        |
Karen
Brodkin If Professor Karen Brodkin’s personal and political identity as a radical Women’s Studies lesbian feminist weren’t enough heavy lifting, she has also embraced a host of other extremist positions. Brodkin is a hardcore unionista who has spoken out stridently and repeatedly against the military, President Bush, war, and the state of Israel. Brodkin also devotes herself to the causes of affirmative action, radical gay politics, and the idea that whiteness is, by definition, racism. This set of beliefs would make Brodkin an inveterate mold-breaker, or at least mildly unique, just about anywhere else in this country. But unfortunately, she’s very much in the mainstream of UCLA faculty. Brodkin’s most
famous work, titled
“How
Jews Became White Folks And What That Says About Race in America” is one of the top four books in the burgeoning “whiteness
studies” field, ranked alongside equally suspect works
from Race Traitor founder Noel
Ignatiev (whose magazine’s
rallying cry is “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to
humanity”), David Roediger, author of “Towards
the Abolition of Whiteness” and other titles,
and George Lipsitz, who authored
“The
Wages of Whiteness.” As
part of this elite corps, Brodkin’s book is widely cited by fellow
radicals, and has come up for glowing mention in titles like Z Magazine, Common Dreams, and Borderlands
E-Journal. Brodkin’s argument is a rather complex one: complex in the sense that it employs many long words to cover the simplicity, if not inanity, of its central thesis. Her book claims that at some point in the past, Jews were considered ‘not white,’ but following World War II, made a Faustian bargain by dropping their separate ethnic identity and became part of the heterogeneous ‘white’ population. The motivation for this alleged change was the benefits that accrue to those who adopt a white identity: Lipsitz’s “wages of whiteness.” Proceeding from this already questionable version of history, Brodkin then answers the implicit question in her book’s title, namely, “what this says about race in America.” Her overblown response: that racism and the maintenance of racial division are the core of both our national identity, and our very economic system. When balanced against reality, Brodkin’s argument comes off as having traveled about ten miles too far down a dead-end road. For unclear reasons, whether academic sloppiness or nothing more than a need to deliver a minimum number of pages to her publisher, Brodkin’s otherwise wonky work is filled out with personal reflections and anecdotes derived from her own status and history as a secular Jew. However, Publisher’s Weekly terms these interludes “awkward” and notes that while her thesis is presented over and over, “her argument is no more convincing for all the repetition.” Even Kirkus Reviews, typically sympathetic to marginal academic tracts, contends that Brodkin is guilty of “romanticizing the degree of ‘reciprocity’ (ethnic cohesion and mutual aid) found among Lower East Side immigrant Jews.” Overall, Kirkus dubs the book “unsatisfying,” with “too many unwarranted generalizations.” The April 11, 1999 review in the New Jersey Star Ledger is even less charitable, and thankfully, calls out Brodkin’s political motivations. The review notes the weaknesses of “secondhand scholarship and [Brodkin’s employment of] that latest academic fad, using one’s personal and family experiences as a tool of research.” Most insightful, however, is the comment, “Brodkin’s unsubtle brand of Marxism never seems to get beyond the limits of class analysis and the milieu of her family unit.” The Star Ledger comment about “Brodkin’s unsubtle brand of Marxism,” while only aimed her book, is also on target about Brodkin’s entire political outlook. Kirkus’ note about her romanticization of Lower East Side immigrant Jews reflects her love for the Marxist fantasy of communal laboring-class values and collective action. And like most Marxists, Brodkin is militantly pro-union, integrating union activism and study into her scholarship. In her long-form essay in the Borderlands E-Journal, Brodkin gives the impression that, if she is not personally hip-deep in union activism, she certainly is more than a simple observer. Brodkin mentions her admiration for Los Angeles’ “dynamic Latino-led labor movement” dominated by Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union (HERE), Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and others. Despite the largely undocumented immigration status of their membership, especially the large numbers involved in SEIU’s “Justice for Janitors” initiative, Brodkin cheers their progress in “beginning to build a community-based labor movement.” In the piece, Brodkin also reveals an intimate acquaintance with the union-financed SMART (Santa Monicans Allied for Responsible Tourism) group, which was led in part by her UCLA colleague Richard Abel. Brodkin