A Discussion With Carol M. Swain, Author of 'The New White Nationalism in America: Its Threat to Integration'
Wednesday, July 17, at 1 p.m., U.S. Eastern time
Carol M. Swain's new book, The New White Nationalism in America: Its Threat to Integration (Cambridge University Press) is an unusual, controversial, and impossible-to-pigeonhole look at many of the toughest racial and social issues facing the United States. In the book, she argues that "white nationalism" is a growing, dangerous force. To combat it, she suggests acknowledging the legitimacy of some of the complaints its supporters make. The book argues for eliminating affirmative action and for imposing new limits on immigration. But it also calls for a guaranteed living wage for the working poor and audits of welfare agencies to ensure that people receive all the assistance to which they are entitled.
» Can We Improve Race Relations by Giving Racists Some of What They Want? (7/19/2002)
 (Photograph by Harrison McClary, Black Star) |
 |
David Glenn (Moderator):
Carol Swain wrote one of the most-discussed political science books of the 1990s: Black Faces, Black Interests: The Representation of African Americans in Congress (Harvard University Press, 1993).
Now, nine years later, she's written a book -- The New White Nationalism in America: Its Threat to Integration (Cambridge University Press) -- in which she argues that white nationalism is, ominously, "the next logical stage for identity politics in America." She documents the rise of extremist organizations such as the World Church of the Creator, and notes their successes at organizing via the Internet.
Ms. Swain's proposals for resisting white nationalists will certainly be controversial. She argues, in effect, that we should take their best issues away from them, by restricting immigration and abolishing affirmative action. (She also believes in those policy reforms on principle -- but in this book, she concentrates on a pragmatic argument. If we don't end racial preferences, she claims, white racist organizations will continue to have powerful tools for organizing and recruitment.)
We already have a number of interesting questions, and more are welcome.
Ms. Swain, thanks very much for being with us today.
Carol M. Swain:
I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss my work. I'd like to begin by clarifying the message of my book, which is somewhat distorted by The Chronicle's headline. I do not advocate immigration reforms and the elimination of racial preferences as a means to appease racists. Instead, I believe that we must address and acknowledge any legitimate public policy issues that white nationalists raise because it is the right thing to do for our country.
The majority of ordinary white Americans believe that affirmative action is unfair and possibly unconstitutional and they oppose liberal immigration policies. We are in a new situation today. At the same time that white Americans are declining as a percentage of the total population, jobs are going overseas and recent immigrants and their children -- many of whom are eligible for racial preferences -- are competing with older-stock white Americans for a dwindling supply of good jobs, for scarce positions in prestige colleges, and for governmental contracts. This situation works to the disadvantage of all native-born Americans, including my fellow black Americans.
Question from Ron M., a small liberal arts college:
Minority groups go through periods of militancy all the time and they usually get marginalized pretty quickly by the rest of society; why should we be any more frightened or solicitous of an angry white "minority"?
Carol M. Swain:
We should be concerned because white nationalists are seeking to expand their ranks into mainstream America. To do this more effectively, some groups and individuals have dropped the offensive language and the regalia of the older racist right and instead have updated and repackaged their messages of hate. I believe that a new white-rights, white-identity movement could gain ground in America because of a set of conditions coming together at this point in history that are discussed in my book.
White nationalists have cleverly adopted of the language of multiculturalism and of civil rights activism. They argue that Americans of European descent have a God-given right to protect their distinct cultural, political, and genetic identity. If the leaders of the white-rights movement have their way, white Americans will increasingly begin to organize in a more self-conscious manner. It is simply unwise to ignore any potentially powerful minority.
Question from Dr. Ron Walters:
As you know, I have a book on the same subject coming out later this year. I too believe that the White Nationalist movement is a threat not only to racial "integration" but more fundamentally, I show that it has unleashed an oppressive and punitive regime at the black community in several areas of public policy: criminal justice, civil rights, education, and others. Isn't it the case that we only affirm a fiction held by Radical Right that such issues are a legitimate source of their alienation at government if we support the elimination of our demand for equality of treatment in these areas, as I understand you would do with Affirmative Action?
