A Civil Reply To Our Critics At Asterisk Magazine

For anyone who is not yet aware, The Carolina Review has recently had the honor of triggering the disgust and outrage of the writers over at another student publication, Asterisk. Last week, a writer by the name of Alex Haggis published an article titled “The Carolina Review and the Dangerous Incompetence of Campus Conservatives.” Haggis’s critique targets the Review through an examination of two articles written by me and my editor, Alec Dent. For the purposes of this article, I’m only going to address the criticism directed toward me. Haggis was exasperated by what I wrote about the foolishness of the nearly 200-day-long sit-ins protesting Silent Sam. He views campus conservatives as ignorant, incompetent, and unfeeling charlatans. I will do my best to answer his criticism here:

In my original article, I don’t actually make a case against removal. Nevertheless, I fully understand Haggis’ position. It is shared by most of the activists I’ve encountered. It goes something like this: Sam was erected during a time of the reflexive reestablishment of racial hierarchy in the South. Sam’s erection is less about commemorating UNC’s Civil War veterans and more about a revitalized civic commitment to white supremacy. This is evidenced by the speech given at the commemoration which was terribly violent and racist. By displaying Sam without some indication of its proper historical context, the University as an institution remains willfully oblivious to its complicity in an oppressive system. The idea that we don’t know or don’t care about the history of the statue is obviously offensive to African American students and faculty. The University has a responsibility to 1) protect its students’ dignity or emotional wellbeing and 2) display its commitment to egalitarian principles which are antithetical to the ideas which properly contextualize the statue.

This is genuinely as close as I can get to a steelman of Haggis’ position. I still take a number of issues with it.

Mr. Haggis

In the article, I point out the fact that protestors like Haggis have never once presented any sort of objective evidence to bolster the claim that the statue causes “harm” to students. All of the budding historians and social scientists that make up the ranks of the anti-Silent-Sam movement have never bothered to conduct a study about it. How many students do we lose every year to Silent Sam? What effect does the statue have on students’ mental wellbeing? What percentage of the student body is in favor of its removal? Its destruction? The University of North Carolina is one of the most prestigious public research universities in the country if not the world. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t have some quantifiable answers to these questions.

But, for people like Haggis, raising this sort of critique is due to either ignorance or sympathy for “white supremacy.” He writes, “I am forced to wonder whether Kosnitzky is aware of this historical context, when he defends the remnants of white supremacy with a vapid statistical argument.” But my article does not propose any sort of plan in the first place- it simply points out the drought of empirical data coming from him and his fellow protestors. For the writers over at Asterisk, asking for a baseline level of information to make good policy decisions makes you a slavery apologist. It is true that I attack Haggis’s lack of evidence in his attempt to make a utilitarian case for the statue’s removal. But nowhere in the article do I attempt to assert what we actually ought to do with the ole’ boy.

All of the budding historians and social scientists that make up the ranks of the anti-Silent-Sam movement have never bothered to conduct a study about it. How many students do we lose every year to Silent Sam?

Without a shred of irony, Haggis then goes on to make the exact same sort of utilitarian argument for removal that he calls “vapid,” albeit, not very well. He shows us how “the evidence” objectively demonstrates that the statue should be removed. How exactly does he do this? By telling us that intersectional/minority student groups have said so. Haggis writes “…A look at the evidence refutes this. No student group where voices of color are prominent has ever been in favor of the statue.  The biggest of these groups (BSM, Chispa, ASA, etc.) are in ardent, vocal opposition to it.” Obviously, a statement on Facebook from “The Committee for a Queerer Carolina” does not qualify as empirical data. The “evidence” he uses to support an argument for removal is that some radically left-leaning student groups demand that we do so.