also has only good things to say about the Bus Riders’ Union and Communities for a Better Environment, “an environmental justice group led by people of color.” But, Brodkin is sad to report, she knows of “no comparable white-initiated counterparts to these movements,” in the intervening decade since “the largely white feminist movement…drove Operation Rescue out of town.” For shame, white Los Angeles, for shame! Continuing down her long ledger of pro-union bona fides, Brodkin is also the first signatory on an open letter to the Executive Board of the American Anthropology Association, which makes the demands that the AAA “seek alliances that promote the interests of labor.” Specifically, the letter urges the AAA to renegotiate its hotel contracts for its 2005 Washington, D.C. and 2006 San Francisco meetings so that, if a strike were being conducted at the hotels, these collegiate anthropologists could be spared the horror of crossing a picket line. Furthermore, the AAA should only pursue contracts with union vendors, and prioritize vendors in union environments over vendors operating in those dastardly “anti-union, ‘right-to-work’ environments.” By those rules, Brodkin’s group would apparently prefer the AAA buy its office supplies in the pro-union environs of New York City or San Francisco rather than, say, the mostly non-union southern United States – even if both vendors were non-union. The list of demands is typical of what happens when more than two academics get together. No stone is left unturned; no issue is too minor for academic theoreticians in love with political symbolism. But while union research and activism is one of the core values of Brodkin’s scholarship, it is national politics, an area which her status as a feminist anthropologist so eminently qualifies her to speak, that really bring out her inner tigress. A 2003 Daily Bruin article noted Brodkin’s speaking role at a campus anti-war event, one that immediately followed an “inflammatory” speech (in the words of the Daily Bruin reporter) by a Los Angeles coordinator for the Act Now To Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) anti-war group. The Bruin noted, “the soft-spoken Karen Brodkin…discussed the need for people to get involved in political causes. She said she was spurred by the anti-war protests that took place last year to begin talking openly with her colleagues about their political beliefs.” Given Brodkin’s track record, these faculty lounge discussions probably came closer to “hectoring” than “talking openly.” Moreover, if the paraphrase is accurate, Brodkin is arguing that it was not until the 2003 anti-war protests that she finally began to speak out politically. Unfortunately, computer archives have a way of proving people wrong. A quick look reveals that Brodkin has been taking militant political stances dating back at least to February 22, 1991, when a Los Angeles Times article captured her condemnation of the military for “hostility toward women” because of its allegedly discriminatory leave policy. Brodkin also charged the military more generally with having a “poverty draft rather than a legal draft” – this despite her admission that “people enlist in hopes of getting an education and a decent livelihood.” By Brodkin’s standard, virtually any employer takes advantage of its employees by asking them to give them work in return for pay. Would Brodkin consider any kind of job or signed commitment to be legitimate, considering that labor or goods are exchanged for filthy lucre? Our federal government, in truth, is giving citizens a very fair shake in trading a military commitment for a college education (not to mention a paying job with three hots and a cot). That’s a very fair option to offer anyone. Brodkin’s logical mistake lies in assuming that for poor people, the only means of upward mobility is military enlistment. Now, upward mobility is certainly harder without the military; that’s why so many poorer people with ambitions for a better life join the service. But it is, to be sure, far from the only way. Only in Brodkin’s world could this un-coerced decision, made after full review of all possibilities, somehow still constitute a “poverty draft.” Yet it’s also a safe bet that Brodkin would scream even more if we had a real draft. The truth is that Brodkin only puts on the mantle of faux concern for the poor as a disguise for her hatred of the military and American democracy.
Brodkin expounded
on that same hysterical theme on May 12,
2003. In a Daily Bruin Viewpoint column, Brodkin asked, “How can anything be accomplished by attacking a
dictator and
devastating civilians when corporate cronies like Halliburton, Bechtel
and the
oil industry benefit?” Perhaps Brodkin
defines “accomplishment” differently, but most folks might agree that
ending
Saddam Hussein’s murderous regime (speaking of “civilian devastation”)
was
definitely a good example of “accomplishing” something.
