The complexities of “ALM” and the need for discomfort

It is agreeable that the term, “All Lives Matter,” is a controversial mantra. What may come off to some as a non-problematic message may be viewed by others as racially insensitive. It is, of course, a credible argument that the term endangers social justice, and for all my criticisms I will not dispute that exact criticism because it is true. An issue with “All Lives Matter” is its regurgitation to incite racial unrest; the only problem is that it is not the issue. The issue with “All Lives Matter” is that it is just a broad statement representing multiple things, either genuine or insincere.

Because “All Lives Matter” is not connected to an organizational structure like Black Lives Matter, the term can be manipulated to suit the interests of whoever uses it. It is a matter of intent rather than objective meaning because for some, yes, its usage generates racial angst, but for others, its usage is a recognition that “of course we recognize that your life matters.” There is little doubt that it is a tongue-in-cheek refute of Black Lives Matter, but to frame it as solely racial risks false attribution. That is because its message is ununiform and has been used by many non-racist figures with an intent vested in either criticism of certain failings by BLM or a counter to the notion that Americans don’t value certain American lives.

There is hefty room for miscommunication and most certainly dog-whistling, but the only way to understand that is to engage with it as opposed to censoring it. In the end, you may view anyone who utters “All Lives Matter” as a racially insensitive bigot, but the people who utter it likely may not see it that way. That person who writes “All Lives Matter” could be doing it to highlight some ideological inconsistency with BLM’s message. What that is, we cannot know, so all the better to first inquire than jump to the immediate conclusion. It’s for this reason why the whiteboard incident struck me.

Even if I am wrong about my assertion, the erasure of that speech nevertheless provided a disservice to communal bonds. Speech is made free so that the pros and cons of separate ideas can clash until a consensus is met. It is free so that we are able to come to an understanding as fellow Americans as opposed to clashing as foreign nationals fighting under separate flags. The proper response to the whiteboard could have been a message of your own. You could have written, “Not until Black Lives Do” or you could have even reached out to that person. Instead, you only furthered polarization and alienation by erasing their speech. That was not only detrimental to our community but also went against our Benedictine Values.

Instead of opening yourself up to uncomfortable perspectives, you chose instead to comfort your frail emotional state against an egregious microaggression. Stability is so often underlooked and it is what I find that our community requires. This practice of guarding against uncomfortable opinions only amounts to pseudo-stability, and we have blinded ourselves by it