The implication seems to be that, for Haggis, opposition to removal means lack of historical awareness. This is an obvious fallacy. Haggis’ position occludes the fact that one could oppose removal simply because it constitutes a violation of the status quo. The status quo is usually worth protecting. We deviate from tradition at our peril. A commitment to the sovereignty of the status quo frees us of having to attend to historical circumstances. Future generations may look back at Sam as the valuable relic of a time and place meant to be preserved so as to be understood. Ancient Sparta was a society built entirely on the blood and sweat of slaves.  Nevertheless, we would consider it a crime to destroy some ancient Spartan artifact to display a commitment to social justice principles. One could make the argument that there aren’t any Spartan slaves around to offend. But none of the students or faculty who have been alive for the last 100 odd years have experienced oppression at the hands of civically endorsed racial hierarchy either. Furthermore, I have serious doubts about the University’s responsibility to its’ students emotional wellbeing as a matter of course. Keeping everyone comfortable and happy has never been part of the Academy’s role until recently. Generally, the preservation of custom, tradition, and the status quo has merit.

In these circumstances, there are many, many defensive arguments to be made in disagreeing with the plan while being fully aware of the historical context. There are attitudinal, legal, structural, and even logical barriers to removal. It might very well be the case that 1) it is currently illegal to remove the statue 2) the overwhelming majority of the community does not favor removal 3) it is politically impossible 4) removing the statue doesn’t ameliorate the existing harms that it attempts to solve (will removing the statue really conquer racism?) 5) the harms caused by the statue are not significant enough to warrant removal 6) there is no link between the statue being racist and actually removing it (perhaps we might need to keepthe statue because it is racist) 7) removing the statue in some way harms the University or those who don’t want it removed 8) the cost of removal outweighs the benefit in scope and impact 9) ceding to activists’ demands sets an undemocratic precedent 10) you get the point. I’m not interested in advocating for a specific position on the fate of Silent Sam. I simply find it absurd that anyone would devote 200 days to any cause that they haven’t even fully thought through. Many, many students have debated this issue. There’s nothing new about it. What interests me is that the University now encourages students to make activism an integral part of their intellectual life. When it does this, we end up with a cavalcade of protestors in front of the South Building for 200 days yelling about things they don’t even fully understand. That’s the real story. That’s the real joke.

The implication seems to be that, for Haggis, opposition to removal means lack of historical awareness. This is an obvious fallacy.

Haggis may believe that by not directly laying out a case against removal, my analysis is artificial and pseudointellectual. He is here, again, unjustified. I really don’t believe that the behavior of these protestors is in any way normal or mundane. That’s why stories like these are important. The protestors don’t have a platform of statistical or logical evidence to support their claims. They assume that a commitment to egalitarianism and social justice is the highest and only ethic in the pursuit of the community’s welfare. They attack those who question their methods as White Supremacist sympathizers, racists, or slavery apologists. This sort of behavior stinks to me of something lazy and rotten underlying the ideological presuppositions of its actors.

Clearly, Haggis missed the point of my original article. I’m happy to debate anyone on a topic related to Silent Sam. But what I’d really like to do is help our friends over at Asterisk.

Over the next two years, I will continue to be a writer here at Carolina. I will continue to expose the silliness of those who demand conformity in the name of political correctness. So, I think it would be best if we could somehow ease the agitation of our leftist counterparts going forward: We at The Carolina Review are willing to categorically endorse the removal of Silent Sam under the condition that we sell it to a private collection and use the funds to construct a giant safe space in its place for the Asterisk Mag writing staff. The safe space must include soothing ocean tunes to drown out dissenting opinions. It must also include several boxes of tissues to soak up the tears of you beautiful snowflakes. Finger-painting classes should take place between 3-5 pm. From now on, the Review will send a letter of warning ahead of each new article it puts out. This new space will give Asterisk writes the opportunity to huddle together when the articles are published, share about their feelings, and work through the trauma together.

