Last Saturday evening I DARED to post a comment on a friend’s Facebook post, which congratulated President Obama for his Nobel Peace Prize. My comment was simple: I hope he actually accomplishes what he has been recognized for. A discussion started from there that culminated in one of the most racist and discriminatory insults that I have ever received: I was told I should go back to Mexico to help “my people” instead of doing a Ph.D. in the USA if I truly care.

Why is this relevant? This is relevant because it shows two very discomforting trends that have risen in the United States these days (and possibly in the world).

First, the Academy has no supporters outside itself. Recent events involving a Harvard professor and a Cambridge policeman already showed us that: at the end of such unfortunate events, regardless of whom you think “was right,” the Harvard professor was forced to move from his house, to stop his teaching for at least a year, to hire security for his family, and to live partially hidden because of all the treats against his life and those of his loved ones. The response from the non-academic world was blunt: those arrogant Harvard professors need to be put in their place.

It is true that there are many arrogant professors at Harvard and at most, if not all, universities across the world. Some may even argue that in this particular case the reaction of this particular professor was arrogant (still, somebody else could also argue that every citizen has the right to behave however they want in his or her own house, regardless of their social stand). Nevertheless, what comes clear here is that people outside the academic world look at the academic world with mistrust, if not open disdain. The academics have certainly done much to contribute to this feeling, especially if you realize that historically the formation of most universities and college environments were built to separate those “who know” from those “who don’t” (a regrettable distinction from the past). However, the university has also contributed to the advancement of all of us in many ways–yes, all of us, because today we can, for example, argue for human rights across the world, a discussion that two-hundred years ago was impossible, we can now also offer medical resources to many (not all, sadly, but many more than 50 years ago), and we have been able to provide access to all forms of knowledge to millions.  The examples are countless.

Furthermore, what is the academy today? In many instances we still find those arrogant academics today, but it is also a place where you find relevant, timely knowledge and where knowledge is accessible to many (granted, many are also left behind, something that has to change, but the way is not to cut off those who receive it in the university setting, but to guarantee than more have access to the university). The university is a place where research is done in history, ethics, medicine, politics, economy, and so forth, domains that DO have a direct impact on everybody’s lives, even if we are unaware of it: without historians people would not be able to develop any constructive political or social plan, or to even organize institutions for the education of people and the development of knowledge; without ethics everybody would be exposed to constant abuse, and although most are still exposed to much abuse, without those talking and organizing around ethical issues those who are protected would not be, and those who are still unprotected would have no chance to be (once more, what we need is to widen the circle of inclusion, not destroy the circle because it is too small, and that is what many ethicist at the universities are doing); without research on medicine (linked to both history of science and ethics) there would be no hope at all for anybody. The list continues.

Where am I going to all this? If I learned anything from my aforementioned heated discussion, and from previous examples as the one mentioned above, is that without those dedicated to knowledge, many of whom work in the context of the university, there would really be no hope for humanity. Things in the university setting have to change, but as the university has proven, that can happen; it has happened in many situations already! People are very upset at academics and at the university as an institution because often what the university does seems unclear to many, or because it is not apparent that what is done there actually helps the world. Nevertheless, we all need to abandon the distinction between those dedicated to knowledge and those dedicated to “real life.” That may be the way we have established our institutions, but it is not the real way things happen: knowledge is real life, and is the way we all affect it.  Without knowledge, those who dedicate their lives to help others could not do so, and without real life those interested in knowledge could study nothing. Education and research are not only legitimate venues, essential for any society, but also necessary venues to improve the lives of all. Sadly, when I shared my thoughts about politics (thoughts resulting from what I have learned while an academic), I was attacked for being “just a talker.” I am sure that it seems that I talk a lot, because I do, but I do that because I am also a teacher: I work and study in the University, to develop knowledge and teach others. If you tell me that is not action to help my community, then you are blind.