Carol M. Swain:
Unknown to each other we independently wrote our books on the new white nationalism, and I am aware of another book in progress on the same subject. I sincerely believe that black crime, racial preferences, and liberal immigration policies are areas that must be addressed by different set of policies than what we presently have in place. It is crucial for black leaders and scholars to take into consideration the changing political and social milieu that all Americans find themselves in. Put simply, African Americans cannot rely on 20th century strategies developed in the 1960s to address 21st century problems. I believe that we should make the reduction of the black crime rate America's number one issue. We also need to take responsibility for the rates of HIV infections, drug abuse, and illegitimacy that are decimating our communities and making us undesirable neighbors. A wise strategy for African Americans in the 21st century is to take control over their own destinies and to plan around the absence of racial preferences. White policy makers will never be able to save black communities. The white nationalists are seeking to use legitimate issues and grievances to expand their ranks among like-minded whites.
Question from Scott Jaschik:
Some supporters of affirmative action, particularly in higher education, argue that without affirmative action, the enrollment of black and Hispanic students would fall off significantly at many institutions. Does this worry you? What do you think would happen to such enrollments if affirmative action disappeared?
Carol M. Swain:
I disagree with the supporters of affirmative action who argue that elite institutions will become lily-white if we eliminate racial preferences for affluent and middle class minorities. There are several reasons outlined in Chapter 13 of my book to support why I feel the way I do. African Americans who want to attend the most elite institutions will respond to whatever incentive structure is in place. Already, the offspring of today's African American middle-class are more competitive than their parents were, and although a large gap still exists between white and black SAT scores, remedies are available to reduce that gap. Since the attacks on affirmative action, its supporters have become much more creative in finding new ways to help improve the test scores and training of minorities in secondary schools. It is racist to argue that blacks and Hispanics are incapable of improving their scores fast enough to maintain a presence in schools that value traditional indicators of merit?
Question from Michael W. Smith, Georgetown University:
I haven't read your book yet, but I am curious to know if the burgeoning "white nationalist" movement is mainstream. And if so, what is driving it -- economics? ultraconservatism? Clearly demographics suggests the need for some form of affirmative action is still very much apparent!
Carol M. Swain:
What is driving the new white nationalism? A part of your question has already been answered in the introduction and elsewhere in this discussion. The white nationalist movement has the potential to expand because of the presence of large numbers of Americans frustrated by unresolved public policy issues in the area of race and ethnicity. Some of these individuals are disappointed in the leadership of the two major political parties and they see themselves as victims of race-based policies. It should be noted that while the majority of Americans oppose racial preferences, they do support race-neutral social welfare policies designed to help disadvantaged Americans. They seem to draw the line at racial preferences because they believe that these are unfair and un-American.
Question from Brad Gregory, U. of Utah:
I am very critical of the dogmas that liberals and Black Leaders have imposed on the race issue in America, but I am embarassed to find myself allied in any way with racists. Thanks for your book. My question: Pym Fortuyn was not conservative and hardly racist. People flocked to his party because he was willing to address their concerns honestly, something the orthodox political elites in Europe have failed to do for their citizens. Do you feel that the successes of 'right wing' parties in Europe reflect unaddressed concerns of European citizens that mirror legitimate concerns of white Americans? Do you feel that, as in America, racist parties in Europe are employing the same tactics you outline in your book?
Carol M. Swain:
I believe that the white nationalist movement is very much a global movement. And that it is being fueled by unaddressed policy concerns, some of which are legitimate. I don't believe that the major political parties are doing enough to address the policy concerns and the grievences that the white nationalists are seeking to exploit. And many of these issues are not black/white issues, they are American issues that need to be debated.
Question from Richard Christofferson Sr, U of Wisconsin-Stevens Point:
1. Suppose toward the beginnings of affirmative action we had set criteria for deciding when we had acted long enough and sufficiently enough. What might those criteria have been?
2. Suppose we had stuck with "poverty" rather than race as the indicator of need for government action. And why didn't we?
Carol M. Swain:
I think that we made a mistake from the beginning by expecting affirmative action policies to address the concerns and problems of too many different racial, ethnic, and gender groups. A major impetus for the shift to racial preferences came from pressures surrounding the riots of the 1960s. Ironically, the benefits went disproportionately to white women and middle class minorities who were given new opportunities in almost all avenues of American life.
We could have pursued a path that focused primarily on discrimination for the middle-class and opportunity creation for disadvantaged minorities. We abandoned our goals to eradicate poverty and moved toward the creation of more opportunities for affluent and middle class minorities. We have a policy now that does not reach down far enough to help disadvantaged Americans who are mired in poverty. We have a policy that benefits a few at the expense of all. For African Americans we might have said that we will continue to offer preferential treatment until the percentage of black poor equals the percentage of white poor.
