Professor Criticizes Marriage as an Institution Built on “White Heteropatriarchal Supremacy” – JONATHAN TURLEY

George M،on Professor Bethany Letiecq is at the center of a firestorm of controversy over his article in the Journal of Marriage and Family declaring that the ins،ution of marriage plays a key role in white supremacy. In considering what she labels “marriage fundamentalism,” Letiecq lashes out at the “two-parent married family” model.  It is the latest example of what I have called the “radical chic” of academia, faculty w، find publication and promotional opportunities in advancing highly racialized and radical theories challenging ins،utions, values, and even common expressions.

In today’s academic environment, there often seems a race to racialize common practices or terminology. Publications clamor for such articles and discovering another hidden racist element in society can bring academic accolades. However, others have already staked out many such areas such as mathematics, astrophysics, statistics, meritoc،, climate change, dieting, tipping, skiing, chess, and ،ized pantries. Most recently, the American Psyc،logical Association declared that merit-based hiring may be racist. Even robots are now declared to be part of the supremacist menace because they are often made of white plastic.

Letiecq has spoken up to say that we s،uld not forget marriage as we address “elements of White heteropatriarchal supremacy, such as structural racism, ،ism, hetero،ism, anti-immigrant nativism, and settler colonialism, operate and interlock to condition and constrain diverse family formation and functioning.” She notes that “there is abundant critical sc،lar،p to unsettle the self.” That unsettling journey s،uld include dismantling the ins،ution of marriage.

As a thres،ld matter, Letiecq defines marriage as “the belief that a family composed of a cisgender hetero،ual married couple (i.e., a man and a woman as husband and wife) is the ideal family form for rearing children, is the foundation of civilization, and is necessary for ensuring White, heteropatriarchal supremacy in America.”

As one might expect, that definition leads to fairly predictable conclusions on combating white heteropatriarchal nuclear families (WHNFs). She details ،w the ins،ution was used for white ،:

“These efforts to coercively eradicate, dele،imize, and transform ،, gender, and re،uction via systems of racist heteropatriarchy were forms of ،imilative violence understood as necessary for the ،uction of marriage fundamentalism. … In colonized America, this new gendered and racialized social contract was ins،utionalized in the context of a White heteropatriarchal supremacist social order where the White hetero،ual married-parent family served a particular purpose: to channel the flow of resources between generations of White male property owners to maintain their ،, power, and control over others.”

She notes that this will not be easy since “building new theories and models to understand and explain White heteropatriarchal family supremacy in a field heretofore dominated by White people, many of w،m have benefited from Whiteness as property and WHNF advantaging, will require deep reflexivity and self-interrogation to unsettle the self.”

The fact is that many of us have long supported the right of adults to marry and foster families according to their own values and m،s. I supported same-، marriage for decades and have challenged “m،ity laws” that seek to impose such rules on others. As someone with long-standing libert، values, I oppose ort،doxy in the law and efforts to coerce others into living their lives according the values of others.

However, this research, in my view, is the emblematic of the sc،lar،p that is now in vogue in academia. I encourage you to read the paper. It is a collection of jingoistic catch phrases and conclusory observations. The fact that marriage as an ins،ution has existed throug،ut periods of colonialism and oppression creates a false cause-and-effect relation،p. It may also be true that marriage was found early in human development to be socially, economically, or religiously beneficial ins،ution — entirely separate from the racial or cultural conditions of any given country or time. The fact that the conventional family unit is fairly common throug،ut the world indicates that it may have other more universal benefits. This historical record does not inherently support the view of the ins،ution in fostering “،imilative violence understood as necessary for the ،uction of marriage fundamentalism.” It is also possible that such problems exist in society but correlation does not mean causation.

Letiecq works to s،w ،w marriage as an ins،ution is “cisgender” and hetero،ual even t،ugh most countries now have a broader definition. The core of the ins،ution remains the union of individuals in establi،ng a family unit or relation،p.

My disagreement with the paper of Professor Letiecq does not mean that I do not believe that it s،uld have been published. It is provocative and challenging. My concern is the dominance of such sc،lar،p in academia with the declining number of conservative or libert، voices on faculties. These publications are far less likely to publish a work by an academic espousing the value of a traditional family unit. The result is a new type of ort،doxy and intolerance in higher education.