Who's the Bigot - Puzzles about Bigotry

Who's the Bigot? Puzzles about Bigotry 111 September 1966, "Dear АЬЬу" puЬlished ан advice colum11 titled "Bigots­ They're More to Ве Pitied Тhан Ce11sured." 1 "Hurt" sought advice about the decision to remain silent rather tha11 coнfront aпother guest who, in "casual con­ versation" at а cocktail party "iп the home of some very promiпeпt and respected geпtile people," "made some very degradiпg remarks about 'theJews:" Hurt, who had а Jewish motl1er and 11011-Jewish fatl1er апd "married а gentile,". asked "if per­ haps I should have said somethiпg. Алd if so, what?" АЬЬу advised: "You санпоt hope to educate а Ьigot with опе short lecture at а cocktail party:' Thus, "the best i-esponse is sincere (and silent) pity rather than uttered (and futile) censure:' She added: "Вigotry and bad mal1llers are boorish, whether perpetrated on one who is half-Jewish or 99.44% Chippewa."2 (lt was not the онlу time that АЬЬу, who was Jewish, would condemn such bigotry in her colunш.3) More than fifty years later, the "Social Qs" advice coluшnist Philip Galanes published а letter from "Susan;' who wanted to "step in" and "shut ... dowн" an­ other customer in а deli who "was screaming" that "а transgender woman, with а little girl" was "а piece of trash" and threateniнg to 'Ъеаt her:' Susan didn't dare, апd the woman andchild "left quickly" after paying. She asks Galanes: "Advice for пехt time?"4 ln а columп titled "Bigotry, Defused," Galaпes couпseled: "Taпgliпg with aпgry bigots is never your go-to move:' The "better option is to support the woman": "Walk right up to her, as if а lunatic were not screaming at her, and help ... get her out of that deli as quickly as possiЫe:' Не explained: "In ту expe­ rience of irratioпal hatred, engaging madmen and madwomen only gives them more room to seethe. Better to neutralize the ugliness Ьу placing it alongside normal behavior:' Не conclнded: "The онlу known antidote to hatred is Iove:' 5 ln each iнcident, the advice columnist readily used the label "bigot" to char­ acterize the person нttering hurtfнl or hateful remarks. Both advised that it was pointless to try to pei-suade or tangle with а bigot, but for different reasons. Deai- wнo's ТНЕ BIGOT? Abby's advice that pity, rather than censure, is the best response suggests that the Ъigot cannot Ье educated. Тhеп agaiп, she liпks Ъigotry to bad manners апd being а boor-coпditioпs tl1at one might (with effort) change. Ву compat"iso11, iп linking Ъigotry to irratioпal hatred апd luпacy, апd advisiпg against engagiпg а madmaп, Galaпes seems to rule out any possiЪility of educatioп. FurtЬer, 11is concludiпg advice-that the опlу kпown antidote to hatred is love-is about how а bystander might aid the targets of such hatred, поt how someone might cure the person who hates. Calling out Ьigotry and arguing over whethei- а puЬlic figure is а Ьigot are visiЬ!e and contentious features of daily public life. Bigotry is а fraught and contested terш. The rhetoric of bigotry-l10w people use such words as "Ьigot," "Ъigoted," and "bigotry"-poses puzzles tl1at urgently demand attention. Identifying, responding to, and preventing Ьigotry have engaged the efforts not опlу of advice columnists, but also of civil rights activists, clergy and religious groups, commнnity groнps, social scientists, politicians, lawyers, judges, and or­ dinary citizens. Whi]e Dear АЬЬу and tЬе Social �s colнmnist readily нsed the label "Ьigot;' assuming а shared understanding with their readers, people often disagree over who is а Ъigot and what, exactly, makes а belief, attitнde, or action Ъigoted. People seem to share а conviction that Ъigotry is morally _wroпg, but they disagree about when the label applies. At times, it seems that people apply the term to describe any views or actions that they find "not only wrong but badly wrong:' 6 When is tl1e 1аЬе1 'Ъigotry" necessary to express mora] censure? Wl1en is it needlessly provocative, shutting down debate? 7 То put the question vividly, are you "morally oЬ!igated" to call out your bigoted relatives at TЬanksgiving or does pнtting "political civility" on the Thanksgiving menu mean listening to and treating them with respect? 