Evidently feeling her sour grapes, Brodkin explained
the failure of the anti-war movement with the laughable claim that “as
soon as
the bombing of Iraq began, the Bush administration and the mass media
let loose
a massive propaganda assault to nip this [national anti-war]
conversation in
the bud by calling it unpatriotic.” Even
more incredibly, Brodkin bemoaned the “chill on free inquiry and
speech” at
UCLA, claiming, “we silence ourselves for fear of being thought
unpatriotic.” Now, there’s
plenty that can be said about the March
5, 2003 UCLA anti-war walkout, held not
much more than two months prior to Brodkin’s
column. But Brodkin’s claim of a
silenced, fearful campus and a national anti-war movement suffering
from Bush’s
supposed “massive propaganda assault,” don’t jibe with 1,000 UCLA
students and
faculty gathered in Bruin Plaza to curse
the president and solidify UCLA’s reputation as a major organizing
center against
the War on Terror. And it certainly wasn’t
silence or “fear of being thought unpatriotic” that led professors to
support
the protest by canceling classes or actively ordering students to
attend the
protest. And where was the fear and
trembling when the anti-war marchers attacked counter-protestors,
destroying
their sign? If this is the successful
result of what
Brodkin believes is the Bush administration’s massive propaganda
assault on
freedom, well, imagine what would have happened on campus without it. Like too many of
UCLA’s anti-war contingent, Brodkin is apparently a member of the
have-it-both-ways
school of foreign policy. Brodkin signed
on to a “Campaign
for Peace and Democracy” statement headlined in part, “We
Oppose Both Saddam Hussein And The U.S. War On Iraq.” So let’s get this straight. You
don’t like Saddam Hussein, maybe you
would even like to see him deposed…but you also don’t approve of the
U.S. doing
anything to force his ouster. That’s the
kind of resigned acceptance accorded to a justly elected leader in a
democratic
country, not a murderous tyrant of Hussein’s character and history. One wonders how Brodkin and other signatories
figured Saddam Hussein was going to leave the country, short of a
possible war
that they condemned. Were we simply to
watch Saddam Hussein slowly grow into old age, brutally crushing
dissent all the
while,
until the day he died peacefully in his sleep? Along with Brodkin’s anti-war commitments and activities, she is also a leader in the anti-Israel contingent of UCLA professors. In December of 2002, she signed the “Professors of Conscience” statement, which joined anti-Israel Israeli academics in concern about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and yes, the statement itself is about as convoluted as that brief summary). A July 18, 2002 New York Times ad from the group “Jews for Peace” also bore Brodkin’s signature. Worst of all, Brodkin signed a petition which favored University of California’s divestment from any investment with companies doing business in Israel. Brodkin even helpfully supplied a testimonial for the effort, published on the UCDivest.org website: “Divestment can speak out loudly against Israel’s invasions, illegal settlements, and systematic destruction of Palestinian civil society, and send a strong message for peace and an independent Palestinian state. Money talks loudly against the Bush administration's military and economic support of Israel, and to Israel which depends on U.S. support. It helped end apartheid...it can help bring peace and justice to the Middle East.” In a telephone interview with the Associated Press about the divestment campaign, Brodkin insisted that she didn’t condone Palestinian terrorism, but felt that “the more powerful of the two sides has a responsibility to do something.” You know, something other than trying to arrest or eliminate Palestinian terrorists, or building a security fence to keep those same terrorists out of Israeli territory. Maybe holding hands with the Palestinians would do the trick.
Further down on the roll of Brodkin’s
usual-suspects list of political commitments is her signature on both a
1998
and a 2001
statement for
the militant (and violent) pro-racial preferences group By Any Means Necessary
(BAMN). But it’s the subject of
homosexuality that gets Brodkin fired up like few other topics. In a real piece of yellow (or would it be
pink?) Daily Bruin journalism, the October
13, 2004 issue carried the news that the lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender
(LGBT) community’s “sense of safety on campus” had been “shattered.”
