One of the accusations levelled against Charlie Kirk was that he was a racist. This was in response to some particular comments Kirk had made.
For example he was on the record as suggesting that some black women including Michelle Obama were of sub intellect and had only got where they were through affirmative action .
In another clip, he says
“If I hear that a black person is flying the plane, I hope that they have been properly trained.”
Now, it is worth making two points here. First that we do not know and cannot judge someone’s heart. I am cautious about saying that someone was “racist” at heart. Secondly, we can look objectively at things someone said or did and we can make an assessment about whether those specific words and actions were racist.
In relation to the second point, I don’t think that the statements are in and of themselves necessarily racist. Why do I say this? Well because I understand Kirk’s objection to be primarily to do with affirmative action or what has become known as DEI in the US (Diversity, Equality and Inclusion). It is possible to disagree with these kinds of programmes, to consider that at times they may even be demeaning to black people and so not be attempting to make a racist point. I want to give Kirk the benefit of the doubt on this.
However, here are the problems with that kind of language (and there are lots of other examples). First, you have a problem when people are careless about the facts, careless about truth, when it comes to issues relating to race. Kirk ends up promoting the idea that has been circulating that DEI meant that safety standards were reduced for pilots and control tower staff. Yet we have no evidence to support this claim.
Secondly, the quote about Michelle Obama and others certainly comes across as suggesting that those people did lack intellectual capability. In other words, it gives the impression that DEI is intended to compensate for inadequacies in the person rather than that it is meant to remove barriers which result in people being treated unequally when they are in fact equal in ability or gifting. The result also is that it plays into racial stereotyping and slurs, that white people are more intelligent, logical, gifted.
Thirdly, we need to be alert to how some people have used this kind of language and critique to cover over for what truly are racist motives. To be clear, I’m not saying that Kirk was doing this but we need to consider how such comments were experienced by those who have been subjected to racism
Fourthly, this means that we need to be alert to how such language may then be read by some to support their racist agendas The result of these last two points is that words and actions create space for prejudice, discrimination, intimidation and violence.
In that respect, I am less concerned with attempting to get into the mind and heart of one person. Rather I’m more concerned when Christians read through such comments and claim to be unable to see anything racist there. The danger then is that they may not be able to grasp exactly what it is that Black and Asian brothers and sisters are experiencing.
I believe this links to some of the things happening here such as the debate about immigration, small boats and flags. Sure, to be concerned about immigration control or love you flag isn’t racist. However, first, when we see a carelessness about facts (immigrants are not the primary cause of crime, the population isn’t on track to hit 100 million by 2100, most asylum seekers are not fake nor are they illegal immigrants etc) it affects immigrants by playing into a narrative that dehumanizes and demonises. Secondly, when flags appear on lamposts in the night, it creates a hostile environment. We give space for racism, discrimination and violence to be cultivated.
I also appreciate the challenges of engaging this issue close to a death. I appreciate that there is a desire among some to say “can’t we simply acknowledge that murder is evil and this death a tragedy!” Is it too soon to comment. Well, I would prefer to do that. I keep coming back to the point that Kirk was first a brother in Christ. I want to repeat again that he was neither angel nor demon. However, exactly because some have sort to whitewash the difficult bits out and even be dismissive of those who raise questions, because of that I think we do need to tackle the issues now. And indeed, I think that engaging with a public person’s public legacy is very different from intruding on private grief.
Finally, I think the primary issue here is not with what Kirk said or his heart motives. That he was flawed and wrong in some areas does not take away from the evil of his murde. In fact it heightens it for one of the very reasons that I think he would agree to, Kirk was fallible and so should have been challenged in the arena of debate and argument not with weapons and violence. The issue is with how we respond to and engage with the same issues and language now in our context.
Faithroots 