8 Claims about Ъigotry are simultaneously backward- and forwai-d-looking. Defining а belief or practice as Ъigotry шау Ье possiЬle only after society has repudiated it as wrong and unjust. Once tl1ere is general agreement that such past beliefs and practices were bigoted, it becomes hard for people to under­ stand that anyone ever seriously defended them. Racial discrimination and seg­ regation are powerful examples.9 As chapter S explains, when some members of Congress argued that all Americans had а stake in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and repudiating Ьigotry, prejudice, and racial discrimination, opponents strongly resisted charges that segregation was Ьigotry and flipped the charges, calling supporters of the act "anti-Ьigot Ьigots." 10 Cl1arges of bigotry are also forward-looking: past examples of Ьigotry on which there is consensus become the basis for prospective judgments about analogous forms of bigotry. People debate: 1s this belief or practice Ъigotry because it is like forms of discrimination that we have disavowed? The stakes are high because people worry about fai1ing to learn from the past. Further, а Who's the Bigot' charge of Ьigotry carries heavy moral condemnation and а suggestion of bad moral character. 11 In the debate over same-sex marriage, opponents argued that their sincere religious belief that marriage is between one man апd опе womaп was nothiпg like the racial bigotry ofJiш Crow-era aпtirniscegenationists. They argued that comparing their religious opposition to same-sex marriage with re­ ligious opposition to interracial marriage wrongly 'Ъranded" them as Ьigots апd was itself а form ofЬigotry. In politics, the stakes are also high: learning from the past eпtails that our political leaders and institutions should condeшn and prevent-not endorse­ bigotry. Despite an evident agreeшent that bigotry in all its forшs is wrong, political battles over Ьigotry are often sharply polarizing because politiciaпs dis­ agree over which views and actions are forшs of Ьigotry. The Rhetoric ofBigotry in PuЬlic Discourse Charges, denials, and countercharges of Ьigotry are increasingly frequent in the Uпited States. People turn to the language of Ьigotry i..t1 so-called culture war issues arouпd шarriage, such as whether а county clerk must issue а marriage liceпse to а same-sex couple if doing so violates her religious beliefs or "vhether а baker with similar beliefs must bake а wedding cake for sпch а couple. The rhetoric of Ьigotry is also pervasive in controversies over race and immigra­ tion: whether public officials like President Donald Trump have encouraged or endorsed white пationalism, whether keeping statues of Confederate geпerals in public spaces reflects Ьigotry, and whether calls for 'Ъuilding the wall" stem from bigotry. Growing political polarizatioп апd "intense partisan animosity" 12 suggest the high stakes in conflicts over who is а bigot and why. The 2016 presidential cam­ paign saw а dramatic spike in references to bigotry on major television news networks. 13 The RepuЬlican and Democratic Party Platforms both denounced Ьigotry and various forms of intolerance1 but their lists of tl10se forms differed strikingly. In addition, the Democratic Platform explicitly condemned Republican nominee Trump for creating а "climate of Ьigotry:' 14 Trump countered Democratic nominee Нillary Rodham Clinton's frequent charges that his campaign was "peddling" Ьigotry Ьу labeling her as а Ьigot who "sees people of color only as votes:' 15 Duriпg Trump's campaign and continuing into his presideпcy, Ьipartisan warnings sounded that 'Ъigotry seems emboldened" авd "пormalized:' 16 Civil rights groups asserted that Tr ump's statemeпts and his adrni11istratio11's policies have "tapped into а seam of Ьigotry апd hate that have resulted in the targetiпg of American Muslims апd other minority groups." 