There are those who claim ownership of a language of which they know only one word: its name. This image springs to mind when considering the attempts to appropriate the Classics made by the American “alt-right” (Zuckerberg, 2016). At the opposite end of the spectrum, Greek and Latin face the charges, particularly in a US context, of being the languages of the European elite and therefore intrinsically racist. The charge of racism is not unique to the classical languages; in 2016 jazz students at Oberlin College’s prestigious conservatory (Ohio) objected to taking modules in classical music on the grounds that it is “rooted in whiteness” (Jaschik, 2016). This article could have just as easily been entitled “defending the classical languages from appropriation by white supremacists”. However, it is not clear that much is to be gained by examining the American “alt-right’s” claim to the Classics, concerning though it is, since they seem to understand little about the subject. Of far greater interest is the manner in which various student movements are also making a similar assertion to the “alt-right”: that the Classics are white. I do not contend that elements of the left have adopted this position in response to the “alt-right” (rather than having come to this view independently). However, it is certainly worrying that the same incorrect mantra is to be found on both sides of the political spectrum. Instead of disputing the American “alt-right’s” claim to ownership of the classical tradition, the fallacious argument is made that it is unworthy of, or inappropriate for, study.

The question is not merely a philosophical one, but given the significance of a solid grounding in the ancient languages for research in (many areas of) the history of philosophy, one that is also relevant to the training of future philosophers. The issue has come to the fore once again due to student protests at Reed College (Portland, Oregon) against the core humanities course there — Introduction to Humanities: Ancient Greece and the Mediterranean — as white and Eurocentric (Flaherty, 2018). The course at Reed will be replaced by a module focusing on Athens, Rome, Mexico City and Harlem. From the outside, it would seem that such a course runs the risk of being excessively atomized and if the aim is inclusion, what about South or East Asia (or any of the many other areas of the world that the course will not treat)?

The concern over racism in the field can take the form of anxiety over privileging a major in Classics (Classical Philology) rather than one in Classical Civilization (i.e. studying the literature in translation) since it can be constructed as reflecting a class divide, which can in turn be seen as replicating a racial gulf in American society (Chae, 2018). The initial reaction is to see this as simply another reflection of the difficulties those from a dominant language group have with learning other languages (and sometimes even in engaging with other cultures in general). Certainly, Classical Civilization programmes have done a wonderful job in extending access to the subject at university level, while ensuring that Classics departments can maintain student numbers at feasible levels. At the same time, developing courses for this major has led to the revitalization of the field with the adoption of modules treating issues such as gender or race in antiquity. The obvious difficulty is that accessing texts via translation can simply condemn one to repeat the mistake of the translator. Therefore, language training must — and should — always be at the centre of a classical education, since it frees us from the tyranny of the translator.

The real injustice is not that studying literature in the original language is treated as an intrinsically superior activity to studying it in translation, but that certain groups have less educational opportunity. Having lower education expectations for these groups will not help to alleviate this injustice (and indeed is nothing more than an insidious form of racism). Furthermore, the construct that Latin and Greek are white and Eurocentric is problematic. As is well known, Latin was employed in areas that we can scarcely describe as European (such as North Africa) and the same can be said for the use of Greek at Alexandria. Similarly, the claim that both languages are white involves projecting current (American) racial categories onto the past under the misguided assumption that they are relevant to every historical period. Of course, since race is not a biological or natural construct — however much the “alt-right” might like to claim that it is — but merely an artificial one, this is not the case.

The difficulty is that the claim that Latin and Greek are fundamentally racist and Eurocentric has become fused with two separate issues. The first involves the misuse and abuse of classical languages, and cultural capital in general; the second concerns the issue of broader-based access not only to the study of these languages, but to the profession (understood here as working as a professional classicist or as a trained classicist active in a cognate area). Admittedly, the second issue may well be more difficult to solve, but progress has already been made by means of programmes such as the Society for Classical Studies Minority Scholarship in Classics and Classical Archaeology. Clearly though, more work needs to be done in this regard. According to the Society for Classical Studies, the principal professional association for classicists in the United States, only two percent of full professors at American universities and liberal arts colleges are from minority backgrounds, which the Society defines as “members of historically underrepresented ethnic and racial minority groups in the United States and Canada”. One must encourage similar programmes, as well as Classics outreach activities, in order to achieve greater diversity in the profession (and not simply abandon the study of Classics altogether).

There is no denying that Latin and Greek have been used in the formation of elites. However, we should remember how tenuous assertions of linguistic and cultural ownership actually are, particularly when tied to an unnatural construct such as ethnicity. Who can forget the New York Times’ risible attempt to appropriate Rabindranath Tagore as a “white” writer. The Bard of Bengal, a Pirali Brahmin, was the first Asian to receive a Nobel Prize (in Literature in 1913): “Tagore, if not exactly one of us, is, as an Aryan, a distant relation of all white folk” (November 15, 1913). Not only is this endeavour to appropriate a Bengali writer as “white” reflective of similar attempts made by the American “alt-right” in the case of Latin and Greek authors, it also demonstrates a similar lack of basic familiarity with the subject: the New York Times listed Tagore’s name as “Babindranath”.