Shattered, you
see, because someone (the police eventually arrested Robert Grosfield,
who, as
of the Bruin’s last update of April
14, 2005, was still
out on bail awaiting trial) had conducted a series of attacks on the
new LGBT Resource
Center. On three different occasions,
rocks
were thrown through the windows of the Center. In
the second attack, both the rainbow and “LGBT
California” flags hung
in the Center’s windows were stolen. Despite an
immediate belch of concern from the Chancellor, who condemned the
incidents as
“an attack on the entire campus community,” Brodkin just about came
unhinged when
discussing the issue with the Bruin:
“It makes me furious that somebody or somebodies would be so cowardly
and
homophobic to pull a stunt like that. It
suggests to me that there is some indeterminate amount of homophobia on
campus.” As evidence for this
“indeterminate amount of homophobia,” Brodkin noted (in the Bruin’s paraphrase) “there is often hesitation from graduate
students who
are considering doing research on LGBT topics.” Brodkin
claimed that this hesitation stemmed from a
“stigma that
students feel LGBT issues will have on their careers.” Well, Brodkin
has never been shy about her sexual orientation, and, by all
appearances, she
hardly seems to be suffering for it – not as a tenured professor at
UCLA, a job
that 95% of college professors would give their first-born to have. More generally, Brodkin’s assertion simply
doesn’t pass the laugh test. LGBTs not accepted in higher education, much
less diversity-mad UCLA? If anything,
it’s another box to check on an application, another “exciting”
perspective
that an applying Ph.D. could bring to the UCLA classroom.
In short, homosexual applicants are diversity
at its finest. For this reason,
homosexuals
are certainly far from underrepresented at UCLA or other colleges and
universities, and if anything, might actually be over-represented. If there is any stigma (and there well ought
to be on Brodkin and others like her), it should stem from their
radical
politics and their intolerant treatment of dissent.
For someone who sees homophobia everywhere she looks (and has no hesitancy in condemning an entire university for the intolerant actions of one person) it’s not surprising that Brodkin paints her conception of race relations with a similarly broad brush. As Brodkin argued in her book, whiteness is racism: nothing more, nothing less. In her Borderlands essay, in fact, Brodkin criticizes the very name of “whiteness studies” because it doesn’t explicitly convey the fact that the study of whiteness is actually the study of racism. It’s complicated, so to repeat: in Brodkin’s world, white = racist. As Brodkin tells it, the current vagueness of nomenclature (“whiteness studies” instead of “white = racist studies”) results in the same kind of problem that originally plagued women’s studies. Namely, “People who hadn’t a clue that society and culture institutionalized male dominance thought they were quite qualified to teach women’s studies.” How wrong they were. With Brodkin’s compatriots in charge, radical feminism was established as the only acceptable ideological perspective from which to teach women’s studies. Brodkin, if given her way, would impose the same thought control on whiteness studies. The best solution to this whole mess lies not in a debate on how to approach “whiteness studies,” but rather, in calling academia’s bluff, identifying the whole field for what it is: rubbish. How else to describe an intellectual pursuit that, to Brodkin’s delight, “unpacks whiteness as an enacted political identity in daily life and collective action”? As she tells UCLA Today, her biggest fear for the field is that whites will resist accepting the idea that everything they do is colored, so to speak, by their racial status: that just by being white, they are participating in and benefiting from a racist system. Brodkin and fellow white-watchers understand that it will be difficult convincing people to believe in something that can barely be described, much less touched, seen, or tasted. White people won’t accept Brodkin’s contention that no accomplishment of theirs is “strictly the results of [their] own efforts.” The normal mind rebels at this vast leap of logic; it looks at these ideas and observes that the ideological emperor wears no clothes. That’s why, as Chancellor Carnesale constantly tells the alumni and the public, UCLA needs more money to retain the best and brightest faculty. Because only the greatest thinkers (and perhaps Professor Karen Brodkin will be one of them) can figure out how to make people believe in the secular religion of political radicalism. |