17 Critics linked such bigotry wнo's ТНЕ BTGOT? not only to aпti-Muslim prejudice, but also to racism, anti-Semitism, nativism, populism, xenophoЬia, homophobia, misogyny, and sexism.Some coпser­vative commentators countered that critics of Trump and his supporters are "aпti-Trump Ьigots" and that their "political correctness" is а foпn of Ьigotry. Some political scientists even liпk the 2016 election to the possiЬle deatl1 of de­ mocracy in the Uпited States and e1sewhere if core norms of"mutual toleration" erode, allowing "extremist demagogues" to go unchecked. 20 In the 2018 midterm elections, the campaigпs of some newly-elected Democratic candidates explicitly criticized the Trump administration for fostering Ьigotry. 21 Ап on1ine poll taken in the week before those elections re­ ported that 61 % of Democrats and those leaning Democratic would use the terms "racist/Ьigoted/sexist" to "describe Republicans today"; 54% chose "ig­ norant," and 44%, "spiteful:' Among RepuЬlicans and those leaning RepuЫican, only half as many ( 31 %) chose the terms "racist/Ьigoted/sexist" to "describe Democrats today"; 54% chose "spiteful," and 49%, "ignorant."22 The midterms also intensified concern over polarization. Commentators di­ agnose а new "tribalism," iп which the Left believes it is the Ьigotry and racism of "right-wiпg tribalism" that is"teariпg the couпtry apart," while the Right believes it is the"identity politics" and"political correctness" of"left-wiпg tri,Ьalism" that is doing so.23 Iпdeed, опе provocative claim is that today, "the шost pervasive foпn of Ьigotry" is political Ьigotry: intolerance toward people with differeпt political opinions.24 W hy is there so much controversy over Ьigotry when renouncing-and denouncing-it seems to Ье а shared political value witl1 а long history? 1n 1790, President George Washington assured the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, that 'Ъappily, the Government of the U.S. . ..gives to bigotry no • sanction, to persecution по assistance:'25 1n this significant founding- era state­ meпt, bigotry had а clear meaning: offi.cial into1erance and persecution of Jews and other religious groups. But what are Ьigotry's other forms? Coшmon usage suggests that overt racism апd anti-Seшitism are clear instances.Both have the elemeпt of а repudiated l1istory, so that people ofteп claim that such Ьigotry is "uп-Americaп" or contrary to American ideals. We learn Ьigotry's шeaning Ь у looking to the past, but llie past also reveals а shortfall in living up to such ideals. W hat history teaches about Ьigotry and how to draw analogies between past апd present, however, is often controversial. People have invoked Washington's disavowal of Ьigotry in battles over same-sex marriage and the rights of traпs­ geпder persons. As another example, in support of а legal challenge Ьу Muslim Americaпs to the Trump admiпistration's executive orders limiting travel from several Muslim-majority couпtries (the "travel Ьап"), а group of coпsti­ tutional law scho1ars fi.led а "friend of tl1e court" (arnicus curiae) brief quoting Washingtoп's reпunciation of bigotry to argue that ilie Ьап violated the First Who's the Bigot? Amendment's Establishment Clause. The brief argued that the ban, considered in light of Trump's numerous statements about the threat posed Ъу Muslims and Islam, showed "animus" toward а "disfavored religious group." 26 The Trump administration, however, asserted that the ban would protect Americans from admitting foreig11 11ationals who would "engage in acts of Ьigotry or hatred." 27 v\Тhen а closely divided ( 5-4) Supreme Court upheld the ban, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, quoted Washington's language as illustrati11g tl1at "our Presidents have frequently used [their extraordinary power to speak to fellow citize11s] to espouse the principles of religious freedom and tolerance on which tl1-is Nation was founded;' even though presidents have "performed unevenly in living up" to that task. Roberts rejected Trump's numerous remarks criticizing Muslims as а basis for striking down the ban, contending that it was "facially neutral toward religion" and rested on national security rationales.28 Past and present co11troversies аЬонt marriage and the scope of civiJ rights laws are illнn1-inating windows into questions raised Ьу the rhetoric of Ьigotry. Tracing this