The following guest case analysis by DePauw IEB team member, Marko Mavrovic, concerns a controversial practice at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington.
Evergreen College created the “Day of Absence,” a tradition to emphasize the lack of inclusion of people of color on campus. Students and staff members of color would leave campus for the day to emphasize their importance to the university. In 2017, however, the self-segregation of people of color shifted to an encouraged segregation of white people. The event organizers requested that white members of the university remove themselves from campus for the day. This was to show solidarity with minority students and to dismantle white supremacy by having whites relinquish control of white dominated spaces. Understandably, some were not pleased with this request. One of whom was Professor Bret Weinstein, who wrote in emails that the request was a “show of force” and an “act of exclusion” directed towards white students, something that would promote the opposite of an inclusive university.
Moral Dilemma: There are several moral dilemmas in this case, but the main dilemma is whether the goal of an inclusive campus environment justifies exclusionary, albeit temporary, practices against one race of people. The issue of free speech constitutes another, minor moral dilemma.
Motivations for the 2017 Day of Absence: The case highlights that the request for white members of the university to leave campus was done in part so that whites could relinquish their control of white-dominated spaces. Presumably, an additional motivation or justification for this request was a desire to have white students and faculty endure the feeling of exclusion that many marginalized peoples and ethnic minorities experience during their lifetime.
Day of Absence is not the only means – and may not even be the best means – of achieving the desired end. If the goal is to integrate historically underrepresented people or racial and ethnic minorities into the wider community, it seems a day of segregation is not the best way of achieving that goal. Asking white faculty and students to leave simply because they are white is not the means by which a community is going to become fully integrated.
There are other and possibly better ways of addressing this lack of inclusivity. Why is it important to understand that alternatives exist? Because opponents of Weinstein accused him of racism and being against the efforts to make a more inclusive environment simply because he was protesting the Day of Absence. Weinstein was not protesting the goal, he was protesting this specific way in which was the school sought to achieve the goal. Even the previous incarnation of Evergreen’s Day of Absence seems preferable to the 2017 versions because a group of students willingly removed themselves from campus to illustrate their importance to the university. Asking and encouraging other people – based solely on their skin color – to leave campus is detrimental to that goal. One example of the numerous alternatives to address the so-called equity gaps would be hold a forum in which historically underrepresented people or racial and ethnic minorities air their grievances and the campus community engages in actual, active dialogue to come to a collaborative solution. Another alternative is a course on historical marginalization, so that students are aware of societal ills of the past and how they inform the present. However, the presence of alternative means does not itself make the Day of Absence impermissible. Such a principle would be hard to defend. One would have to demonstrate that the means work against achieving the desired ends.
The Illogical Nature of the Day of Absence: It may be worth stating the obvious: inclusion by exclusion is logically contradictory. The expressed goal of Evergreen’s Day of Absence is to emphasize the lack of inclusion of people of color and address the “equity gaps” of the school’s community. But it is important to remember that words have meaning. The adjective “inclusive” refers to not excluding any section of society or party involved in something. Asking or encouraging white students to leave campus, as the Day of Absence did in 2017, is an act of exclusion. It is the opposite of inclusion. It is akin to saying Addition by Subtraction. P and not P. While this argument focuses the logic of the linguistics, the contradiction illustrates how asking certain people to leave campus is not a viable way of ensuring all people are integrated on campus.
A Temporary, Not Permanent Measure: One way of responding to concern that the Day of Absence is “an act of exclusion” is to point out this is a temporary and unenforceable measure. It is not a permanent demand of the segregation of white people and people of color. It is rather a demonstration to foster some reflection and create empathy for the “inclusivity” cause. Yet it is more than reasonable to take a principled stance against any act of exclusion based on immutable characteristics of a person, regardless if the act is temporary, unenforceable, or exhibitionist in nature.
Freedom of Speech? While I maintain that freedom of speech is not a main focus of this case, the case does invite further consideration of it. Weinstein expressed his thoughts on the matter and he should be able to do so as he is a member of the university community. Actions that affect the community of which one is a part should allow for opinions of support or disapproval. Just as Weinstein should be permitted to protest the Day of Absence, we believe that the students that disagree with him should be able protest his expressed opinion. But those students should not be violent or prevent him from expressing his opinion, (i.e. threatening him, barricading his office, searching for his personal spaces); doing so would be a limitation of free speech.
— Marko Mavrovic