Last week Emory University student David Giffin shared his thoughts about one liberal pundit David Sirota’a wishes about the identity of the bombers.

He continues the theme, focusing on the concept of liberal privilege:

The real issue with white privilege or male privilege is that it almost never stays confined to such neutral sociological and academic terms. When someone is asked to “accept” their privilege, that request is usually made along with the assumption that doing so will entail some very specific (generally liberal) political ideas. For example, asking someone to accept one’s male privilege might demand the acceptance of abortion, due to the idea that women are “oppressed” without having the option of terminating a pregnancy to escape the burdens imposed by carrying a child to term. Asking someone to accept their white privilege, for another example, could demand the acceptance of reparations for slavery.

The problem with this is that it wrongly conflates the phenomenon with the political conclusions. Again using the example of abortion, there are arguments about the moral and legal status of unborn fetuses that are still very important to consider. However, the final consideration among progressives about what constitutes “privilege” almost never brings these arguments to bear. The same goes for race: arguments about the moral complicity of modern white people in the actions of their ancestors, which they never personally condoned or were even present for, are likely to be skimmed over or ignored. Even my Ricci v. Destefano argument above could be problematic, because the majority of Supreme Court justices are white and therefore judged the case from a “privileged” position.

And this is where the demand that someone “accept their privilege” itself risks becoming racist or sexist. If someone seriously considers the issue of white/male privilege, but after doing so still holds some or all of the same political beliefs, their particular moral valuations aren’t given any credence. It’s all too easy to accuse someone of still being “privileged” after that point: i.e. “the only reason they believe that is because they are male/white and thus are privileged.”

Of course, especially in academia, few people are willing to make such a point, and even fewer are willing to listen. (I attempted to do so recently in my own school’s paper, twice, and was aggressively attacked as a result.) This is because separating the neutral sociological issues from their politicized baggage challenges the basic premise of what white privilege and male privilege mean for their most ardent liberal advocates. The debate becomes ideological rather than academic at that point, and the voice of the dissenting minority that questions the concepts of white or male privilege is drastically overrun by the majority opinion.