rhetoric across а set of earlier debates relating to i11terfaith and inter­ racial marriage and the receпt debate over same-sex marriage reveals contested u11dersta11di11gs of Ьigotry. Those controversies also show recurri11g patteшs of arguments, including appealing to conscience and si11cere belief to cou11ter charges ofЬigotry as well as denying and flipping such charges. Because marriage is both an intimate, private relationship and а puЫic institu­ tion reflecting important societal values, it provides а va]uaЫe Jens through which to examine both the backward- and forward-looking dimensions ofЬigotry. The argument tl1at any step toward racial desegregation would lead inevitaЫy to in­ terracial marriage played а key role in historic civil rigl1ts battles: resisting tl1e Supreme Court's desegregation decisions, such as Brown v. Board of Education; opposing landmark federal civil rights legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and defending laws barring interracial marriage, the last of which were struck down in Loving v. Virginia.19 Defenders of segregation appealed to his­ tory and tradition, asserting that to say racial segregation and restrictions on race mixing were immoral or Ьigoted was to say that "our Founding Fathers" were "immoral men and Ыasphemers against God." 30 The puЬlic repudiation of racial segregation and racial restrictions on marriage now feature as markers of moral progress а вd of the United States better realiziвg, over time, ideals of liberty а пd equality. The repнdiation of those practices as white supremacy and racialЬigotry becomes а benchmark for coвtemporary civil rights struggles. I demonstrate how, in controversies over extending tl1e fundamental right to marry to same-sex couples, Loving played а key supporting role. ln controversies over religious exemptions to state anti­ discrimination Iaws, participants mine this civil rights past to argue that today's struggles are sirnilar or different. The rl1etoric of bigotry plays а potent-but wнo's ТНЕ BIGOT? sometimes distractiпg-role iп these coпflicts. For it is not necessary to label а belief'Ъigoted" to uphold an anti-discrimination law lirniting people's ability to act on their sincere religious beliefs when doing so harms or interferes with tl1e rigl1ts of others. Puzzles About Bigotry The contгoversies over marriage and civil rights provide settiпgs iп wl1ich to take up several puzzles about the rhetoric of bigotry: wl1etl1er it is the motive for or the content of а belief that makes it bigoted; whether Ьigotry is simply short­ haпd for beliefs tl1at are now beyond tЬе ра1е; and whetherЬigotry stems from а type of character, "tl1eЬigot," who l1as specific moral and psychological traits, or whether we all are vulneraЬ!e to being bigoted. The first puzzle is whetl1er а cl1arge ofЬigotry concerns the motivation for а belief or act: is the appeal eitl1er to sincere religious belief or to conscience а de­ fense to а charge ofЬiogtry? The contrast drawn between theЬigot motivated Ъу hatred toward а group and the sincere religious believer seeking to follow сопsсiепсе might suggest that the answer shouldЬе yes. People often draw such а contrast in debates over tl1e evident conflict between LGBTQrights and re­ ligious liberty. For example, in his dissent iп Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the Supreme Court held that same-sex couples have the fundamental right to marry, Chief Justice Roberts coпtended that Justice Kennedy's majority opiпion had "portrayed" asЬigoted those people who, "as а matter of coпscience, cannot ac­ cept same-sex marriage:' 31 Kennedy nowhere said such people were bigots, but explained that there were limits to enacting "sincere, personal oppositioп into • law" when doiпg so denies the basic liberties of others. 32 In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, baker Jack Phillips drew on both the Obergefell majority opiпion and the dissents, arguing that l1e was а "conscientious man of faith;' inspired to "love and serve people from all walks of life"; his refusal to bake а wedding cake for а same-sex couple was based on l1is religious belief tl1at marriage was the union of one man and one woman, not "invidious discrimination:' 33 Many who filed "friend of the court" briefs on Phillips's behalf argued tl1at sincere "men of faith" like him are nothing like the racistЬigots of yesteryear who opposed interracial marriage. 