Left: One Point

I don’t recommend conceding that the left makes more sense on an issue of the day. And not just because I am stubborn. I have found that it is best to sleep on it for a while when you are tempted to agree with the liberals. The conservative side has been proven correct time and time again. Think back.



The academic and media elites have not had to eat much crow, but they should have. They have been wrong on the great controversies of the last fifty years. They were wrong about the Soviet Union and other command economies being the “wave of the future.” Wrong about the popular indigenous support for Mao and Fidel and the Sandinistas. Wrong about the impact of welfare on inner-city families, the benefits of busing for racial balance, the effects of pornography and “recreational” drugs.

That said, I think I have come across an issue where the liberals are making sense, where the left is right. So let’s give the devil his due. There is no reason to defend the indefensible. Moreover, admitting that our side is wrong once in a while can be a good tactic. It will make clear that we are intellectually honest and not blind partisans willing to resort to smoke and mirrors to make our case.

Correct? We don’t want to become like the Clinton apologists who would pop up on the nightly talk shows to explain away whatever indiscretion the former president would engage in. (I hope Chris Matthews writes a book some day about the Democrats who would appear on his show to defend Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandals. Matthews has stated publicly that a couple of well-known spokesmen for Clinton admitted to him privately that they didn’t believe what they were saying on camera about Clinton, but felt obliged to defend him for the good of the Democratic party.)

What is the current issue where I think that the liberals are making a good case? The question of whether it is acceptable, as columnist Sam Francis puts it, for colleges and high schools to permit “all-black clubs, all-Hispanic clubs, all-Asian clubs and all-everything-else-but-white clubs.” This issue has attracted national attention because Lisa McClelland, a fifteen-year-old student at Freedom High School in Oakley, Calif., has proposed to start a Caucasian Club at the school. The school already has a Black Student Union, a Latinos Unidos, and a club for Asian-Americans. Lisa has some 300 names on a petition backing her plan, which she has submitted to the school’s principal.

The vice president of the local NAACP chapter opposes Lisa’s plan, arguing that a Caucasian club “will not allow us to heal the divide that we’ve tried to overcome in the past couple of years,” and that such a club “seems like a backdoor approach to separation. From a historical perspective, this will bring up fears.” Several prominent liberal journalists and politicians are taking the same stance. Which brought the conservative commentators into the fray.

Sam Francis argued that Lisa should have taken a more militant approach, that her willingness to admit non-whites to the Caucasian Club and her plan to use it to “try to solve the issues of racial disparity” make it sound as if the club “will end up regurgitating all the anti-white drivel, guilt and lies the NAACP and its allies can invent and stuff down white throats.” William Rusher supported Lisa: “In truth, it’s hard to see what logical objection there can be to a club for white students, especially if blacks, Latinos and Asians all have their own clubs…. If America is truly a multicultural society, then whites have as much reason to celebrate their contributions to it as any other social group.” Rusher went on to state that “opponents of the idea will be hard put to explain why white students, uniquely, must be denied the right to organize in benign groups to discuss important social issues.”

William Rusher has long been a favorite columnist of mine. But I think he has missed the mark this time. I don’t think opponents of “white clubs” will be “hard put” explain why they oppose them. Why? Because there is a difference between a “black” or “Latino” club and a “white” club. In what way? I would argue that black and Latino clubs are no different from the kinds of clubs that were commonplace when I was in college back in the 1960s. At Fordham at that time, there was a Gaelic Society, an Italian Club (Il Circolo Dante Alighieri), a Russian Club, and a French Club. No one thought these clubs divisive. But a White Students’ Council would have been. I think we all can sense why. Just as we sense that there something inappropriate about Lisa McClelland’s plan for a Caucasian Club. The question is how to put it into words.

Permit me to take a stab at explaining the difference. When one forms a Gaelic Society or Italian Club, for example, the purpose is to provide a forum for a discussion of things that would not likely be of interest to the student body as a whole, to delve into topics that would not be covered in the mainstream curriculum. The Gaelic Society might offer courses in the Irish language or an analysis of the writings of Patrick Pearse. The Italian Club might propose a symposium on the writings of Gabriele D’Annunzio and their impact on Italian politics in the years after World War I.

Membership in these clubs implies no hostility toward the rest of the student body; it does not disparage non-members. In fact, for most of the week, members may associate more with non-members than with members of the group. In fact, it could be that the only time they associate with the members of the ethnic club is during the time when the club is in session, a time taken to explore an interest that is understood to be particular, even idiosyncratic. It makes no difference to the rest of the student body if there are some Italian-Americans or Irish-Americans who want to spend some time exploring their ethnic heritage. They are not threatened or made to feel inferior by that fact, any more than they are when members of the chess club or stamp club want to spend some time with those who share those interests.

Consider the difference with a Caucasian Club. This is still a country that is overwhelmingly white. (That may change some day in the future, which will change this analysis.) When a Caucasian Club is formed, it says in effect that there is a club that represents the society as a whole — one that is intended for everyone except a racial or ethnic minority, one where everyone belongs except unwelcome sub-groups. It is hard to see how that could be interpreted in any way other than as a relegation to second-class citizenship for those excluded. Which makes all the difference in the world.

Look: If black and Latino student associations are preaching racial hatred or subversion they should be criticized for doing so. The clubs should be disbanded. But if they are doing what the Gaelic societies and Italian-American clubs have done for decades now, there is nothing to object to. Forming “Caucasian Clubs” to score points against racial minorities is not just a case of turn-about being fair play. It delivers the wrong message.

James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, is available from our online store. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net.

(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

MENU