of color,” see http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/18/opinion-minorities-try-people-of-color/ (“The term ‘people of color’ has deep historical roots, not to be confused with the pejorative ‘colored people.’ . . . American racial justice activists, influenced by Franz Fanon, picked up the term in the late 1970s and began to use it widely by the early 80s.”); see also Viola Davis’ lauded self-reference as a “woman of color” for a contemporary example. http://www.people.com/people/package/article/0,,20951278_20953904,00.html. For opposition to the term, see http://www.blackgirldangerous.org/2013/03/2013321whats-wrong-with-the-term-person-of-color (critiquing the term “people of color” as homogenizing diverse racial experiences); see also http://powderroom.kinja.com/controversial-opinion-time-i-hate-the-phrase-person-of-1634451508 (critiquing the term as disempowering).

^[5] I speak especially to white debaters in this section. White debaters do not face the same degree of social repercussion for standing up against racism as Black debaters face. White debaters are thus uniquely situated to call out and challenge racism whenever they encounter it.

^[6] For example, conduct could be problematic for many of the reasons already discussed in this article. A statement may be problematic because it is dehumanizing to Black people, or because it relies on racial stereotypes, or because it reinforces racial hierarchies.