Should Virginia Governor Ralph Northam Resign Because He Wore a KKK Hood While in Medical School Thirty Years Ago?

Although Northam has refused, the question lingers in the liberal media.

Actually, it’s unclear whether he wore this hood or was sharing space in a yearbook in “black face”.  But this distinction made no difference to his fellow liberal Democrats and some  Republicans calling for his ouster.
 

 Why?  His critics are making what are common assumptions by those prone to charge racism by others. – because some people are offended by symbols they perceive to be racist, those who support or don’t oppose such symbol must be racists themselves.  Think,  recently, of Meghan Kelley not being offended by “black face” costumes worn for Halloween or those opposed to the removal of Confederate war memorials.

But if one is going to accuse another of racism, the allegation should not be evaluated with reference to the “offense taken” by the accuser but rather by the truth of the charges.

TSC is indeed sensitive to the seriousness of the offense as well as the fact that many on the Left level the slur with reckless abandon against foes on the Right.  (I, too, have been a target.)

So there is a certain irony in that Gov. Ralph Northam whose 2017 campaign was not reluctant to throw about the charge of racism against his GOP opponent finds himself being hoisted on his own petard.

But the irony doesn’t justify gloating by the governor’s conservative foes or joining forces with those on the Left calling for his removal.  Conservatives have problems enough witout adding hypocrisy to the Left’s arsenal against us.

Does the fact that his conduct was offensive – then and now – prove  the nature of his motivation?  No.

What did the youthful – albeit twenty-five year old – mean by his choice of attire or face paint?  Was it a prank?  Humorous (to be sure, in bad taste)? A stunt meant to reflect his contempt? 

Anyway, what exactly is racism?  It certainly is not – as many careless or malicious abusers of the term use it - a recognition of perceived differences.

Here’s how Webster’s College Dictionary defines the term:

 

1.  a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races, determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior.  2.  a policy, system of government, etc., based on such a doctrine.  3.  hatred or intolerance of another race or races.

 

To label someone a racist, thus, is to label that person as a hater and intolerant of a racial group.  That certainly seems an apt description of a member of, for instance, a white supremacist cult or the Ku Klux Klan.  But merely donning an item of wear or appearance that some associate with prejudice (even if understandable) is not sufficient evidence of racial hostility.

A fair evaluation of an individual’s conduct requires a closer inspection.  Do his actions and pronouncements, current and past, provide support – or not – for the view that a yearbook picture reflected the negative perception that might be drawn?

And even if an event thirty years ago was genuinely reflective of that person’s racial animus then, should that be dispositive of his current attitude?  Have subsequent actions and expressed sentiments redeemed him?  And if not, why not?

TSC is willing to give the governor the benefit of the doubt.  Let’s listen to what he has to say.

NOTE:  An interesting reason given by some for supporting the governor’s ouster is that regardless of his motivation or subsequent conduct, a lot of prominent people support it.  So politically, there’s no alternative.

That’s appalling.  If the crowd is calling for your scalp, you must provide it?  The mere insinuation of racism supported by the crowd ruins a political life?  No defense permitted?