The New Definition of Racism
Commentary | Wilfred Reilly
Wilfred Reilly offers a sharp critique of the “ongoing attempt, by widely read academics and public intellectuals such as Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, to redefine the concept of racism” and calls on “thinking” individuals to “reclaim the classic meaning of a critical term."
“Words have to mean things,” he states upfront. “That isn’t a glib, throwaway line. Many of the most vicious battles in modern American public life are, in their essence, purely semantic fights—often focused on postmodern attempts to redefine previously consistent terms.”
He then goes on to outline Kendi’s simplistic interpretation of racism—“‘There’s only two causes of, you know, racial disparities,’ Kendi said on a Vox podcast. ‘Either certain groups are better or worse than others, and that’s why they have more, or racist policy. Those are the only two options.’”
As Reilly explains, “Disparities, in the Kendi model, are de facto evidence of racist discrimination…[and] should we accept his framing, simply to argue against ‘anti-racism’ is to identify oneself as a racist.”
Pointing out that Kendi’s conception of racism is “simply wrong” and “defies logical analysis,” Reilly goes on to show how numerous “variables explain group-performance gaps far better than ‘invisible racism’ does.” He also points out the obvious danger of distraction: “We’ve seen enough of the fashionable arguments about racism to know that they’re only detrimental to that fight [against actual racism and bias].”
What is Reilly’s solution? Live not by lies. “Rather than embracing the absurd, or choosing to deny the reality of continuing residual racism,” Reilly says, “thinking liberals, centrists, and conservatives need to reclaim the classic meaning of a critical term."