34 lf the Court ruled against Phillips, it woнld "tell him-and all traditional Muslims, Orthodox Jews, апd Cl1ristia11s-that acting оп beliefs central to l1is identity is wrong, benighted, еvеп Ьigoted."35 Some еvеп reversed the charges of Ьig­ otry: the civil rights comrnissioners апd judges who deпied business owners Jike Pl1illips а religious exemption from state civil rights laws were the real Ьigots, "intolerant" toward his conscientious religious beliefs. 36 Who's the Bigot? Certainly, the impulse to link Ьigotry to hateful motivation tracks common definitions of bigotry: hateful beliefs about and actions toward а group are а worrisome form of Ьigotry. Philosopher Johп Corviпo argues that Ьigotry is "stubborn, unjustified contempt toward groups of people:' 37 Orgaпizatioпs that monitor extremist groups in the United States warn that there has been а surge in "white supremacy and l1ate-driven domestic terrorism" in the country; they argue that there is а link between Trump's bigoted rhetoric and this surge. 38 Otl1er common definitions of Ьigotry, however, link it not witl1 religioнs in­ sincerity or tl1e absence of conscience, but with intolerance and prejudice to­ ward а group's beliefs or actions or toward а group itself. 39 Equating Ьigotry only with hateful motives or actions, so that religious beliefs could never Ье Ьigoted, obscures the historical prominence of religious Ьigotry, or intolerance, and its role in shaping commitments to religioнs toleration. President Washington's quoted reassurance to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport was that the gov­ ernment would practice religious tolerance. 40 The United States would not estab­ lish an official religion, or favor one religion over others, по matter how sincere а particular religion's beliefs. Such favoritism seemed to concern Мitt Romney, who, while campaigniпg for the Senate, criticized the Trump admiпistratioп's choice of а "religious Ьigot" to de!iver the Ыessing at the орепiпg of the US em­ bassy in Jerusalem. Romпey observed that Pastor Robert Jeffress had called Islam and Mormonism 'Ъeresy from the pit of hеП;' and said Jews "сал't Ье saved." Jeffress responded that he алd "mi11ions of evangelicaI Christians around the world" could not Ье bigoted for espousing beliefin а 2,000-year-old teaching that "salvation is through faith in Christ alone:чi People may hold Ьigoted beliefs sincerely, conscieпtiously, and zealously. А sin­ cere white sнpremacist, anti-Semite, or anti-Mнslim could still Ье Ьigoted. As phi­ losopher Tara Smith explains, "а person's conscience might Ье sincere, though depraved;' and sincerity is "по guarantee" against one's conscience advising actions that would l1arm others or violate their rights.42 The religious disagreement over eпdiпg racial segregatioп, taken up iл chapters 4 and S, illustrates the proЬlem with assuming that а belief rooted in conscieпce or siпcere religious belief caimot Ье Ьig­ oted. Iп the l 950s and 1960s politiciaпs апd clergy invoked conscience, the BiЬle, апd God's рlап for the races as they vehemently denied that their defense of racial segregatioп was Ьigoted. They asserted that they were waging а war of morality ai1d сопsсiепсе, ai1d that those who disagreed were poor studeпts of the BiЫe-even heretics. At the same time, reHgious oppoпents of segregation appealed to coп­ science to argue that it was not only нn-American Ьнt indeed unscriptural. For Dr. Martiп Luther Кing Jr. and other clergy members fighting segregation, con­ science was а powerful force to сопdеmп Ьigotry ai1d prejudice. А ceпtral premise ofКing's philosophy of пoпvioleпt direct action was that sucl1 action aroused con­ science and could redeem people from tl1eir prejudices.43 wнo's ТНЕ BJGOT? Bigotry clearly has а complex relationship to conscience and religious belief.44 In these historical battles, some people appealed to conscience to indict Ьigotry and to help people overcome it, but other people iпvoked coпscience to rebut charges of Ьigotry. Pioпeeriпg social scieпtists recogпized long ago the paradox tl1at religioп botl1 "makes and uпmakes"-supports and condemns-Ьigotry апd prejudice. 