Question from Jared Taylor, editor, American Renaissance:
The self-segregation of students on college compuses reflects a universal human preference for the company of people like themselves. Why can we not recognize this universal preference rather than fight and condemn it?
Carol M. Swain:
I believe that it is human nature for individuals to gravitate towards others like themselves. Birds of feather do tend to flock together. Whether we fight or condemn this behavior should depend upon the circumstances. Self-segregation on college campuses could be a manifestation of a preference for one's own group, or it might indicate a failure on the part of institutions to create comfortable environments for racial and ethnic minorities. But it is certainly the case that self-segregation defeats one of the major goals of integration, since it does not allow individuals of different races and different ethnicities to learn from each other outside the highly structured classroom setting. I do not believe that institutions have an obligation to create and maintain separate social spaces for racial and ethnic minorities. But if institutions choose to create separate spaces and separate rules for racial and ethnic minorities, then administrators should be prepared to respond to white students' charges of racial double standards.
Question from David Glenn:
Chapter 8 of your book includes a discussion of a small number of far-right academics who promote models of "scientific" racism. (For example, you quote a 1994 pro-eugenics article in the Irish Journal of Psychology that advocated that "populations of incompetent cultures" be "phased out.") How do you believe people in academe can reply most effectively to such arguments?
Carol M. Swain:
Scholars can best reply to race-based theorists by including them in the dialogue of experts on a particular issue. In academic and other forums, these scholars can be forced to clarify their positions and justify the data on which their claims rest. Our present strategy of attempting to exclude them from public discussion works too imperfectly to neutralize the damage caused when isolated scholars with political agendas are shutout of the mainstream discourse. It forces many of these scholars to resort to white advocacy forums. The discussions that take place in such forums, however, are inevitably one-sided.
The danger of racial division and racial extremism emerging out of this kind of situation has been illuminated recently by University of Chicago law professor Cass R. Sunstein. Professor Sunstein has explained how the process of group discussion can produce dramatically different results depending on whether the group involved is ideologically homogeneous or whether it contains a variety of contrasting viewpoints. In the latter case, where there are multiple perspectives and competing points of view, people often come to realize through discussion that their own views are overly simplified, parochial, or otherwise in need of significant qualification. Group discussion under such circumstances often encourages people to broaden or moderate their earlier viewpoints, or, at the very least, convinces them that certain views that they had previously dismissed out of hand may contain worthwhile insights. However, when group discussion takes place among like-minded people without the benefit of contrasting perspectives, the tendency, Sunstein says, is for the members of the group to become more extreme in their views and more convinced of the rightness of those views. Under such circumstances, the members of an insular group tend to adopt the views of those farthest towards the fringe. Sunstein sees this process of group polarization at work in many areas of politics including the arena of racial and ethnic conflict.
Question from Ramon Galinanes, Jr., University of Cambridge (US citizen):
I do agree with some of your policy suggestions for a class-based affirmative action. However, I do not see why current affirmative action policies, in particular, would promote forms of white nationalism. Aren't affirmative action policies also gender-based? Is it true that middle-class white women benefited the most from affirmative action since its inception? And, if affirmative actions are also based on gender, why did it not cause a backlash against women? There was some concern about the low participation rate of men in higher education--such as Tom Mortenson who posed the question, 'where are the guys?' Is there a double standard, when the latter promotes a 'concern,' and the former promotes 'white nationalism?'
Carol M. Swain:
Although some scholars have argued that white women and white men have benefited from affirmative action, white women were well positioned to take advantage of new opportunities that came their way, and white men benefited from the advertisement of job opportunities and the movement away from the reliance on the "old boy's network". I have no way of determining, however, whether white women have benefited more than ethnic and racial minorities, because I have no independent means of verifying that, but I do know that benefits that go to white women engender much less hostility. I think this is because white nationalists have daughters, sisters, mothers, etc. who potentially benefit from any preferences that go to women. Some of the hostility against racial and ethnic minorities comes from the perception that they are less qualified and they are unfairly displacing better qualified whites and members of other groups.
David Glenn (Moderator):
We're just about halfway through. Quite a few questions have come in, and we'd welcome additional questions and comments.
