In response to Matt Walsh's "I'll Check My White Male privilege..."

Matt,

I recently came across your recent white male privilege post in my newsfeed. As a black American male, I was curious to see what you had to say about privilege and what prompted you to write the piece. I was sad to see the hate-filled uninformed letter that you were responding to. What also made me sad is that you seemed to validate one of the false premises you blogged about: 'You're not a part of [insert demographic here], therefore you don't get to talk about [insert demographic here] things.' Your thoughts on privilege are less than perfect.

I agree with you on this much: the above premise is false and using the premise as well as the phrase 'check your privilege' is too often used as a method to suppress dialogue rather than encourage it. That is sad. However, it has been the experience of many of us that white people in America don't quite understand what it's like to not be white and furthermore, don't know the implications of being so. It also seems to us that whites don't care to learn about or attempt to understand our lives and history and who could blame you – it doesn't do too much for your social, economic, or legal security or advancement. As a consequence of this mindset, when it comes time to discuss these things, many white people find themselves unequipped to deal with race issues displaying ignorance, defensiveness, and dismissiveness – yourself included, Matt.

Let's start with the blog where you address the hate-filled email. You issue a challenge relatively early: “name me one particular right or immunity that I possess and you do not? What is one specific and tangible benefit that white males universally enjoy, while all other people are deprived of it?” Challenge accepted.

White Male Privilege

You'll probably never have to explain the harsh effects of systemic racism and sexism to your boys.

You can excel without being labeled a 'credit to your race or sex'.

You can seek political office without your race or sex being part of your platform.

You're probably never expected to speak for all white men.

White privilege

When you open your mouth to speak, people don't act surprised at the breadth of your vocabulary and call you 'articulate'.

You won't have to worry about stop and frisk.

You can go shopping without fear of being followed or harassed.

You've probably never been taught to 'give up the sidewalk'.

If you need legal or medical help you're probably not afraid of your race working against you.

You can criticize political figures without being labeled as a cultural outsider. Maybe a bigot, but not a cultural outsider.

You can easily find toys, greeting cards, and magazines that represent people of your race.

The 'nude' color was made to match your skin tone.

If you walk into any barbershop, there will more than likely be someone who knows how to do your hair.

When you get a job or a promotion, people can only assume you got it because you were highly qualified.

People don't wonder if your college application was just a picture of your face.

If you decide to bomb or shoot up a building, you know you likely won't be labeled as a terrorist.

If you decide to bomb or shoot up a building, you know members of your race won't be labeled as a possible threat.

Male Privilege

You can walk down streets without fear of sexual harassment.

You can have sex with multiple partners and be praised for it.

You can go on a date without fear of being raped.

If you do get raped you don't have to worry about the way you were dressed being used as a defense.

If you don't decide to have kids, your manhood won't be called into question.

If you ask to speak to the person in charge, you're pretty confident that you'll speak to someone of your own sex.

I can keep going.

Maybe these examples don't meet your definition of tangible, but I don't think you can dismiss these relatively simple to pick out manifestations of privilege.

Let's move on to your earlier blog from May. You first tackle something that I admit is a problem. People of ingroups dismissing the opinions of people from outgroups because they are members of outgroups. I'll also admit that I fall into this trap occasionally. When faced with an issue I'll typically seek help from someone that has both knowledge and relevant experience rather than somebody with just the knowledge. The latter simply isn't as good. People want to be understood. As a Christian, I can't discount the value of empathy when it comes to ministering to others and I assume you blog as way of ministering to the masses. That said, I believe Christ was the perfect minister and I believe that one of the reasons Christ had to suffer as He did is so He could empathize with us. And if He could empathize with us, He could help us perfectly.“...and [Christ] will take upon Him [His people's] infirmities, that His bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that He may know according to the flesh how to succor His people according to their infirmities” (Alma 7:12, The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ). I'm not trying to say there's logic behind the treatment you've been receiving as a result of your opinions on matters that don't directly affect you. I am saying your inability to empathize with the ingroup guarantees that you will never have a perfect understanding of whatever subjects you tackle with regard to those people and they know it.

The issue then, Matt, isn't that people aren't interested in what you have to say simply because you're not part of their group. People aren't as interested in your opinions on Sterling, abortion, affirmative action, and feminism because people know that you, at the very least, don't completely understand what you're talking about by virtue of your whiteness and your maleness.

Furthermore, white people in particular don't have the best track record when it comes to assessing equality with other races. In the early 60's, 80% of white people said they felt minorities were treated equally in their communities. In the late 1800's, southern whites thought the same. In the mid 1800's, slaves that wanted to be out of bondage were actually considered mentally ill. In each time period white people believed they weren't out of the way and we acknowledge today that they were. In each time period, blacks believed they were oppressed and we acknowledge that they were. Basic statistics tell me, Matt, that if you tell me today white privilege is an illusion while there are many non-white people claiming to feel its effects, that I shouldn't believe you.

You made a semi good point about having people with no emotional attachments to weigh in on matters (thus eliminating bias) with your jury selection analogy. In your analogy you say that if a car thief is on trial, you don't stock the jury with a bunch of people who got their cars stolen. You mix it up with victims and non-victims. That makes sense to me. What you don't stock the jury with is people like you, Matt. While you may be unaware of what it's like to have your car stolen, you're also unaware or denying that car theft is taking place.

Moving on to the second premise – I think it's half right. Anyone of any race, religion, creed, gender, orientation, etc. certainly can experience discrimination and prejudice in one form or another. In saying that, I must clarify that you and all white men have never experienced the kind of institutionalized and systemic racism and sexism that people of color and women in this country have, thus introducing my agreement with the second half of this 'false premise'.

Finally, you cited this white dude at Princeton as 'masterfully' handling the issue of white privilege. You both miss the mark. No one is trying to diminish what you or Princeton dude accomplished despite your adverse circumstances. We don't want you to apologize for your accomplishments or your race. We don't want you to say that you were given handouts. What we want is for you to acknowledge that you till more fertile ground than the rest of us by virtue of your whiteness and your maleness. We want you to acknowledge that in THIS country if you put identical people with identical circumstances in different skin colors, the lighter one will likely yield the greater harvest. Princeton dude didn't quite get that as exhibited by this statement: “[America is] a country that grants equal protection under the law to its citizens, that cares not about religion or race, but the content of your character.” I believe you know better, Matt. There is too much evidence and experience to the contrary.


If you don't want to say you're privileged by your race or your sex, the evidence certainly must persuade you that you are at least not hindered by them. Again, that's okay. Just acknowledge it and maybe we can get you one less cancer/suicide wish.