Impartial my arse

  1. Its projection of ‘strong feeling’ onto Munchetty’s remarks discredits her reasoned analysis.
  2. Its assumption that racism is a matter of personal prejudice misrepresents her remarks by framing them in a way that she was careful to avoid.
  3. The conception of racism upon which the judgement rests places an intolerably high burden of proof on anyone wising to analyse and critique it because it requires them to demonstrate ‘motive’.
  4. The fact that the ruling has been applied only to Munchetty and not to her co-presenter, Dan Walker, exonerates him from responsibility for placing his co-presenter in a position where she could not avoid offering an opinion that could be read (albeit maliciously) as an implicit accusation (how could she talk about her own experiences of racism in this context without indirectly commenting on Trump’s racism?). The ruling therefore exonerates Walker because his whiteness frees him from the burden of being seen to have an opinion about racism and punishes Munchetty because she cannot escape having an opinion about it.

--

--

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store