To the Editor,

In his June 2017 article “In Defense of Cultural Appropriation,” Kenan Malik begins by insisting that he is bravely putting his job on the line by defending a “controversial opinion.” This tactic is often used by people to preemptively invalidate the response of the marginalized communities that they are intentionally hurting, shutting themselves off from opposing opinions. Instead of offering my own opinion, I’d like to point out an issue with the argument itself.

When speaking about challenging racism, Malik postulates that “Once, it was a demand for equal treatment for all.” He then goes on to claim that Elvis Presley becoming a cultural icon was a clear case of racism determining that white people can achieve substantially more success than people of color for the same work-Chuck Berry’s music, which came before Presley’s, had the rock and roll vibes that made Presley’s work “unique” and “revolutionary” . Evidently, the call for society to pressure the Elvis Presleys of the world to stop appropriating culture is, in fact, a demand for equal treatment for the Berrys. This seems perfectly in alignment with the past acts of challenging racism that Malik approves of. However, he then implies that ending cultural appropriation doesn’t challenge racism because it wouldn’t have single-handedly eradicated Jim Crow laws. Malik argues defending cultural appropriation holds that anti-racist acts are only valid if they give redress to the group as a whole, but what is the point of corrective action if it doesn’t include individuals?

To address Malik’s concern that he will be out of the job because people will be offended by his opinion, I am not offended.  How could I be? Malik’s “defense” of cultural appropriation doesn’t make enough sense to cause offense.