Catherine Pugh, Esq.
2 min readFeb 7, 2021

--

(I italicize my questions so they are easier to tease out when responding).

*******************

Yes. I see the distinction clearly. I agree — that is a serious hurdle as well.

Your thought chain is sound, and very common. My question, then, is this — you sure that’s what’s at issue here? Personalization we can understand given the way the generalization is made? Is is not a variation of the first? A different route to focus on self?

Let me give you an example: I taught a class about the intersection of race and law. I have a firm rule: students ask whatever they want to know, as long as it is sincere and asked with respect (& that’s not “sensitively phrased,” though they overlap — some Qs defeat sensitivity, and those REALLY need to be discussed). I tell my students feelings may get hurt. They can step out, but they cannot police the exchange. I am the only one who can do it, and I’ve only done it once (well, only shut a student down once). And that’s it. Day 1, I ask every student to answer this: “what’s the one burning thing you WISH you could talk about but can’t?” First time I taught the class, a Japanese student is maybe the third to answer. The first two were Americans and race engagement rules are pretty baked in. Young man stands up — I can see him even now — and says “yeah, umm, I kinda to know why black people act the way they do.” Whole class froze save me. Jackass that I am, I fell out laughing. It went well, but other Black folks in the room could have had a moment.

Here’s the thing: I’m not stupid. Common sense taught us long ago that general means just that — not absolute. A baseline maybe? To add or subtract from? Who knows. But we learn the concept to communicate AND process. Otherwise, our systems would crash under the weight of an If/Then/Else chart ad infinitum. So, we start with common sense.

If at any point it appears the speaker is being literal, we also have norms and options to grow or shrink engagement.

That makes me wonder at this sort of “woke” approach to centering. Are they getting to the same end by taking what is held out at least as a legitimate path? Because a premise challenge fails here, does it not?

If I say “men are stronger than women,” “chihuahuas are little Hitlers,” or “clear liquor is more potent than dark,” this inability to understand generalities and exceptions is undisturbed.

What happens when the same skill encounters a discussion of race? And who owns the burden when it does?

--

--

Catherine Pugh, Esq.
Catherine Pugh, Esq.

Written by Catherine Pugh, Esq.

Private Counsel. Former DOJ-CRT, Special Litigation Section, Public Defender; Adjunct Professor (law & undergrad). Developed Race & Law course.

No responses yet