To the writers at Asterisk: please contact the Review staff before the fall semester begins if this resolution seems equitable. We are happy to work with you, and will do our best to make you all feel safe and comfortable for the remainder of your time at Carolina.—-

Zach Kosnitzky


  1. In my article, I talk about Silent Sam for a few paragraphs, but my main argument has nothing to do with Silent Sam. My main argument, boiled down, is that campus conservative writing has no ideas, only reactions. You provide no response to this central argument in your article, even though based on its title your article was meant to respond to this very claim. I wish your response had addressed this, for I would like to know what you think about it.

    I don’t want to nitpick here, but I want to pull one quote from your article: “none of the students or faculty who have been alive for the last 100 odd years have experienced oppression at the hands of civically endorsed racial hierarchy either.” My article included the account of a former student, alive today, who experienced Jim Crow. Do you not consider Jim Crow, which was around much more recently than 100 years, an example of a civically endorsed racial heirarchy?


    1. Alex,
      Your ideas challenge the status quo. Conservative ideas usually do not. If you wish to challenge the status quo, the burden is on you to prove your plan is good. You base your claim about conservative writers on my article reacting to SS protests. This article is a reaction to that claim. It negates your points in favor of removal. We can all just keep throwing out ideas, but without a negative position, there is no debate.

      About the second thing: I definitely will cede this point. There is no question Jim Crow was a “civically endorsed racial hierarchy.” I should have said either “But no UNC students have experienced….” or “none of the students or faculty for the last 60 years…”


      1. Zach,

        You posit that the essence of conservatism is protecting the “status quo.” But, the list of things that conservatives in power are doing to challenge the status quo is quite long, and your publication offers nary a critique. I imagine you don’t critique these efforts because either (i) they have provided an argument that satisfies you, or (ii) you believe that they in fact support the status quo, because they wish to restore a former condition which you deem better than the current one. In the case of (i), it seems that you then favor the status quo unless you decide not to, which is not a unique position, nor one by which your politics can be defined. In the case of (ii), it is my view that your image of this former condition is not grounded in reality. The current movers and shakers of conservatism routinely implement policies which simply do not have precedence in the past. The idea that modern conservatism is defense of the status quo has far too many exceptions to be tenable even as a generality.

        For instance, the conservative board of governors recently stripped the Civil Rights Center of it ability to sue. This was controversial, as it is an institution with widespread community support. Do you consider this action to be in accordance with a good status quo? Do you support them?

        In your articles about Silent Sam, you make not one reference to Jim Crow, despite it being the belief system that begot the statue; despite it being the catalyst for immeasurable violence against people of color in this very community, many of whom are still alive, many of whom have or had a connection to the university. By your own admission, it was a civically endorsed racial hierarchy. By your own admission, you forgot about this. It disturbs me that you defend this statue with so much ink, while not even bothering to mention this system of violence and oppression that the statue has historically signified, objectively. When I say that your conception of the former condition is not grounded in reality, when I say that your understanding of this issue is not rigorously historically based, this is the sort of factual omission that I am referring to.

        If you respond to nothing else, answer me this: were you aware that a white supremacist motorcycle gang attacked a black man named James Cates in the UNC pit in 1970, and police neglected him medical assistance, allowing him to die? I ask because this murder was included in a brief fact sheet about the history of Silent Sam protests on the Wilson Library website. In doing any amount of internet research about the statue, one will find this source.

        In the above article, you imply that the oppression of African Americans belongs to some point in the distant past. Do you feel like you have a competent enough understanding of the history of local communities of color, and the violence that has been habitually committed against them, to make this claim? I ask this because, in both of your articles, you make little reference to specific historical events that support your argument. What sources does your understanding of race in America come from? What things did you read before writing what you wrote?


