When individuals enter the world of politics, they naturally become public figures. Because of this, their actions, words, and values are likely to become the subject of both criticism and praise. While it is certainly fair and reasonable to hold our leaders to a high standard, a worrying trend has emerged from the generally well-intended idea of holding public officials accountable.
About a week or two ago, I stumbled across a rather disheartening, childish, and ignorant post on my Facebook. To give context, both individuals I will mention attend the Claremont Colleges. At some point, a Facebook group had been made for women of color on the five Claremont campuses. In the spring of this year an article on none other than the Claremont Independent blasted the Facebook group as a hateful group of men-hating women. The author of the post, Elliot Dordick, clearly had decided to try his hand at yellow journalism masked as professional investigation. The result was an article that shamelessly attacked women of color at the Claremont Colleges and named individuals next to quotes taken entirely out of context. No different than the National Inquirer and other publications that make a mockery of ethical and professional journalism, the article illustrated the bigoted views of the author.
In response to the article, Natalie Johnson (Scripps '18), a woman of color, wrote a passionate response to the divisive and irresponsible article penned by Mr. Dordick. When his delicate feelings were hurt by the response he received from the very demographic he attacked in a pitiful attempt to bolster his status at the Claremont Independent, he lashed out at Ms. Johnson.
How does this relate to the criticism of public officials? Well, it should be mentioned that Ms. Johnson's father is Jeh Johnson, the United States Secretary of Homeland Security. The "willfully blind, ignorant, and smug response" that he is referring to was Mr. Jonhson's response to Ted Cruz's inquiry about the government erasing the phrase "Islamic terrorism" and other variants of the term from government documents. Mr. Johnson, as many individuals would, responded by saying it matters not the label you give the violence, but the way in which you address the problem. Instead of attaching terrorism to a specific group of people, which causes prejudice and violence towards said group, it is more important to focus on solutions. Mr. Johnson also challenged Senator Cruz by suggesting that the whole hearing was due to a political agenda of far-right politicians, and nothing more. A certainly respectable response, Mr. Dordick was not the only one to attack Mr. Johnson. Conservative news outlets bashed the Secretary, and if you searched his name in the days following the questioning, the conservative articles dominated Google search results.
You may wonder how this relates to taking criticism of public officials too far. While I have disagreed with Mr. Johnson in the past, I would assert that the constant criticism Mr. Johnson faces is not because he is a public official, but because he is black and holds a significant amount of political power. Mr. Dordick's comments were clearly racialized as he had decided to attack a prominent black family simply because his fragile ego had been tested. Instead of privately conversing with Ms. Johnson about her response, and instead of responding to Mr. Johnson's hearing in an intellectual manner, Mr. Dordick decided to rely on petty name-calling and personal attacks.
On a broader note, white Americans have been doing this since people of color have been able to hold professional positions. Obviously, the most significant example of this is the Obama presidency. Only a few days ago, Angela Rye, Former Congressional Black Caucus Executive Director, made the astute observation that white America often believes they allowed Barack Obama to become President. Statistically, this isn't even true as Obama did not win the majority of the white vote in 2008 and 2012. Even if the majority had voted for President Obama, the idea that he was allowed to win and people didn't just simply vote for him because he was a strong candidate illustrates the difference between people of color and whites in their positions as public officials. We let Trump say the most bigoted and divisive things a presidential candidate has said in years, yet President Obama is harshly criticized for his response to the Dallas shooting, to addressing the Black Lives Matter movement, and the racial inequality that pervades in the United States.
Whether it is in our personal lives, as evidenced by the unfortunate words of Mr. Dordick, or whether it is the broader nation as articulated by the conservative news outlets' baseless attack on Mr. Johnson and President Obama, we as a society have not entered a post-racial America. Instead, we are living during a civil rights movement in which people of color, particularly the black community, are murdered by public servants and those who protest the state-sanctioned violence are arrested and harassed by the armed faction of the government.
