If you're the kind of guy who liked All in the Family\ but never learned the word ""satire,"" you might be a racist—or if the structure of that sentence got you excited for a punchline with another ""R"" word, you might be a Jeff Foxworthy fan (and most certainly are easily amused).
But if you do believe that certain races are inherently superior to others, you can avoid being called racist. As long as you seem dumb enough to be forgiven, you will just be called ignorant.
At best, it's a back-handed compliment, but in some cases, ignorance is not just a lack of knowledge, but an inexcusable lack of knowledge in a person who is capable of enlightenment but chooses not to seek it.
It's possible that many people who are racist or intolerant aren't bad people, but just lazy. Processing new (""blasphemous"") information can be tough sometimes, especially when it contradicts those beliefs that we think are set in stone and traced over again in permanent marker.
We are rarely forgiving of these people, however, hoping quietly that their attitudes become illegal in and of themselves so that bigotry dissipates—all the while, hypocritically, refusing to tolerate their beliefs.
We usually think we're right, but that makes ignorance a two-way street. And right now traffic is moving furiously both ways on Tobacco Road after an alleged gang rape in Durham, N.C., began to make front page-news.
The National Organization for Women estimates that 1.2 million women in the United States are raped every year, which suggests that you will only hear about a fraction of a percent of those cases. But if 46 white, affluent, Duke University lacrosse players allegedly rape a single black mother who strips to pay her way through school, you will hear about absolutely everything.
It's the next piece of anecdotal evidence that suggests blacks haven't come as far in this country as White America would like to believe. It's the next great Dave Chappelle joke. The next unforgettable Kanye West lyric. It's the next gruesome benchmark in race relations.
Judging by the outrage, it seems as though people view this crime as a microcosm of oppression in this country; 46 southern plantation-owners—whose entitlement comes not from owning land but excelling in athletics—that believe their esteem grants them permission to degrade the modern slave-girl before them.
Considering reports of racial epithets in conjunction with the alleged rape, it seems reasonable to assume that race was either a cause of—or factor in—the assault. But that just seems too simple. Doesn't all of this focus on race divert attention from other factors in this crime that deserve serious examination?
Affluence can make someone believe they are immune to legal trouble because they can afford the best lawyers. Poor scholarship athletes who know law enforcement won't do them any favors can—and have—committed violent crimes against women. It's happened on this campus. And most important to note, a group of young men who have no social groups or backgrounds in common are capable of this type of crime.
Again, labeling the rape at Duke as racially motivated seems reasonable, but dismissing the other factors that led to it is nothing more than ignorant. Race, in this case, is a scapegoat. This isn't something that only happens at a Southern school with kids who grow up around Confederate flags and David Duke campaign posters.
For once, the stars aligned and everyone with a third-grade-level moral compass could state confidently that they knew the ""type"" that would commit rape under those circumstances. But such a simplistic diagnosis appeals to people who are more concerned with being blamed for contributing to a social condition that allows for rape than actually preventing it.
Anyone who has ever had anything against Duke, the South, privileged white youths, jocks or underage drinkers is delighted by the fact that all those low-life lacrosse players are finally being robbed of their ignorance and privilege. After all, those are the things we hate most about them and the primary reason we tend to get carried away when condemning the school and culture that produced them.
But this wasn't simply a school that could have avoided this tragedy had they kept an eye on racial tolerance on campus; this happens everywhere, even in places where race isn't a factor.
And if we are to presume that gang rape is distinct from rape—that the presence and influence of the ""gang"" allows for individuals to commit rape who aren't otherwise capable—then it seems even more obvious that race can't be the only cause of a crime of this magnitude.
So it's especially dangerous to characterize such an awful crime as a product of intolerance and hate. It makes racially-enlightened campuses breathe an undeserved sigh of relief, as they neglect the possibility that staples of their respective campus cultures could allow for a similar crime.
If you want to assign blame, you look at the permissive tendencies of athletic departments everywhere. Look at how steadfastly people revere—and excuse—athletes because of their capabilities. Most of all look at the perpetrating athletes themselves.
But look at everything. Assign blame—and direct outrage—with caution. An epidemic of self-righteousness has swept mainstream media and you would be well served not to catch it. If you express your disgust for athletes, drinkers or rich and privileged kids, then before you know it, their actions—in ignorant minds like yours—could suddenly represent you.
We may not look like Duke. We've got a ton of middle-class kids, not rich ones who know the district attorney. We've got Langston Hughes-loving white kids on our soccer and tennis teams, not bigots. We drink 10 times more than those hayseeds down South but at least we're responsible about it.
But can you honestly say that our campus culture makes it impossible for something so horrible to happen in Madison? Would you really be shocked? Me neither.
Be safe.
Contact Ben Hubner at bphubner@wisc.edu.\
