An article published by the American Enterprise Institute examines the concept of ‘anti-racist’ ideology and its implications for public discourse.
The discussion centers on the phrase, “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem,” which the author describes as a form of rhetorical pressure that can limit open debate. The article questions whether disagreement with certain anti-racist positions should be equated with racism itself.
According to the American Enterprise Institute, “There’s no safe harbor, no middle position where someone can say ‘let’s discuss this more,’ never mind ‘I disagree’ or ‘your solution is bad.’ That’s why ‘If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem’ is so often used in conjunction with ‘the time for debate is over.’ Now, when I say it’s totalitarian, that doesn’t mean I’m saying everyone who uses it is a totalitarian. It just means I think they’re usually mistaken.”
The article references Ibram X. Kendi’s definition from his book How to Be an Antiracist: “The opposite of racist isn’t ‘not racist,’ It is ‘antiracist.’” Kendi writes that there is no neutral ground between being racist and antiracist. The author challenges this framing by stating, “I’m perfectly willing to concede that racism is a problem. But I’m sure I disagree with Kendi about the scope, nature, or urgency of the problem. I’m even more certain I disagree with at least some of his proposed solutions. Does that make me racist? No. Does that make me unconcerned with racism? No. It just makes me a person with a different set of opinions and priorities.”
The piece concludes by asserting that dissent from prevailing views should not automatically be stigmatized in a free society.
