LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Response to Crystal continues

To the Editor: As a former student in Sociology 6, I learned a great deal about the origins of racism. Our reading began with a history of slavery occurring well before 1492, and continued into the present. Throughout our classes we discussed the supra-ordinate's impact on the culture of the subordinate group. In his lectures, Professor McDaniel presented the marginalization of several subordinate groups, but he did not imply that the blacks in America were the first group to be so treated. They were one of several groups to be discussed in that class. Although I attended Professor McDaniel's class on Race and Ethnic Relations a year before Crystal, I doubt that the syllabus and intent of the class could have been altered so drastically that it no longer provided any insight on racism. To present a few isolated phrases from class in the way he did in his column does not reflect accurately on it. Frances Rhoades Dynamics of Organization graduate student n To the Editor: I had a difficult time deciding just how to respond to Dave Crystal's incredulous assault on Sociology Professor Antonio McDaniel, Howard University, and the process of academic discourse -- all in one column ("Social construction," DP, 2/1/96). I decided that as a first-year graduate student in the Sociology Department (and an undergraduate history major), there were many others on this campus better qualified to correct Crystal's historical errors. I cannot, however, stand silent in the face of his assault upon a qualified, tenured scholar and another qualified institution of higher learning. The work being done by Professor McDaniel is one of the reasons I chose to conduct my graduate studies here, as a student of race, class and gender issues in pubic policy. His work is a unique combination of demography, race and sociology with a historical perspective. Such innovative research means that his ideas may challenge some of our pre-existing notions. l do not see, however, how this can be seen as detrimental to the professor's academic credentials or to his field in general. Did, in fact, Crystal not come to Penn to be educated? Did he think he would acquire such an education by only taking classes with professors who agreed with him on every point? As for Crystal's derogatory references to Howard University, they are pure, unfounded, racist diatribe. They have no place in a media tool designed to facilitate higher learning. Crystal should be reprimanded for using his position as a contributor to the DP in such a self-serving, racist and ignorant fashion. If he disagrees with the intellectual perspective of anyone on this campus, he has every right to express that disagreement. To couch the discourse, however, in vituperative, racist and arrogant language does not serve the Penn community well -- not even his own myopic views. Lynn Green Sociology graduate student n To the Editor: Both Dave Crystal, in his column ("Social construction," DP, 2/1/96), and Dave Kalstein, in his response ("Kudos, catcalls for Crystal's view of race," DP, 2/6/96) seem to be under the delusion that college classrooms used to be free of politics. In the past, classes were politically slanted in favor of white, male and generally upper-class people. Yes, everyone's heard that many times, but not everyone has gotten it yet. How do I know that classrooms once were biased in that way? Because, as I've seen in nearly four years at Penn, some of them still are. Maybe Crystal and Kalstein don't object to that particular bias. Nevertheless, they're mistaken in thinking that "bias" originated after the civil rights movement. Classrooms today are closer to presenting "all viewpoints to an issue" than they ever were. Regarding Crystal's original point about race, he suffers from another delusion. Biogenetics has certainly not "proven" that there are distinct races -- even the most eager proponents of the idea have not come up with a biologically significant definition of race. The word "race" does have meaning, but whether Crystal likes it or not, that meaning is socially constructed. As for "Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid," those classifications were outdated in the field of anthropology probably before he was born. It's time to go back to the books, Dave -- and pay more attention this time. Nirva Kudyan College '96 n To the Editor: I wish to defog Dave Crystal's discussion of race as a social construct ("Social construction," DP, 2/1/96). Crystal's understanding of the theory he is attempting to rebuke is minimal at best. Do I blame his professor? No. As a "journalist" and an undergraduate scholar, Crystal has a responsibility to study. His passive approach to scholarship ("my teacher didn't teach me") is part of a larger problem many educators label apathy. I will try to give some breadth to the idea that race is a social construction. The Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid "racial" categories are indeed refutable. The peoples of Africa alone manifest 92 percent of total human anatomical variation (skin and eye color, hair texture, facial anatomy, etc.). All of the so-called racial categories include people who can be classified as being in one category, yet look like they belong to another. Terms like "black" and "white" dupe us into believing that we can easily talk about complex issues such as identity and difference. Don't be so ignorantly afraid of the fact that race is a social construct. Race does not mean ethnicity. An ethnic group is defined by its discernible epistemology, which derives from a constellation of social elements including its speech community, geographic locale and familial structure. Race is much more difficult to define. I am not in any way being original by stating that race means difference. For instance, for some people being a member of the black race means intellectual inferiority (see The Bell Curve by Hernstein and Murray). For some people, being Asian means that you are intellectually superior. Being Jewish means that you are cheap. Being white means you are the ruling class. Being Greek means you wear cool sweatshirts and get drunk occasionally. Being blue means that you are sad. Is the pattern becoming any clearer? One of the most important things to remember in discussions of race (not as important when treating ethnicity) is that we are all -- men, women, black, white, etc. -- far much more alike then we will ever be different. James Peterson English doctoral student