DDP Argument Is Very Flawed
By Conor Flynn
Contributing Writer

Laila Bernstein argues ("Student Should Stay Informed About DDP" TSL 4/18/03) that when the facts are out everyone will support the DDP overlay requirement. Her article pedantically claims that anyone who objects to this must be ignorant, scared, or confused. Unless Bernstein is trying to prove a point about "People…[who] are unable to listen to peers…" by setting herself up as an example of such a person, it seems that her argument is deeply and ironically flawed.

Therefore the job of this response will be to argue for the possibility of substantive disagreement on the issue, which I will do by addressing some of Bernstein's arguments and rhetorical devices.

Surely the first step in any reasoned argument is to allow that opposing viewpoints can have legitimate objections, yet when Bernstein condemns philosophy and economics as tools of "insipid…white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" she condescends to give no reasons for the charge but the following: "If this term scares you or confuses you, I refer you to bell hooks." As if only blind ignorance about these terms could lead us to doubt her! It is disturbing to see the issue cast in terms so entirely pedantic as to preclude even the possibility of informed dissent, although I fear that this kind of rhetoric may be symptomatic of what DDP proponents consider informed analysis.

Bernstein argues that Pomona students should be able to analyze dynamics of difference and power, yet her strongest argument is a "challenge [to] those who are reacting defensively to try to dig in and examine why they are having this reaction. Guilt and defensiveness are not productive to the discussion on interlocking systems of domination." If it is wrong to defend oneself against the extremist claims Bernstein is making,then I stand accused. If her argument is that it is impossible to argue with her without being guilty of blasé ignorance or, worse, white supremacy, than I request an apology, because I do not believe that everyone who opposes the DDP requirement is a stubborn and biased ignoramus. I believe that I and others have a right to feel defensive when we are accused not only of white supremacy, but of being too ignorant to even understand of what we are guilty.

I hope that Bernstein would respect the readers of TSL enough to give them informational and compelling arguments rather than appeals to the authority of bell hooks or ad hominem attacks against philosophers and economists. In another example of questionable logic, she argues that because the ratio of minorities in governmental positions is not exactly equal to that of the population at large, our government cannot be representative. First, I don't think this follows at all, and second, even if it did, how does that show the need for a DDP requirement? If an operational bias in the electoral system could be identified such that minorities were effectively precluded from voting this would indeed be unjust. Yet it is questionable that such operational bias occurs, and without an identified causal link we are left with mere argument by assertion. As presented, her article only shows that the head-count of minorities in the U.S. Congress is not proportional to the population as a whole although many factors could explain this inequality. Therefore, without a causal link between the fact that "black people make up 12 percent of the population…[while they] make up only seven percent of Congress" the mere fact that disparity exists cannot be taken as proof of the "power structures and ideology that keep some people marginalized." Certainly the readers of TSL deserve a better-reasoned rational for adopting another core requirement.

Bernstein's other major critique, mentioned above, accuses philosophy and economics of "systematic discrimination of marginalized groups" yet again presents no compelling story for how this might be. Of course subjects such as, say, mathematics present a hegemonic viewpoint of the world, but no one would state that by ignoring race relations mathematics is guilty of "invisible…dominant ideology." This is simply ridiculous. Each field has its own specialties and its own heuristic and rhetorical abilities to account for the world. Philosophy and economics, as well as politics and history, are classes that are taught in order to pursue certain questions. To state that these classes are just inherently biased is to misunderstand the role of higher education. Surely we must take a class in Marxism if we are to understand the American Communist Party, but this narrow realm of knowledge does not have a necessary and sufficient claim on our education to warrant a core Marxism requirement. In the same way, those wishing to talk about bell hooks' theory of the "insipid…white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" have the right to do so, and I encourage them to project their debate into broader and more well-lit arenas of discourse, but they do not have the right to force their views upon the campus as a whole. It is important to distinguish between a meaningful and substantive dialogue about all aspects of our society, and one particular paradigm which is focused on "injustice, marginalization, and …."

I would argue that the dynamics of difference and power are already being discussed in both philosophy and economics classes to the satisfaction of their specific educational schemes. To assume that they are deficient and in need of a supplementary DDP band-aid is a serious criticism that must be substantiated (beyond merely labeling them as purveyors of an insidious "dominant ideology") and which, even if true, need not necessarily be addressed through an additional core requirement. Until we are told more about the exact nature of the charges of systematic bias that Bernstein levels at philosophy and economics the case has not been made for a DDP overlay.

Why not convince the professors for the need to include more DDP in their curriculum and then let the teachers do the teaching? After all, who would be teaching this new requirement anyway? Specifically, I don't understand the knee-jerk appeal to authority and institutionalization that DDP proponents take for granted. Make a compelling and specific case and I'm sure the professors will follow. Stand up in your class and question economic assumptions using the tools of analysis that are taught there and go ahead and question philosophical rhetoric using the ample tools of logic and rhetoric. But please spare us gentle readers of your ad hominem attacks and catch-all condemnations of the "status quo".

I suggest to Bernstein that she retract her claims implying that an informed debate about DDP is impossible and urge her to advance reasoned arguments toward the end of convincing those who might be skeptical of the "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" she takes to be so self-evident.