In the course of a given week, I hear from many readers who don't like something that one of The Times's star columnists has written. I may agree or disagree, but I only rarely write about it. That's because by virtue of their job descriptions, columnists are supposed to stir things up and get people talking. Yes, they have to deal in the world of facts and truth, but their opinions â€" and the way they express them â€" are almost unassailable. So I let the protests pass.
But a column by David Brooks, titled “A Nation of Mutts,†has offended so many people that I thought it would be worthwhile to ask Mr. Brooks to respond. On Tuesday morning, I sent him one of the many e-mails I've received from readers and he quickly wrote back. Below is the e-mail I sent, his response, and my brief take.
Here is the reader's e-mail:
I am writing in response to David Brooks's column, “A Nation of Mutts,†published on June 27th (which I read online).
I am Irish-American and married to an Indian-American man. I actually can't put into words how incredibly offensive, insulting and downright painful I found David Brooks's use of the word “mutts†to describe our two biracial and bicultural children, ages 4 and 1.
Talking about people as dogs is problematic in any context, but it's worth exploring Brooks's blatant racism in that column. He writes first that the U.S. was an “outpost of Europe,†and then in the next paragraph writes, “Soon we will not be an outpost of Europe but a nation of mutts …†So, in his column, a word that is used for dogs only describes Americans when they are intermarrying with non-Europeans (i.e., brown and black people).
I find it completely shocking and angering that not only did David Brooks use this metaphor, it then went through the editorial process without being flagged and removed - everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.
The idea of a “mongrel race†has a long history in this country (as Brooks, a student of history, should know), and these racist ideas should not be reflected in writing in The New York Times.
To put it more plainly: My kids do not deserve to be called dogs because of their racial heritage, and I think David Brooks and the New York Times editorial staff owe them and all biracial children and adults an apology.
Michelle Morrissey, on behalf of Sonali, 4, and Kieran, 18 months
Chestnut Hill, Mass.
Here is Mr. Brooks's response:
In that column, I was trying to embrace and celebrate a more ethnically intermingled America. I conclude with this sentence: “On the whole, this future is exciting.†To read this column as racist requires either a misreading or a strong desire to be offended, no matter what is on the page.
As for the use of the word “mutts,†history is filled with examples of groups who have taken derogatory terms and embraced them as sources of pride. To take the word “mutt†as a derogatory term, you have to believe that purebred things are superior to mixed-breed things, whether it is dogs or people. But if you don't believe that, there is nothing to be ashamed of in the word mutt.
I seized on the headline after I was in a group of people talking about the future demography of the country and one participant said proudly, “We're mutts.†That seemed to capture the message I was trying to convey, so I used it in the headline and the piece.
My take: As I noted above, columnists have the right to express opinion as they wish, in the way they want. And their editors generally make a point of staying out of the way. I believe Mr. Brooks when he says he didn't mean to offend. But comparing people to animals is always tricky, and “mutts†is a loaded term. There must have been a better way to say this, especially in the headline. I wish he had found it himself or that an editor had insisted on it.
