I’m writing in response to a comment made at the African American Studies Conference this weekend. For those of you who were not there, I’ll briefly detail the scene: Panelist Mark Soderstrom was presenting his paper named “Family Trees and Timber Rights: Albert E. Jenks and the Rise of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota.” The paper discussed anthropology’s role in the construction of racism in America. He used as his case study an anthropology professor at the University of Minnesota who was obscenely racist.

That Soderstrom’s thesis did not include the work that anthropology, like many other disciplines, has done to rid itself of the ideas that predominated its sometimes unsavory history is beside the point; what is more important to me is a comment made by Professor Peter Rachleff during the question segment of the talk. He mentioned that a professor in the anthropology department was a member of the committee whose responsibility it was to decide the fate of the proposed Department of African American Studies. This professor, he said, was against its formation.

Whether this is true, I have no idea, but let’s say that it is. Professor Rachleff then went on to question rather sardonically if there should continue to be an Anthropology Department if it was not in favor of the proposed African American Studies Department. The panelist responded with the question, “Well, first I guess I want to know, who is this guy,” to which Professor Rachleff responded something to the effect of, “He wouldn’t show up here.”

As an anthropology and history major, I was appalled. That a professor would so openly attack another, at an academic conference no less, is not only unprofessional, but rude, especially when the person is not there to defend himself. (I should mention that the professor in question is out of the country at the moment, so there was no possibility of him attending the conference or defending himself.)

I have no clue why this professor was against the idea of the proposed department. My guess would be, however, that it’s not on the basis of blatant racism, since it would surely cost him his job, as well as the fact that I don’t think this professor is racist.

Unfortunately, the ramifications of the comments go further than just one professor; they affect the entire Macalester anthropology department. By effectively branding one of its professors racist and equating his opinion with the stance of the entire department, what effect can there be but a bad opinion of the department? The comment also linked Macalester’s current department with a University of Minnesota department from the early 1900s that was led by a clear racist.

I don’t think I need to say that current anthropology is leaps and bounds ahead of the work done in the early part of last century, as is the case in almost every discipline, including history. Professor Rachleff’s comments ensured that every person in that lecture room connected anthropology with racism, a position that I think is true of neither the students nor the professors of Macalester’s department. If Professor Rachleff had problems with the professor or the department, the Conference, a forum about African American Studies, not anthropology, was certainly not the place to raise them.

Whether or not Professor Rachleff’s comments were made with the intention to harm or were simply the product of passion for the topic, I don’t know. However, damage has been unfairly done to a professor in the anthropology department and to the entire department itself. Macalester professors are not above the statutes of professionalism that come with their positions.

Although it is this incident that provoked me to write in, stories about professors speaking irresponsibly, and without censure, to or about their students are surfacing with disturbing frequency. Having opinions is one thing, publicly showcasing them without thought to the harm they might cause is another. We need to start taking everyone on this campus to task, not just the students.