Comment from Charles Lemert, Wesleyan University:
Nationalism is one of the grand and terrible accomplishments of the white world. If the nation-state is the political means by which the capitalist world-system organized itself, then nationalism is the fervor by which the nations rallied their principal constituents -- who, over the years, were only marginally black, native, or otherwise non-white.
The idea that blacks, who in the U.S. have been remarkably faithful to American political ideals, are responsible for the nationalizing of white racism is a little like the old "culture of poverty" argument that the poor are poor because their culture keeps them from serious work habits. You can say it, of course, with some plausibility, but first you have to account for the origins of the prior social forces -- the nation-state in the one case; the economics of poverty in the other.
Question from Scott Jaschik:
A number of states -- either because of the decisions of courts or voters -- have eliminated affirmative action in higher education. But those states haven't taken other steps you recommend to fight poverty. Do you favor the elimination of affirmative action even if it is not accompanied by other steps to promote better opportunities?
Carol M. Swain:
I am a strong advocate of race-neutral social welfare programs. Many of the states that have eliminated racial preferences in college and university admissions have simply substituted other plans and programs designed to maintain racial and ethnic diversity.
Question from Jared Taylor, editor, American Renaissance:
In 1999, Tatu Vanhanen of the University of Helsinki published a book called Ethnic Conflicts Expained by Ethnic Nepotism. He surveyed the ethnic diversity and level of societal conflict in virtually every country of the world and found that diversity and conflict are closely correlated.
Why should we encourage increased diversity in America? Are we somehow exempt from the correlation Prof. Vanhanen has found elsewhere in the world?
Carol M. Swain:
I am quite familiar with Vanhanen's arguments and the impressive dataset he compiled. He argues that multiracial and multiethnic states cannot survive long because assimilation across racial boundaries rarely occurs. I believe that we have defied the odds for other countries because we are a Judeo-Christian nation where the majority of people profess to be God-fearing, prayerful individuals, who believe in a common creator and a brotherhood of man. Both the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible have scriptures quite inconsistent with racial hatred and racial superiority. For example, in Genesis 1: 27, an account of creation is given in which all humans are depicted as descending from a single human ancestor, Adam. Similarly, in Acts 17:26, the Apostle Paul declares the peoples of all nations to be of "one blood": "And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth." And finally, there is the theme of the unity of all Christians in Christ proclaimed in Galatians 3:26-29, which says that all who follow Jesus constitute one unified people regardless of caste, gender, or national origin -- "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
I believe America can avoid racial turmoil and conflict if she remembers her roots and avoids the removal of God from the public and private spheres. Indeed, after the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center public expressions of faith were crucial in bringing together people of diverse nations, ethnicities, and religions. In fact, Irving Berlin's "God Bless America" almost became our new national anthem.
Question from David Glenn:
In your book, you criticize the recent rise of "whiteness studies" in general, and the magazine Race Traitor in particular. You write: "The existence of a journal aimed at 'abolishing whiteness' at a point in history when whites are already being threatened with minority status must cause some whites to have an extra measure of unease and help fan the flames of discord among conspiracy theorists."
Couldn't it be argued, however, that whiteness-studies programs provide a valuable antidote to the nationalism and racialism of the far-right organizations you describe?
Carol M. Swain:
I think we need to make a distinction between "whiteness studies" aimed at the deconstruction of whiteness (which is alienating to many whites) and legitimate studies of white identity politics and white culture. For example, Race Traitor reveals a racial double-standard; we would never allow a magazine to exist that was fighting to destroy black or hispanic culture. My concern about white studies is that if it grows, it runs the risk of being taken over by members of the far right, who will use it to promote white consciousness and further white identity. Also, it has the risk of further dividing us on college campuses. I also believe, though, that the path that we have chosen makes white studies the next logical step. We have Hispanic studies, black studies, etc...why not white studies?
Question from David Glenn:
Since our interview last month, you've been on quite a few television and radio talk shows. What sorts of reactions have you gotten from the public?
Carol M. Swain:
Surprisingly, very supportive. The callers on the radio shows have been diverse: African Americans, white nationalists, people whose relatives have been brainwashed by white nationalists, etc... I have been pleasantly surprised by the level of support from many groups in American society. Many African Americans have endorsed my policy recommendations, and others have asked, "What new white nationalism? It sounds like business as usual to us." The reaction I've received so far suggests that Americans are starving for a real debate on race and are very concerned about where our country is heading.
