I will bite the bullet and go through the article on a point-by-point basis.
The author of the article, Dr. Pearson, immediately attempts to establish himself as an authority that is above the average reader. "As a
professor..." The reality is that no one needs to be a professor to determine whether or not someone like the president is a racist. And by the author's use of "scholarly definition," I am expecting him to provide a definition that does not match what one would find in a standard English dictionary (i.e., he has changed the definition so that Donald Trump fits his own definition of a "racist").
I cannot say I am surprised by the definition he provides. There has been a recent phenomenon in the black community where racism now means "prejudice + power." And, to no one's surprise, Dr. Pearson is a black man (
Jay A. Pearson | Scholars@Duke). The only website that I can find which supports his definition of racism is SJWiki:
Prejudice plus power - SJWiki
Consider, however, which dictionaries support the
actual definition of racism:
- Cambridge Dictionary - the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races
- Oxford Dictionary - Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
- Merriam-Webster - a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
- Encyclopedia Britannica - Racism, also called racialism , any action, practice, or belief that reflects the racial worldview—the ideology that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others. Since the late 20th century the notion of biological race has been recognized as a cultural invention, entirely without scientific basis.
- Collins English Dictionary - Racism is the belief that people of some races are inferior to others, and the behaviour which is the result of this belief.
In fact, I challenge you to provide one example of a reputable English dictionary that provides the same definition of racism as Dr. Pearson. Since Dr. Pearson did not substantiate half of his definition, I will operate on the definition of racism that I have just established (prejudice +
power).
While I disagree with Dr. Pearson regarding "the scientifically discredited concept of biological race," I believe this statement is perfectly fine. I have no objections.
In case the reader had forgotten, Dr. Pearson is a
scholar. He is at least one mark ahead of you, the reader. He, as a scholar, knows that scholars break racism into those categories. I am not so convinced. And I am not convinced mainly because Dr. Pearson forgets to provide any citation so as to support his claim that "scholars" do that. And his sentence structure suggests that
all scholars break racism into those categories. Of course, we all know this is false. Yet Dr. Pearson does not even attempt to justify his claim with a citation. Seems lack a rather unscholarly thing to do.
And the examples are...nothing. Dr. Pearson fails to provide one example of President Trump expressing "bias through government orders and the presidential bully pulpit." So, Dr. Pearson fails to show "systematic racism."
It is convenient that Dr. Pearson does not list the reason why Trump though Judge Gonzalo Curiel "could not fairly arbitrate lawsuits related to Trump University." Of course, the reason has nothing to do with "structural racism." Here was the reason that President Trump provided:
“[Judge Curiel] is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine,” Trump told CBS’s John Dickerson. “But I say he’s got bias.” The club Trump was referring to was La Raza Lawyers; an organization with the stated mission “to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state.”
Translated, “la raza” means “the race.” Imagine the outcry if white attorneys from Mississippi, such as this author, started a a legal association called “The Race” with the stated mission to promote the interest of white, Southern communities. Hollywood stars and entertainers, such as Bryan Adams, would boycott the state in perpetuity. (
Donald Trump Is Correct To Hit ‘La Raza’ Judge For Latino Identity Politics - Breitbart)
Trump,
along with many others, believed President Obama to have been born outside of the US. Dr. Pearson attributes a racist motive to Trump, but he does not substantiate it (this is going to be a theme throughout the article). Unless Dr. Pearson can show that Trump's motivation for questioning Obama's place of birth was racist, then no one is going to be convinced that President Trump engaged in "symbolic racism."
This was a bit dishonest. Donald Trump cut one grant that went to a group who specifically dealt with white supremacist extremism. That is really not that big of a deal given the following:
The agency said the grants, awarded under the Combatting Violent Extremism program, will target "all forms of violent extremism, including the rising threat from Islamist terrorism." Spokesman David Lapan this week denied the program is now concentrating only on Islamic extremism. (
Trump slashes grant for group combatting white extremism)
So, Trump did not cut "programs to combat right-wing fascism and white supremacy" (such programs never existed). Rather, he cut one grant that went to a group based in Chicago who combated right-wing fascism and white supremacy. Regarding Peurto Rico:
The Trump administration requested an additional $4.9 billion in additional emergency funding for Puerto Rico on Tuesday in order to avoid a looming financial crisis on the island, according to
Politico.
It really does sound like Trump was stingy with the aid, huh? Very clear evidence of "institutional racism."
This really makes me question whether or not Dr. Pearson is actually the "scholar" he claims to be. "According to a growing number of mental health professionals." Who? How many? Citations? Why has Dr. Pearson left all of this out? This cannot be taken as evidence of "insidious racism" because it has not been substantiated. Regarding the Khan family, I had no issue with Trump taking them on. They were extremely disrespectful to Trump. So why would he not return the favor? If he was unprovoked then I might agree with Dr. Pearson, but he was not. But merely pointing out Trump's spat with a South Asian family does not mean he had racist motives. Again, Dr. Pearson is attributing motives to Trump. It does not prove "interpersonal racism."
Other than Dr. Pearson not providing any citations, what difference does any of this make? Trump is not the one decreasing social security for immigrant populations. He is not bullying them in school. He is not harassing them in the streets. Nothing Trump has said about immigrants is racist. And Dr. Pearson doesn't seem to think so either, as he did not make the claim. None of what Dr. Pearson said here proves "internalized racism."