Second (finally!), in politics there seems to be a golden rule: if you stop pressing your political leaders and representatives, they won’t do all of what they promised (or they just won’t do anything at all). Congratulations for politicians come during retirement. Any active, concern citizen needs to be vigilant and critical, because that is the way things get done. In the particular example of the United States, it seems that after WWII this sense of active political involvement dissipated from many communities, and the traditionally active, demanding, critical citizen that led the first democracy in the world disappeared. We got the Vietnam War, Ronald Reagan, and the two Bush presidents, one worse than the previous one to the point of borderline dictatorship. The Obama administration was a triumph, not only for Barack Obama as an individual, but more so for the American citizens. Perhaps we are seeing a new type of individual, proactive again and involved in politics. That is what the international community was banking on when they gave the highly polemic Novel Prize for the peace to President Obama: you have promised much, now we want to see you actually acting upon those promises.

The history of the Nobel Peace Prize is itself very controversial, as it has always been claimed that is given for political reasons, and those who receive it are actually not those who really make a difference. Mother Teresa, for example, declined the prize and did not show up to the ceremony because of that.

So far, the Obama administration, with a democratic majority in the congress, has done nothing other than to change the political tone in diplomacy. That is admittedly huge, but now we need more: Guantanamo is not yet closed, and it was guaranteed that it would be closed immediately; the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is still open and troops are still dispatched there (my aggressive interlocutor had two things to say about this: one, Obama did not start the war; I know, I also thought this had to be a joke, but it was not: he did not, but he has not ended it, and he can do so; second, “we have time” and we need to do this at our pace; sure, “we have time,” i.e. we Americans have time because we do not have to live in cities demolished by war, because we do not have to live fearing bombs and weapons, because we do not have to live with hunger and devastation and an invading army controlling our country; what about the others, the people who have to live with all that, do they have time? This is serious, come on, this is a war that could have been ended long ago!); the USA still hold active, large military posts in 65 countries; gay marriage/civil unions are far, far, far from even considered; “don’t ask don’t tell” is still existent (do I really need to say more about this?); healthcare reform is far from a reality (he has a majority in both chambers!); President Obama already declared the financial crisis to be over, and advised people to go back to work in confidence; why are then so many more people without a job every day? The list is long, and it is not intended to demerit President Obama; rather, it is intended to call to action all the citizens who elected him, and to those who gave him the Nobel Prize for the Peace, to press him on his word and commitments during the campaign, and make sure he acts upon them. If the previous administrations taught us anything is that criticism and demand are NOT inadequate or anti-American but rather necessary for the existence of democracy. Why should we neglect this with President Obama? If I could vote I would have voted for him; I celebrated his victory energetically, and talked about politics with everybody willing to hear to do my part to make sure he got as many votes as possible. I am glad the international community looks at him with hope, but I am skeptical because I sincerely believe that this is the way ANY politician needs to be approached. The United States citizens need to make sure he does what he promised. Is this claim really offensive, disrespectful, unrealistic, or over-critical?

I believe that knowledge is revolutionary: it can transform the world in wonderful ways; it opens your eyes and makes you active in the world in many valuable ways. Names that serve to exemplify this include Karl Marx, Michel Foucault, A. Philip Randolph, Susan Sontag, William Edward Burghardt Du Bois, and Simone de Beauvoir.  Many of these figures actually worked as university professors either for some or all of their lives; all of them talked about pursuing university studies as a fundamental way to effect action in the world.

Why should I be penalized, as I was during the aforementioned conversation, for being a student pursuing a Ph.D.?  Allegedly, what I do has no real impact on society and makes no difference; we are just talkers, I was told referring to me and the people around me at the university. Again, yes, we talk a lot, because we are teachers and researchers, because we educate and we are involved in our communities by doing so. If you think that teaching and research are irrelevant to society, and have no impact on the daily life of others, then you really should to give up thinking all together because it is not working for you.

Because I am a Ph.D. student I can use what I hear to make criticisms that are relevant for politics, and for the current state of development in the United States; because I am a Ph.D. student I can make sure that those with power do not move on the world unaccountable for their actions (have you forgotten about the movements of 1968?); because I am a human being I have a right to express my opinion without being insulted, or without having someone preventing my opinion from being heard (after he insulted me, my former friend also erased the whole discussion, preventing me from defending myself and erasing all I had said); because I am a human being I have a right not to be censored. My graduate studies do not make me a human being who deserves especial recognition or a special place in the world; they also do not grant me special treatment. Pursuing graduate studies do, however, prepare me to be a professor and to contribute to the world and my community by teaching, by raising my voice through articles, books, and conferences, and by helping others transform their lives by knowledge, like I did. This is my contribution, and it is not only legitimate, but necessary.