      2. Alex,
        Lucky for you, I’m going to address all of your points.

        To your first point, I do not posit that Conservatism is defined merely by a defense of the status quo regardless of principle. It is a predisposition to protect tradition and the adoption of a responsibility to preserve the society of those who have died and those who are yet born. Conservatives believe in change. But we also believe in the conservation of specific core values and beliefs. Conservatives don’t want to hop into a time machine so they can live in an era where they’re free to oppress women and minorities. Modern conservatives believe in maintaining values like monogamy, moral objectivism, purity, beauty, and honor for the dead. They wish to adapt those principles to the world in which we live. I argue against removal on behalf of the sovereignty of the status quo itself. But that is not exactly the core of what Conservatism is. I could have said something like: “Ok remove Silent Sam but build a new, modern statue in its place whose purpose is to honor UNC students who died in the Civil War.” That would be a conservative argument which would challenge the status quo. But I didn’t. In this case, I argued on behalf of the status quo on its own merits. I don’t believe we need to change history to fit our utopian ideas of egalitarianism and fairness even if the past is ugly.

        I recommend you read Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France.” It might give you a better understanding of basic classical Conservative philosophy.

        You naturally won’t find any critiques of “things that conservatives in power are doing to challenge the status quo” because that has nothing to do with what I originally wrote. In the case of the Civil Right Center, I can easily see how a conservative BOG might attempt to restore the status quo by reverting the university to an educational institution rather than a tool of leftist social activists. I don’t know if I support them because there may be value in encouraging experience in litigation rather than just memorizing legal theory. The problem for the BOG might be the ideology underlying the motivation to litigate. I’ll also point out that your replies continually change the goalposts to win points by demanding that I take a position on different issues. In a policy debate, I’d be happy to throw out a million things for you to denounce, but that isn’t exactly productive.

        Secondly, I’ve already answered your grandstanding about Silent Sam’s historical context by explaining that the arguments I’ve made against removal, whether utilitarian or deontological, already take this into account. In the first case, there are many practical reasons to oppose removal which would be the same whether you’re an SJW or a heinous racist. In the second, respect for the sovereignty of the status quo is preferable to the alternative. The history is irrelevant to both my arguments. So in that respect, you are correct in saying that my understanding of this issue “is not rigorously historically based” since that doesn’t matter To my argument.


  2. Yet you do not address the one question I asked you expressly to answer. I asked you if you were aware of the white supremacist murder that happened in the pit in 1970. I assume you were not aware. I assume, further, that you did not research Silent Sam very extensively, because this is one event among many that you would have been aware of if you had. Feel free to correct these assumptions.

    Regardless of whether you require events in history to make your argument, if your argument concerns an object, is it not rather important to understand the history of that object in order to make a case either way? Aren’t you, as a so-called “classical conservative,” supposed to concern yourself with history? If you would like to protect tradition, don’t you think it’s good to know exactly what traditions you are protecting?

    I asked you what you read when you did your research for the two articles you wrote. Can you name anything written more recently than the 18th century? Burke is great. He is also relevant to this subject in only a very abstract way. Your arguments are abstract. They interface with material reality, with the experiences of individuals, only tangentially. This is, of course, not a problem in itself. But my argument (since my first article) is that you are not well versed in the immediate history of this place, about its material reality, about the experiences of the real people living here, to make the claims that you do. Burke can tell you nothing about this (he can, however, defend the Ancien Régime, a system of such horrible injustice and violence that it could be compared in the American context to something like, I don’t know, slavery or Jim Crow). I believe that your use of big, abstract concepts is away of escaping the fact that you are unaware of the minutiae that conflict with these grand idealizations.

    And so I ask you yet again. What did you read? Anything from this century? Anything from this side of the atlantic? Anything (dare I ask) by someone not white? I simply want to know why you claim enough authority on this subject to write about it.

    Truly yours,

    1. Alex,

      Unfortunately, it seems you’ve missed the point again, and I feel like we’re talking in circles. I’m not going to acknowledge your repeated calls for me to recognize the minutia of the history about Silent Sam because it has nothing to do with me or my argument. No amount of righteous anger about the material context of the statue changes the sovereignty of the values it explicitly represents.

      The statue is a good thing put up by bad people in a bad time. We aren’t those people, and we don’t live in that time. There is just no comparison between racial issues in 1913 vs. 2018, even though African Americans face discrimination today or as early as the 70’s.