45 Drawing sl1arp contrasts between ( l) today's conscientious be­ liever who, based оп scripture, believes marriage is between one mап and one woman and (2) yesterday's segregationist who quoted the ВiЫе to oppose in­ tegration апd interracial marriage suggests tl1at the latter simply used religion as а pretext for discrimination. But iliis ignores tl1e fact that clergy and politicians defending segregation vehemently rejected the label of 'Ъigot" and tl1emselves appealed to religion and conscience. А second puzzle conceшs whether it is the content of а belief, not what motivates it, that invites the label Ьigotry. On some definitions, Ьigotry refers to an unreasonaЬ/e belief about or an irrational hatred of а gшup.46 The Social Qs columnist drew on such definitions in referring to the "irratioвal hatred" of the "aвgry Ьigot" at the deli counter. 47 А Ьigot, ове dictionary explains, is "а person who has strong, unreasoвaЬle ideas, especially about race or religion, and who thinks авуоnе who does поt have the same beliefs is wrong:'48 Defining Ьigotry as "extreme intoleraпce" also suggests unreasoвaЬleness.49 Оп such definitioпs, the reasonaЬleness of а belief would counter а charge of bigotry. То return to Phillips, his supporters argued that his religious beliefs about marriage are not only sincere, but also reasonaЬle: such beliefs rest on "decent and honoraЬle religious or philosopЬical premises" ( quoting Justice Kennedy's language iв Obergefell). 50 Those supporters contrasted religious objections to interracial marriage as unreasoвaЬle: rooted in white supremacy, 'racist pseudo-science, авd distortion of religion. 51 Wheilier а belief is unreasonaЬle is at the core of debates about whether being intolerant of certain beliefs is always morally Ьlameworthy Ьigotry. William Ramsey illustrates this definitioвal puzzle wiili racism: beliefs in racial superi­ ority and inferiority are "factually inaccurate" авd "morally repugnant:' But " Ьу adopting а strong anti-racism stand, 1 am being quite hostile to the opi11io11s of others, which for some is sufficient for ЬigotrY:'52 Ramsey's example resoпates with charges that political correctвess is а form of Ьigotry because it is iпtoleraвt of certain views. Опе lesson about the rhetoric of bigotry is iliat ideas about wl1at is rеаsопаЫе and uпrеаsопаЫе chaпge over time. The various struggles over civil rights and marriage reveal iliat time is often critical to understandiпg contests over wl1at is Ьigoted. These struggles show that what we "retrospectively judge evil was once justified as reasonaЫe:' 53 Before the 1960s1 tl1e expression of racism by white po­ litical leaders was "open;' 'Ъrazen," and "unabashed"i after the 1960s, "what used W/1o's the Bigot? to Ье coшmon sense was now а cancer, а deadly sin:'54 This book uses the idea of generational шoral progress to highlight that over tiшe, people соше to un­ derstand that practices once defeпded as natural, necessary, апd just are unjust. This teшporal dimeпsion of judging what is reasonaЬle relates to а third puzzle about Ьigotry: is "Ьigotry" simp]y а term used to signal an anachronistic and now-reviled view? Ву calling soшeone а Ьigot, are we declaring tl1at their posi­ tion is not within tl1e boundaries of civility or ассерtаЫе reasons for supporting or opposing laws or policies? Racism, again, is а frequent ехашрlе: while ine­ quality and iшplicit forms of prejudice persist, 'Ъlatant racism is out of the ques­ tion for anyone wishing to Ье а respected meшber of public society." 55 For that reason, conservative religious opponents of legaiizing same-sex шarriage warned that if courts and the public accepted the analogy between past legal restrictions on interracial шarriage and present-day restrictions on same­ sex шarriage, their religious definition of marriage as only between one man and one woшan would Ье treated as the moral eqнivalent of "racial ЬigotrY:'56 Sоше Supreme Court justices shared that view. In dissent in Obergefell, Justice Alito argued that the "iшplications" of the race "analogy" will Ье "exploited Ьу those who are determiпed to stamp out every vestige of dissent:' Не predicted that dissenters from the new "orthodoxy" about marriage would 1:?