The philosopher Jason Stanley recounted a story that was told to him by the late Black sociologist and author of The Racial Contract, Charles Mills. Mills (2014) asked the white philosopher Jürgen Habermas why he never talked about race to which Habermas reportedly answered “because I am not a Nazi.” The answer reveals much about how issues of race are treated within certain parts of European academia. The mere acknowledgement of race seemingly draws proximity to illiberal racism (Mondon & Winter, 2020) that is aligned with violence and the far right.

This starting point outlined by Habermas provides two paths: a variation tied to the status quo and illberal racism. As a result, the political imagination is immediately restricted and overlooks liberal racism (Mondon & Winter, 2020) and how structural racism has been constructed and continues to operate. This is why Flores and Rosa's call for a fundamental rethink is so valuable. They have effectively asked that scholars lift these restrictive dichotomies in pursuit of a fairer and more just field in service of communities about whom some claim to care. This can be done through interrogating the roots of the status quo. In so doing, they have expanded the political imagination to rethink the concept of competence.

In short, what is required—toward which Flores and Rosa have contributed—is a fundamental introspection around co-articulations of race and language in conjunction with the racial formation of whiteness even in “raceless societies” where race is avoided, for example, in Denmark, Spain, and France. There is often a central contestation about what is and is not racism rather than how racism is produced as outlined by Lentin's concept of not racism. “Not racism” often dismisses understandings of historicized articulations of racism through a gravitation toward ahistorical illiberal racism. Lentin argued that “not racism” at its root is a “quest to control the definition of racism that enacts a discursive violence” (Lentin, 2020, p. 62). In applied linguistics in Europe: Who has the power to enact “not racism”? How is this authority constructed?

Flores and Rosa have dared applied linguists to reimagine the possibilities of interrogating whiteness. They have rightfully urged caution about how terms are used in applied linguistics by projecting into the future the path of depoliticized or misunderstood work. To extend this, I will take a similar approach in relating to the overrepresentation of whiteness in applied linguistics in Europe. What would our field look like if the same gusto reserved for fashionable buzzwords to study racially minoritized communities had been mobilized to examine legacies of colonialism, racism, and whiteness in relation to language? What would our field look like if scholars socialized within methodological whiteness in Europe adopted a supportive stance towards scholars who work on language and race through space and resources? The reality is that areas of European applied linguistics operate at the level of comfort for methodologically white scholarship rather than at the urgency and gravity of problems faced by those at the sharp end of racism. In years to come, a lack of progress in this area will be evidence of complicity in not challenging racism.

It is worth relating to the issues above in relation to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR; Council of Europe, 2001). The CEFR “provides a common basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, textbooks, etc. across Europe” (Council of Europe, 2001). The CEFR frequently refers to communicative competence within its guidelines. Following Flores and Rosa's line of thought, if the idea of communicative competence is derived from an overrepresentation of whiteness as Man, then the idea of communicative competence through the CEFR institutionalizes this overrepresentation. This is spread through a shared understanding across European contexts that undergird policy and practice.

To take this further, in some countries the CEFR is used for educational and migration purposes. While potentially problematic in general terms, this becomes more problematic in migration instances. Thus, racially minoritized individuals are measured up against standards which have emanated from an overrepresentation of whiteness. The consequences for failure are potentially high stakes relating to settlement and entry into Europe. Therefore, can applied linguists recreate a world without a CEFR and what would it look like in the face of explicit racial hostility?

Flores and Rosa do not provide easy solutions. They entrust the reader with this intellectual demand. While European contexts may share some similarities, a provincialized approach to racism is still required for the multiplicity of contexts (Goldberg, 2006). The co-articulations of race and language through competence require applied linguists to examine unflinchingly racial and colonial histories and legacies and the various racial formations of whiteness in Europe.

