Advancing False Accusations of Racism and Sexism
By: J. D. Peters
Tags: Vice President, Racism, False Accusations, Sexism

Professor Keneshia Grant seeks to advance dissenting opinions about black women on the vice president shortlist is sexist and racist. This would be the case if the dissenting opinions were about the candidates’ sex and skin color. But upon closer inspection, I find her contention against the vice president selection committee to be intellectually dishonest because her argument has nothing to do with the candidates, but rather one person in particular. She predicated her argument on weak evidence which in turn led her to a hasty generalization of the situation concerning the selection committee. Additionally, she relied on speculative claims from secondary sources that are misleading. I will demonstrate her argument is invalid and rooted in a preference for Sen. Kamala Harris rather than for the sake of advancing equality.

Grant advanced the following argument for why she believes the dissenting opinions are sexist and racist:

“When it comes to the Black women on the shortlist, Democratic insiders have raised illogical concerns that appear to be manufactured to mask the real problem some seem to have but won’t state publicly: They believe it is too soon for a Black woman to be president. That kind of belief is not just sexist — it is also racist.”

When Grant mentions “Democratic insiders have raised illogical concerns” she is suggesting the comments from the selection committee are a trope against women. Grant says, “claims about loyalty and ambition seem to be applied to the Black female candidates, exclusively, by men.” But it’s not the “candidates” Grant is really speaking of. She is really adverting one candidate for the position of vice president as the victim of sexism and racism: Sen. Kamala Harris. The second part of her statement “manufactured to mask the real problem some seem to have…They believe it is too soon for a Black woman to be president” appears to be her conclusion — I will examine the claim for validity. Grant argues for this position by saying

“[P]olitical observers have rightly sounded alarms that these statements from the committee were sexist and impractical. If insiders are worried about the electorate’s willingness to vote for a ticket with a Black woman on it…they should just say so instead of making excuses that hold Black women to a different and unfair standard.”

Here, Grant structures a modus ponens argument whereby she is concluding a sexist and racist motive must be true upon affirming the committee is sexist and racist. However, the antecedent premises are not valid. First, Grant references an article written by columnist Jennifer Rubin for support of a sexist motive. But this is a non sequitur because all the candidates for vice president are women. (Again, it has nothing to do with the candidates being women. This is simply about Harris.) Therefore, we can reject the sexist argument.

Second, Grant argues the selection process is racist. Grant pulls support from an article written by Jonathan Bernstein who argues that Biden is being discouraged from selecting Harris as a running mate. While there does seem to be a preference against Harris being vice president by members of the selection committee, this doesn’t suggest that the motive is racial. Bernstein doesn’t contend that the motive is racial even though he alludes to there being some bad blood between members of the selection committee and Harris. Furthermore, California Rep. Karen Bass and Susan Rice, former national security adviser, were also prominent black women deemed to be strong contenders for the vice president position. Therefore, to suggest a racist motive based on issues relating to one person is to be obtuse about the candidate pool and other personal matters. Accordingly, we can reject the racist argument.

Grant’s premises do no work to support her conclusion that the selection process is sexist and racist. Moreover, Grant’s points are all related to dissenting opinions about Harris, but she attempts to mask it as an issue of equality while ignoring the other candidates. The argument that the selection committee or Democratic insiders are sexist and racist is a hasty generalization that speaks more to Grant’s frustration about the process because Harris is her preferred candidate for the vice president position.

Perhaps Harris was being treated unfairly but this is an individual matter and has nothing to do with her sex or skin color from what I have gathered. Yes, the underlying workings of Grant’s rhetoric is rooted in some conflict between individuals of the opposite sex and difference in skin color; but this appears to be a consequence of the individual’s biological characteristics and itself not the underlying cause in this particular case. Thus, Grant’s argument is invalid based on the evidence she has presented.

References

Grant, K. (2020). The real reason people object to Biden’s veep choices: Racism. The Washington Post.