An
"Honorary White Male" in a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
by
Wendy McElroy
Last
October, Michigan State University sophomore and libertarian Jason
Van Dyke was told that he should not use the elevator and various
other public areas of his on-campus residence, Case Hall. He is
a white heterosexual male and a university-sanctioned campaign of
discrimination against his ‘sort’ was underway. Signs on restrooms
and cafeteria tables indicated "blacks" or "gays
only." The discrimination was part of a program called ‘Our
Divided Reality,’ which was organized by Case Hall Black Caucus,
the Department of Residence Life, and MSU Prism – a support group
for lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgendered [LBGT] students. The
segregation was intended to heighten student – read white male – sensitivity
toward minority groups.
The
program was voluntary. Or, at least, compliance was enforced only
through intimidation. ‘Monitors’ dressed in black were strategically
stationed throughout Case Hall, ready to use peer pressure against
those who did not show proper respect for the signs. Why, then,
did Van Dyke file a complaint with MSU’s Judicial Affairs Office
for a voluntary practice?
A
complaint was filed because the question is not whether the blatant
discrimination was voluntary but whether it conformed to MSU’s much-vaunted
Anti-Discrimination Policy. Van Dyke is one of a fast growing class
on American campuses: he is a white heterosexual male who demands
that universities apply their own principles without bias. Article
II of the MSU Anti-Discrimination Policy reads, in part, "Thus,
even if not illegal, acts are prohibited...if they: 1. Discriminate
against any University community member(s) through inappropriate
limitation of employment opportunity, access to University residential
facilities...on the basis of age, color, gender, handicapper
status, height, marital status, national origin."[Emphasis
added] If it is wrong to post signs prohibiting blacks from cafeterias,
then it is wrong to prohibit whites. And shaming or intimidating
whites into voluntary compliance with a discriminatory policy is
no more tolerable than similarly humiliating blacks. As of April
12th, Judicial Affairs has not addressed Van Dyke’s complaint.
In
a letter to the MSU student paper The
State News [TSN], Van Dyke commented on the hypocrisy
with which MSU policies were administered. "Apparently... it
is only racism if it is directed at minorities. If discrimination
is directed at white heterosexual males, it is called ‘diversity.’"
(09/15/99) Van Dyke’s words seem carefully chosen. The home page
at MSU’s site proudly declares one of the university’s "Guiding
Principles" to be: "Advance Diversity within Community."
In
one of his biweekly columns for TSN (04/03/00), Van Dyke
railed against the definition advanced by PC segments of MSU. "As
long as you agree with advocates’ positions on issues, you’re their
best friend, but the minute you even start questioning their agenda,
it’s an entirely different story. When a person speaks out in opposition
to their movement, whether for religious reasons or otherwise, they
are instantly branded bigots and hate mongers."
Indeed,
judging by some responses in TSN, Van Dyke seems to be viewed
as a right-wing agitator against women and other ‘minorities.’ As
one female student wrote (11/01/99), "Mr. Van Dyke, my message
for you is short and brief....Please stop whining about how hard
it is to get respect for being a white, Christian man. If you can’t,
please do the rest of us a favor and find another place to receive
your education." The PC argument for diversity sounds amazingly
similar to the ‘redneck’ slogan of "Love it or Leave it."
Perhaps
as a means of encouraging Van Dyke to "leave it," his
biweekly column was abruptly dropped by TSN. On Monday, April
3rd, his last column appeared under the title "Movement
Preaches Tolerance Hypocritically." It opened, "I
can see it now. By about 9 a.m. today, everybody will be talking
about how a bigot at MSU dared attack homosexual rights during Pride
Week 2000. I say good." Van Dyke then launched a full frontal
assault on the hypocrisy of the gay Pride Week that had been kicked
off a week before (03/23) with a presentation by the radical feminist
Mary Daly.