哲学家杰森斯坦利讲述了已故黑人社会学家和《种族契约》的作者查尔斯米尔斯告诉他的一个故事。米尔斯（2014 年）问白人哲学家于尔根·哈贝马斯，为什么他从不谈论种族问题，据报道哈贝马斯回答说“因为我不是纳粹”。答案揭示了欧洲学术界某些部分是如何处理种族问题的。仅仅承认种族似乎就接近了与暴力和极右翼相一致的非自由种族主义（Mondon & Winter，2020）。

哈贝马斯概述的这一起点提供了两条路径：与现状相关的变体和不正当的种族主义。结果，政治想象力立即受到限制，并忽视了自由种族主义（Mondon & Winter，2020）以及结构性种族主义是如何构建和继续运作的。这就是为什么弗洛雷斯和罗莎呼吁从根本上重新思考如此有价值的原因。他们有效地要求学者们解除这些限制性的二分法，以寻求一个更公平、更公正的领域，为一些声称关心的社区服务。这可以通过询问现状的根源来完成。通过这样做，他们扩大了政治想象力，重新思考了能力的概念。

简而言之，即使在避免种族的“无种族社会”中，也需要对种族和语言的共同表达以及白人的种族形成进行基本的反省——弗洛雷斯和罗莎对此做出了贡献，例如，在丹麦、西班牙和法国。关于什么是种族主义，什么不是种族主义，而不是如伦丁的非种族主义概念所概述的那样，种族主义是如何产生的，经常有一个中心争论。“不是种族主义”经常通过对非历史的非自由种族主义的引力来驳斥对种族主义历史化表述的理解。伦丁认为，“不是种族主义”从根本上说是“对控制种族主义定义的追求，这种定义会引发话语暴力”（伦丁，2020，页。62）。在欧洲的应用语言学中：谁有权制定“非种族主义”？这个权威是如何构建的？

弗洛雷斯和罗莎敢于应用语言学家来重新想象审问白人的可能性。他们通过预测未来去政治化或被误解的工作路径，正确地敦促谨慎对待应用语言学中如何使用术语。为了扩展这一点，我将采取类似的方法来解决欧洲应用语言学中白人的过度表现。如果调动了为研究种族少数族裔社区而保留的时尚流行语的同样热情来研究殖民主义、种族主义、与语言有关的白度？如果学者们在欧洲的方法论白人中进行社会化，对通过空间和资源从事语言和种族研究的学者采取支持立场，我们的领域会是什么样子？现实情况是，欧洲应用语言学领域在方法论上为白人学术提供舒适的水平，而不是在种族主义极端分子所面临的问题的紧迫性和严重性上。在未来的几年里，这一领域缺乏进展将是不挑战种族主义的同谋证据。

与欧洲共同参考框架（CEFR；欧洲委员会， 2001 年）有关的上述问题值得关注。CEFR“为整个欧洲制定语言教学大纲、课程指南、考试、教科书等提供了一个共同的基础”（欧洲委员会，2001 年）。CEFR 在其指导方针中经常提到交际能力。按照弗洛雷斯和罗莎的思路，如果交际能力的概念源自白人作为人的过度表现，那么通过 CEFR 的交际能力概念将这种过度表现制度化。这是通过欧洲背景下的共同理解传播的，这是政策和实践的基础。

为了更进一步，在一些国家，CEFR 被用于教育和移民目的。虽然一般来说可能存在问题，但在迁移实例中这变得更加成问题。因此，种族少数化的个人是根据白人过度代表所产生的标准来衡量的。失败的后果是与定居和进入欧洲有关的潜在高风险。因此，应用语言学家能否重建一个没有 CEFR 的世界？面对明显的种族敌意，它会是什么样子？

Flores 和 Rosa 没有提供简单的解决方案。他们将这种智力需求委托给读者。虽然欧洲的情况可能有一些相似之处，但由于环境的多样性，仍然需要对种族主义采取地方化的方法（Goldberg，2006 年）。通过能力对种族和语言的共同表达要求应用语言学家坚定不移地研究种族和殖民历史和遗产，以及欧洲白人的各种种族构成。