The pervasive pitfalls of being a white moderate

In his powerful and articulate “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” (1963), Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote, “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action.’" Although the struggle for civil rights never ended, it has received mainstream news coverage, both nationally and locally, in recent months due to the murders of black men and women such as Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice and Tanisha Anderson.

The relevance of MLK’s words in today’s cultural climate is startling. The vast majority of people complaining about the “Black Lives Matter” protests are not Klansmen or even the stereotypical right-traditionalist. Rather, they are the modern white moderates who say, in their modern way, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action.”

“I support their cause, but do they have to block traffic?” “I support their cause, but do they have to protest during the Rockefeller Christmas tree lighting?” “I support their cause, but why not #AllLivesMatter?” “I support their cause, but do they have to protest during finals week?” “I support their cause but...”

To support a cause is to support a cause, not to prioritize order over justice, convenience over action or comfort over progress. Our cultural climate allows for the (justified) public downfall of Paula Deen, whose racism is easy to acknowledge and satisfying to decry. Yet the same climate allows for more insidious, institutional forms of racism to be considered acceptable. We pat ourselves on the back for condemning overt racism but shy away when we must challenge our own comforts and privileges. No modern white moderate would support the easily identified racism of Paula Deen or the Ku Klux Klan, but he would support racist policies such as Stop and Frisk, which has a 57 percent approval rating among white New Yorkers compared to a 25 percent rating among black New Yorkers.

There are the white moderates who call for neutrality, what MLK referred to as a “negative peace.” Calls to hear the “other side” of “Black Lives Matter” pop up in an attempt to maintain a façade of neutrality. But what is “the other side” to “Black Lives Matter”? Or “Hands Up Don’t Shoot”? A call to neutrality in these situations is a call to legitimize racism and police brutality. Michael Brown’s parents will never have the opportunity to hear “both sides” in a criminal court. Tamir Rice’s sister was shoved into a police car and forced to watch her baby brother lie dying on the cement. Eric Gardner was publicly executed for selling untaxed cigarettes. If there is “another side” to any of these events that does not deem them horrific and unacceptable, I do not want to hear it. In the (often well-meaning but misguided) push to represent “both sides,” racism and cruelty are given legitimacy and publicity that they do not deserve. Desmond Tutu said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” Neutrality is de facto approval of the status quo.

It is critical to remove the obstacles that stand in the way of equality and justice, even if challenging those obstacles is uncomfortable and inconvenient. We must not assume the role of the white moderate: striving for justice on our own terms and own timetable and searching for non-existent neutrality. The struggle for civil rights marches on, meeting many of the same roadblocks that MLK warned about in 1963.