е branded as Ьigots. 57 This puzzle about the role of time shows Ьigotry's backward- and forward­ looking dimensions. Just as the boundaries of reasonaЬle and unreasonaЬle views shift over time, so, too, do society's understandings of perшitted and proscribed forms of prejudice. Changing social and legaI norms about expressing prejudice can 'Ъаvе а strong effect on people's tolerance for prejudice." 58 For example, that "overt Ьigotry" (such as "old-fashioned," Ьlatant racism) is "widely considered socially unacceptaЬle" is а signal achievement of the civil rights movement and the enactment of civil rights legislation. 59 People turn to the term " Ьigotry" to characterize views that have ceased to Ье ассерtаЫе. 111is understanding of Ьigotry шау explain the deep alarm many people ex­ perienced over how many young and college-educated white men were among the white supremacists marching, in August 2017, in Charlottesville, Virginia, wearing Ku Кlux Кlа11 and neo-Nazi regalia апd chaпting aпti-Semitic and racist slogans to protest the removal of а statue of Coпfederate General Robert Е. Lee. 60 When that protest spilled over into an act of terror killiпg а youпg counterprotestor (Heather Heyer) апd injuring others, many urged President Trump to speak out unequivocally against the white supremacists and neo­ Nazis, as did Virginia's goverпor, who said: "I am disgusted Ъу the l1atred1 Ьig­ otry and violence these protestors have brought to our state over the past 24 hours." 61 When Trump read а statemeпt tЬat "we condemn in the strongest pos­ siЬle terms this egregious display ofЬatred, bigotry, and violeпce on many sides, wнo's ТНЕ BIGOT? on many sides," the qualifier "оп many sides" drew swift coпdemnation from civil rights 1eaders, clergy, and politicians for the dangerous moral equivalence Trump seemed to draw between white supremacist marchers and anti-racist couпterprotestors, giving "succor to those who advocate anti-Semitism, racism, and xenophobla:' 62 In the first of а cascade of resignations, Kenneth Frazier, tl1e only African American СЕО оп Trшnp's American Manufacturing Council, resigned as "а matter of personal conscience," stating: 'American leaders must lюпоr our fuпdameпtal values Ьу clear1y rejectiпg expressions of hat1·ed, Ьigotry, and group supremacy, w11ic11 run counter to the American ideal tl1at all people are created equal:' 63 1Ъе idea tl1at Ьigotry is properly repudiated and left in the past explains the urgency in appeals to conscience and to core American ideals to indict it. Trump's critics feared that his remarks coнld threaten crucial norms against puЪlic expression of intolerant and racist views, emboldening fringe "white bigots" to "соте out of their closets," so that views that had become "widely reviled" could Ье redefined as "reasonaЫe opinioпs-just part of the discussion:' 64 Controversy over Trump's reaction to Charlottesville was part of а broader concern that he was поt just using "dog whistles" that appealed to Ъigotry but making overt appeals to it. 65 Some Ыасk clergy reli].ted this to American "backslidiпg"-"the reveпge of ан American coпscience that's never repented of its racist historY:'66 As Reverend Thabiti Aпyabwile told his congre­ gation: "Things tl1at were left smoldering, embers have caught а Ьit ofwind from our current presideпt, and from time to time we are seeing flashes of fire:'67 This temporal dimension ofЬigotry also surfaces in rhetoric about wantiпg to Ье оп the "right" rather than the "wrong" side of history. Such phrases suggest that the past teaches important lessons about discrimination. Political campaigns in some post-2016 state and federal elections, particularly in southern states, have employed such rl1etoric. 