Again, as a human being I have a right not to be censored, and not to be insulted for expressing my opinion. If we cannot express ourselves with skepticism about the current Nobel Peace Prize winner, then we live in a terrible world, and nothing has changed since the Bush administration. I was told I should go back to Mexico to help “my people” instead of doing a Ph.D. in the United States if I really care.  And here I was, thinking that racism was out of fashion.  You are my people, everybody is my people.  I am a human being, and my community consists of those who love me and share my life, and I work for them every day in many ways, not only in the academic context. I care, which is why I do not congratulate a politician for doing his job (or, in this case, for not having done what he has promised yet), and that is a valuable, necessary contribution that affects the lives of everybody in my community. To conclude, when I answer saying that this remark was racist and ignorant, and that if I had made that comment he would have told me I was racist and ignorant, he responded by saying that he is not racist or ignorant because he works to help his community. The members of the Ku Klux Klan have used similarly nearsighted answers before.

As I often do, I decided to go to the local coffee shop on my way to school and grab a coffee to sip during class. The barista, a funny looking short girl, with curly reddish hair and a small frame, complimented me on my attire—very flattering—and then on my accent. A truly friendly remark that could have made my day. Still, everything went down hill after she asked what should have been an innocent question: “where are you from?” “I am from Mexico City,” I answered.  She seemed really confused as she handed me my macchiato and started to mumble—insistently: “but… but… I don’t understand; you don’t look Mexican!” Sadly, this was not the first time (nor, do I suspect, will it be the last one) that I had encountered such a response: my skin is very fair, my eyes are light, my hair is dark blond (although right now it is bleached blond), my frame is small, and my accent is strange.  On top of that, I lived in Paris for a while and, according to some, a strange French accent seems to have taken over my Spanish accent. My answer, as I tried to be tolerant and friendly in spite of the fact that I am tired of that “flattering” racism that seems to still be acceptable everywhere, was straightforward: “well,” I said, “as there are many different types of Americans, there are also many different types of Mexicans.” That statement simply seemed to confuse her further, and eventually she simply opted to compliment my outfit.  For many, including myself when I was growing up as a child, the statement “you don’t look Mexican” could have seemed a compliment, since a) we assume that looking “non-Mexican” (i.e. white) is a desirable thing, and b) Mexicans all look—and sound—the same (which implies the existence of racial types).

I was raised, in Mexico City, in a family of foreigners: my family, Basque in origin and thus half French and half Spanish, had come to Mexico in the early fifties for business, and eventually stayed there. I attended a school for the Spanish community, some of my cousins went to the school for the French community, and the rest lived abroad, either back in Europe or in the USA. Most of the people around me were all of direct European descent, and in many subtle ways we were all raised to distinguish ourselves from the rest of the population, and to have a special pride in our European roots. This all means we all were raised with racism. It took me many, many years to realize this, and many more to eventually get rid of most of these terrible thoughts and feelings (and I say “most” because I believe the battle against racism, sexism, class issues, and the like is and will never be truly over). Thus, every time I encounter the “but you don’t look Mexican” statement I immediately feel a bit betrayed by the circumstances. I am Mexican, just like somebody of direct Mayan descendant is Mexican, or someone of Kenyan descendant is an American. Assuming that there are specific ways of “being Mexican” or “being American” means not only that we police behaviors and types (i.e. we have institutionalized racism, sexism, class differences, etc.), but also that we still believe that there are ways of being inherently betters that others. That is the core of the problem at hand here: in countries like Mexico and the United States, where race is still a serious issue that has not been resolved, the rights of citizenship and cultural ownership are reserved to those who look white (or behave white, or sound white, etc.). And if you are given such rights, in spite of not really being white, you should be very thankful and pretend; move on and mingle, you are one of us. Coffee, anyone?