Retrograde motion – on Derrick Bell and Sandra Fluke

I’m hesitant to even waste my time mentioning this, but I do have a slightly larger point to make. So here it goes.

The new big ‘scandal’ is that Barack Obama while a law student at Harvard said some nice things about Derrick Bell. That’s the whole scandal. Derrick Bell, you may be aware, was an incredibly brilliant legal thinker. He is most famous for being a leading light in Critical Race Theory, which makes the oh-so-controversial claim that legal institutions are not neutral even when explicit forms of discrimination are wiped away. For example, you may be surprised to learn that racism did not disappear the second the Civil Rights Act was signed.

Of course, CRT is a far more complex set of arguments, and there is no clearly defined limits to the field. So it’s possible that some of the more radical claims made by its proponents might go a bit further than everyone will agree with. But you can say that about literally anything. And on the whole, CRT has been a tremendously positive force in our efforts to make law live up to its principles. Which is to say: America is a far better place today because of Derrick Bell. And the fact that Obama spoke highly of him (as he was protesting discrimination in legal hiring practices BTW) is about as controversial as it would be for him to speak highly of James Watson and Francis Crick.

So what’s the larger point? Well, this is an example where people who care about the issues at stake need to aggressively push back. Saying that Obama wasn’t really all that close with Bell is not just beside the point but it (subtly of course) implies that it would in fact be a problem if they were. We should be taking this opportunity to talk about how great Derrick Bell was, and pointing out all the evidence that he was, you know, right in his diagnosis of our society.

Same thing goes for this contraceptives insanity.  Normally it’s not news that Rush Limbaugh says something stupid and aggressively outrageous.  But in this case, it has called attention to just how much the conservative element of the Republican Party (which increasingly exercises total control over the whole party) just flat-out hates women who dare to find pleasure in sex.

Which is to say: people shouldn’t be satisfied with making just ONE of the incredibly obvious responses to this phenomenon.  We should be actively making all of them.  Because at each level, the conservative treatment of Ms. Fluke betrays deep problems in their social picture.  So don’t just point out that many women use birth control for reasons that have nothing to do with sex (though of course that is true and important).  Don’t just point out that people have to pay taxes for things they don’t personally support all the time (though of course that is true and important).  Don’t just point out that the issue here is not taxes at all, but rather what the health insurance that individuals will pay for will cover (though of course that is true and important).  Say all of this and more.  See Scott Lemieux for a great example.

The point here is that these folks are doubling down on their complete craziness. If this thing had blown over quickly, fine.  There’s no point in attacking the extremes if the middle is going to dissociate themselves from it.  But when that doesn’t happen, there are very important contrasts to be drawn.  And it’s plenty worthwhile to do it.

Which is to say: give people all the facts, but not simply as a matter of fact-checking.  Give them the facts in order to drive home the larger point: these folks would absolutely love to punish all women who believe that their bodies belong to themselves, rather than being owned by the men in their lives.  These folks would absolutely love to roll back all the (admittedly piecemeal) racial gains that our society has seen.  Incidents like these are not just ephemeral – they are opportunities to clarify who we really are, and what we want out of our society.