      Hitler loved Wagner. To him, Wagner’s music spoke to Nazi values of Aryan supremacy. No reasonable person would say that liking Wagner makes you a Nazi. Wagner’s music is objectively beautiful. We wouldn’t ban his music because it has value regardless of any historical context surrounding its popularity. Banning Wagner would be analogous to removing the statue. The explicit reason for the statue is to honor UNC students who died in the Civil War.
      If I were calling to preserve Wagner’s music, you would tell me something like, ”Well I bet you didn’t even know that they played ’Ride of the Valkyries’ over the loudspeakers at concentration camps! Acknowledge that you didn’t know that!”

      There is no question that the people who erected Silent Sam were racist. What they stood for is wrong, and racism has been an acceptable part of American life until only recently. But what I am saying is that there are more important things at stake than political correctness. One does not have to be an AAAD major to hold this view. I don’t need to have read anything to make this argument. The argument is either valid and tenable or it’s not. Who’s saying it and whether or not they’re white means nothing.

      Your idea seems to be that if people only understood as much as you, they would agree. I think this attitude repels a lot of otherwise reasonable people from subscribing to your ideology. Go out and educate people about Thomas Jefferson’s slave-owning. Would they then want to tear down Monticello or omit his writings from the national archives? Would you?


      1. I appreciate your continued interest in this conversation, and would be willing to continue it in person any time. We are indeed talking in circles. I would never advocate for the censureship of any artistic work, and the comparison of that to evaluating the use of a public space is a false one.

        I must express for a final time, because yes it seems there still is some disconnect here, that I simply wanted to know where you consider your understanding of this issue comes from. I think it’s reasonable for me to ask this, since in your articles you cite basically no sources. That’s all I’m asking for. Literally any book you’ve read on the subject that we are talking about. Please! One book? Anything?

        And again, I appreciate your time.

  3. Zach, don’t you think reading books about something is what you need to do before writing about something?

    It’s just pretty funny that after all of this, you cannot name anything you’ve actually read. I’m not a lib yelling at you to “get educated!” That would be silly. I’m making the assumption that you ARE educated and i’m asking the source of your (hopefully existent) education. This is like, the most basic tenet of academic discourse.

    Did I expect anything more from a MAGA bro? Nope. That’s why I wrote my initial article.

    1. Alex,
      I, too, appreciate your continued interest. It seems as if the censorship of an artistic work is precisely what you aim to achieve. I’m unsure how it’s placement in a public space changes that. Perhaps you can explain in person.
      I must also emphasize one last time the irrelevance of any historical or philosophical knowledge in order to point out the gaping flaws in your camp’s position logically. Ironically, the lack of any source material was the basis for my criticism of your utilitarian argument for removal in the first place. The second affirmative argument I made against removal has to do with respect for the UNC students who died in the Civil War. If you’d like some summer reading to better understand this topic, I recommend McPherson’s ”Battle Cry of Freedom” or Tim Williams’”Intellectual Manhood.” If you want a better understanding of my first argument in defense of the status quo and traditional Conservatism, read Burke, Disraeli, Buckley, or TS Elliot. If these writers are too White for you, try Thomas Sowell or some of Condoleezza Rice’s statements about Confederate monuments.

      The entire premise of your anger about Silent Sam is that everyone else is too stupid or ignorant to possibly understand the transcendent compassion and genius of your position. This is precisely why no one takes you all seriously.

      Looking forward to more this fall.

      1. Thank you for finally citing something! I will certainly comb through the ones I am unfamiliar with. And perhaps if I do that, and if you happen to glance at “The New Jim Crow,” by Michelle Alexander, “A case for Reparations,” by Ta-Nehisi Coates, anything by Angela Davis, and maybe some Rosa Luxemburg and Chomsky, we can attempt to better understand each other’s positions, and have a better debate. I think there are still some disconnects in both of our thinking, perhaps they can be better illuminated, or resolved.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s