68 Similar rhetoric also played а striking part in legal challenges Ьу same-sex couples seeking the right to marry. For example, the Attorney General of Virginia expressed his desire to Ье оп "the right side of history" as а reason for not defendiпg l1is state's ban 011 same-sex marriage, Ьу coпtrast with llis predecessors, who chose to defeпd Virginia's ban оп iпter­ racial marriage in Loving and its segregated schools in Brown.69 Iп Obergefell, the Commonwealth of Virginia also stressed those parallels between past апd present in filing а brief in support of same-sex marriage.70 Оп the other hand, oppoпents of same-sex m�rriage rejected such parallels and asserted that the "truth about marriage" сап пever Ье оп "the wrong side of historY:' 71 That societies come to understand, over time, that certaiп historical beliefs, practices, and traditions are а product of prejudice and Ьigotry reveals tl1e im­ portance of experience and moral learпing. People in the nlidst of а coпtroversy over marriage or civil rigl1ts may worry about whether they accept а status quo 0 Who's the Bigot? that future generations will look back on as an obvious fonn of Ъigotry. Past examples of when people have been certai11, but wrong, also provide reasoв to Ье skeptical or cautious about appeals to history, tradition, and сопsсiепсе. This book explores this theme of iвsight and generational moral learвiпg in multiple coпtexts: the scientific study of prejudice, coпtroversies over desegregation and civil rights laws, disputes over marriage, and the Supreme Court's evolving ap­ proach to LGBTQrights. The foшth puzzle is whether tl1e term "Ьigot" suggests а particular type of character1 with distinctive psychological or moral traits. For example, people evaluate those who eвgage iп bigoted acts, such as пsing а racial slш against а coworker, as having "poor moral character," and expressions of overt Ьigotry can trigger moral oпtrage. 72 On some definitions, the Ьigot holds views аЬопt а groпp inflexiЪly and obstinately, impervious to facts.73 Such traits make it-as Dear АЬЬу advised-futile to try to educate а bigot. Or does singling опt tl1e bigot as а distinct type having bad character miss tl1at prejпdice and stereotypes are the oпtgrowtl1 of normal cognitive processes, like thiпkiвg in categories? Is it more accurate to speak about "the Ъigot iп your braiп" to refer to these processes, or еvеп to say that we all are somewhat bigoted ?74 From the earliest studies of prejпdice, social scientists have wrestled with this qпestioп. Iп 1944, social psychologist Gordoв W Allport waшed of а "sigпifi­ caпt battle being waged" in the United States betweeп "the Ъigoted апd the dem­ ocratic character:' The bigot lacked "insigl1t" and was uпаЫе "to take another's perspective or correct one's misiпterpretatioпs based оп new information about а group." Those traits made the Ьigot vulпeraЬle to а "demagogue," who "jпstifies" the person's 'Ъatreds" Ьу Ьlaming various minority racial and religious groпps for his misfortuпes.75 In subsequent decades, other social scientists have offered similar psychological sketches. 76 The 2016 and 2018 elections brought renewed iпterest Ьу social scieпtists in whether RepuЪlican voters supporting Trump had "authoritarian personalities" or were prone to "outgroup prejudices:'77 ln tension with this association of bigotry with fixed mental traits and bad character, however, is the scientific understandiпg of prejudice as tl1e outgrowth of normal cognitive processes. For example, even as he diagnosed tl1e Ьigoted personality, Allport observed that hпmans must thiпk iп categories, which set the stage for the study of stereotypes and social psychologists' emphasis, today, on how people have "implicit Ьias" despite their egalitarian ideals. Receпt so­ cial psychology speaks o(the 'Ъuried prejudice" to which ordinary people are prone because of the way the mind works. 78 Such work avoids the language of Ъigotry and moral Ыаmе in descriЬing these processes, instead offering l10pe tl1at it is possiЬle for people to gain insigl1t about these biases and overcome them.79 Phrases like "good people with hidden Ьiases" communicate that people who seek to address their Ъiases are not doomed to Ье bigots.