This
was an interesting choice of speaker for a week supposedly devoted
to tolerance. Daly is notorious for refusing to admit males into
her classes at Boston College. Yet Title IX of the 1972 Education
Amendments prohibits dual-sex universities that receive federal
funds from discriminating on the basis of gender: this measure is
often used by women to their advantage. A male student who had been
refused admission into one of Daly’s classes – another member of that
group ‘white Y-chromosome grumblers’ – demanded that the College apply
Title IX equally. If women could not rightfully be excluded from
classes, then neither could men. When the Center for Individual
Rights [CIR] threatened a lawsuit on his behalf, the College suddenly
found a sense of fair play. Almost literally kicking and screaming,
Daly was pushed into retirement. The ensuing write-up in "Accuracy
in Academia" was titled "Radical Feminist, Victim of Right-Wing
Conspiracy?" In commenting on this conspiracy, Daly herself
stated, "It is very clear that I’m a target. CIR has Boston
College as a willing collaborator and no doubt the Vatican."
The
bitter irony of Daly as a spokeswoman for sensitivity and broad-mindedness
was not lost on Van Dyke. The April 3rd article commented,
"Daly is among the most intolerant people in the United States.
She is an advocate of segregation and openly promotes women’s-only
space." He might have added that she ridicules uppity women,
like me, who don’t share her views as "honorary white males."
On the other hand, Van Dyke was able to get into enough trouble
without my advice. He asked, "[H]ow tolerant is the gay rights
movement?" He concluded, "Gay rights activists who claim
to be teaching tolerance and ridding the world of ignorance are
actually some of the most bigoted and intolerant people."
The
next day (04/04/00), TSN printed a letter from Blake Spear,
vice-president of MSU Prism. He threatened to bring MSU Judicial
action against Van Dyke for violating the MSU Anti-Discrimination
Policy. When Van Dyke e-mailed Spear to inform him that any frivolous
prosecution would result in a lawsuit, Spear reportedly forwarded
the e-mail to TSN Opinion Editor, Daniel Macklin. It was
accompanied by a demand that the unrepentant columnist be ousted.
Van Dyke explained, TSN "didn’t like me in the first
place for my conservative views" and, so, they "basically
canned me." Undoubtedly, one of his more objectionable views
is a strong support for Second Amendment rights.
Van
Dyke has announced, "I plan on contacting an attorney to seek
legal action against The State News." In doing so, he
will be one in a series of conservative student journalists who
refuse to be silenced arbitrarily. Most recently, David Swope at
Georgetown University was fired from the student paper The Hoya
after asking a question in his column:
"Is
there such a thing as a good rape?" The query was in response
to a play sponsored by the GU Women’s Center in which a 13-year
old girl – after been fed alcohol and seduced by a 24-year
old woman – eulogizes the experience as a "good rape."
The column was killed before publication. In the last few days,
Swope’s columns have been removed from The Hoya archives.
PC
voices on the MSU campus have found a pugilistic opponent in Van
Dyke. Indeed, his aggressive style must rankle them as much as his
content. For example, Van Dyke’s first column for TSN was
entitled "The Racism of Affirmative Action." It opened
with Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous lines, "I have a dream
that....my four little children will one day live in a nation where
they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content
of their character." Then, Van Dyke proceeded to break the
PC monopoly ownership claim on King. He "honored" him
by tearing apart "one of many programs our government has instituted
that is keeping" King’s dream "from becoming a reality,"
namely, affirmative action. Calling the policy "racist and
discriminatory," Van Dyke ended with the comment, "I think
Dr. King would agree."
Having
used such techniques in my feckless days of Marxist-baiting, I know
that few things anger the politically pious as much as being outflanked
on the left and out-radicaled. They prefer to believe that critics
are right-wing, rifle-shooting bigots whose wits have been slowed
by religion or country music. Van Dyke is familiar with this preference.
He observes, "Sometimes, I even hear about some conspiracy
theory having to do with the alleged-FBI COINTELPRO papers. Apparently,
some people actually expect the rest of us to believe that there
is a racist nationwide conspiracy to hold down minorities. If you
believe this, well, then perhaps I could interest you in buying
some magic beans."
It
is not difficult to understand why PC types erect this straw man
and, then, attempt to believe in its reality. The alternative is
to confront the fact that they are the single greatest source of
discrimination and social injustice in our culture today. It means
acknowledging the immense and calculated damage they inflict upon
an entire class of human beings – white males – irrespective of any
man’s individual guilt or innocence. No wonder Hillary chose to
blame even her husband’s proclivity for sneaking blowjobs on ‘a
vast right-wing conspiracy.’
If
people are known by their enemies, send me a V.R.W.C. application
form.
April
13, 2000
Wendy
McElroy is author of The
Reasonable Woman.
|