It Goes Beyond Brendan Boucher

In the February 9th edition of the Xaverian Weekly, former Student Union Presidential Candidate Brendan Boucher released a statement relating to the controversy surrounding his campaign. This statement primarily addressed his anti- “Black Lives Matter” rhetoric which was exposed through a number ofsocial media posts within the StFX community. In all honesty, I would love to use my position on this platform to entertain Boucher’s statement to the fullest, but I will not squander the words I have in this article just to entertain a henchman when the real villain is the system that allows people like Boucher to have a voice. Nevertheless, here are my brief two cents on Boucher’s statement: he is obviously and categorically wrong about everything he suggests in his piece. Citing Frederick Douglass after attacking Black Lives Matter as “Marxist” is absurd and laughable. His inability to do basic research on what racism really is just indicates how much of a joke Boucher’s so-called “statement” is. No more words need to be spent on him—he is as irrelevant and unimportant as his attitudes are to any meaningful effort to create social justice. [Although, I suppose I must wish him, a jazz major, a very happy Black History Month.]

What is worth delving into is the context that allows for people like Boucher to thrive—to be given a platform and to be allowed to repeatedly harm other students. StFX is a community that confuses censorship with morality, or silence with equity. This community upholds whiteness as a norm, and consciously or unconsciously pushes those of us who are outside that norm into isolation. If we take the University at its word and assume that we attend a university that is “as it is meant to be,” there is no room for policies that allow blatant racism, misogyny and homophobia to slip through the cracks. What is “meant to be,” it appears, is a community where white men are able to attack Black students, women, and LGBTQ+ students, and be given an opportunity to broadcast those attacks as much as possible in pursuit of the highest student office. I suggest that this type of student, and what he stands for, is institutionally enabled through the University’s policies.

If all is not ‘as it is meant to be,’ what went wrong? A simple look at the candidate’s social media personality and stance would have alerted university student affairs staff about what this candidate stands for. We all know that they patrol students’ social media accounts. They push back against women who are fighting for the right to simply exist on campus without being assaulted. They will intervene if you criticize the university. They won’t intervene if you are tokenizing Black women on your Instagram page. I find it hard to believe, therefore, that they did not know that this outrage was coming. If they did, and failed to act, then his words were institutionally supported. That, in my book, is a form of institutional racism. 

So I ask you, readers, to evaluate this university from your own perspective. Is it racist or anti-racist? Your friends might share the same ideas as you, but look to the institution. How many of the administrators have you heard say Black Lives Matter? How many administrators did you see at Take Back the Night? Have you EVER seen an administrator at X take an anti-racist, anti-sexist, or anti-oppressive stance that wasn’t performative? Do any of those in power take an anti-racist stance?

If no, it’s easy to see why Brendan and those who espouse the same hateful ideas as him, feel emboldened. Don’t be shocked when a candidate like this puts their name forward again.