Question from Fran Littin, Ithaca, NY:
I met a white supremist at my husband's 30th high school (boarding prep school) reunion last month; he was a classmate who hadn't been in touch with any classmates in as many years, someone still involved in the military. For some reason he felt compelled to return for the reunion. I wanted desperately to understand how he could justify such hate, but I didn't dare broach the subject...I just didn't know where to begin. That hate exists within each of us at some time seems inevitable, but to allow a particular hate to persist and to fan its flames as though it is justified...it shows a tremendous lack of self exploration and love. I am very anxious to read your book and to read the follow-up transcripts from the interviews with the white supremists. After all you've learned through this venture, is there any advice you can offer me should I be staring that hate again in the face? Is there anything I can say/do to diffuse such unjustified hate?
Carol M. Swain:
Here I'd refer to the response I gave earlier to Jared Taylor, when he asked whether America could survive its diversity. I think what makes us different is that we are a Judeo-Christian nation, where the majority of people believe in a common creator and a common humanity. I believe what we have to do is focus on the fact that there is only one race -- the human race.
Comment from F. Littin:
I totally agree with the idea of "white studies"; most white people don't have a clue how "white" they are. It is a sad commentary on our civilization that we are studying our differences as if they are diseases...As below, so above: the electron is attracted to the proton, the north pole to the south pole of a magnet: differences are to be celebrated and enjoyed and encouraged, not packaged as problems or means to possess someone other than oneself.
Question from David Glenn:
In your book, you write that "Michael Lind has persuasively argued that racial preferences and multiculturalism are both frauds adopted by certain elites to give the illusion of a nonexistent integration." In your view, how might the United States work toward a genuine racial justice and a genuine racial integration?
Carol M. Swain:
Michael Lind's views resonate well with my own observations of life in America. We can best work towards racial justice and racial integration by addressing obvious sources of conflict such as racial preferences and liberal immigration policy. We can also stress our shared American values and move away from the hyphenated identities that divide us and provide a compelling justification for whites to move in the same direction as other racial and ethnic groups. We can also further integration by adopting new methods recommended in my book for identifying and combating societal discrimination.
Question from Gordon D. Morgan, U. of Arkansas:
I am scheduled to teach the "Sociology of Whiteness" for the coming fall. Shall I teach whiteness as culture, or as a big problem? What do you see as the approach in this emerging new field?
Carol M. Swain:
I think that we need to recognize that white people and white students have feelings too. I believe its counterproductive to discuss race and culture in America in terms of blame or guilt. Students that take your class should be encouraged to explore what whiteness means for them in relation to other groups. If I were teaching the course, I would expose the students to some of the documentaries on the Civil Rights Movement, because it is very much tied to white culture and resistance. However, I would also acknowledge the positive roles that whites have played throughout history in trying to correct racial injustices. To put it simply, I would strive for a balance in your teaching.
Comment from Mary Batson, Fachhochschule Fulda, Germany:
One of the founders of the field of intercultural communication points out that the concept of culture is based on a colonial model -- whereas culture is seen as something that 'others' have, that sets them apart from 'us'. The application of this IC field to the issue might be helpful and relevant.
Question from Ben Reese, Duke University:
What are your thoughts on the term, "diversity?" I feel that it had a useful connotation in the 80's, but now has become a word that refers to a host of different concepts, groups, issues, etc. What are your thoughts?
Carol M. Swain:
Usually when institutions of higher education talk about diversity, they're talking about racial or ethnic diversity. Unfortunately, the manifestation of that on campus is that "diverse" people come from similar backgrounds, and are almost the same person, only in different colors and shades. What I would like to see is a diversity that includes religion, social class, etc...I'd like to see a diversity that would bring different opinions and people from different backgrounds to campus. However, I don't think this will occur by using the affirmative action measures that we have in place today on college campuses.
David Glenn (Moderator):
That brings us to the end. Thank you again, Ms. Swain, for being so generous with your time. And thanks to all of you who joined us.
Carol M. Swain:
I've enjoyed this opportunity to share my views with you, and I welcome future discussions and forums. I look forward to the emergence of a real debate on race in Ameirca; it is yet to happen.
Copyright © 2008 by The Chronicle of Higher Education