So this blog emanates from a very firey and pugnacious version of me. I think it’s in part because these issues have played an important role in several of my class discussions and personal conversations over the past week. And I feel as those these issues are a defining characteristic of my personal life experience for the past several years, especially while living in Utah and attending Brigham Young University. I do not mean to sound self righteous in my comments, nor do I wish to demonize the views and opinions of others regarding this topic. But, I do feel that I have some sort of experience with at least a small part of the issue. These are just my personal opinions. Validate them, disagree with them, or ignore them. I just need to write them out so I can feel like I made some sort of cry out against what I still believe to be a major problem in the world, more specifically in the US. The issue: Discrimination.
It mostly started this week with Berkley. Perhaps some of you heard about the cupcake sale that the republican club put on as part of their effort to raise awareness over the policy of affirmative action. Here is the gist of the situation: These club leaders believe that affirmative action is a problem because it promotes reverse discrimination. So, in order to protest and raise awareness about the issue they decided to hold a “pay-by-race” bake sale. The prices were White $2, Asian $1.50, Latino $1.00, Black $0.75, Native American $0.25, and $0.25 off for all women. Obviously, it caused some controversy and the democrat club was super upset as were many other students on campus. In response, the republican club felt unrighteously persecuted for what they believed was a clever and eye-opening way to raise awareness about an issue they felt was often ignored. If you want to watch a CNN story to get some more background here’s a link: http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/26/us/california-racial-bake-sale/index.html?on.cnn=1
Here my rant begins. I understand the basic logic behind this club’s opinion. If the point of affirmative action really is to treat everyone equally, then on the surface it has the opposite effect. Like the bake sale, when a person is applying to a university or interviewing for a job, ideally we all are in a sense “paying” for the exact same product right? The cupcakes were all the same, it was only the prices that were different. And these prices are based solely on race. So, when one race (or any group, be it gender or sexual orientation) is given an advantage (e.g. a lower price, a preferential selection) over another, isn’t that perpetuating discrimination? Okay, seems like their reasoning is logical enough. However, I still disagree with (1) their opinion about the validity of having an affirmative action policy to try to fight social inequality and (2) the way they went about expressing their opinions through a bake sale.
(1) The assumption that affirmative action deals with products that are the same for everyone is false. I do not believe that items like a university education or a job can be valued the same for different groups (be it racial, ethnic, gender, or sexual orientation) in society. Especially when considered in the context of the opportunity they (a) are and (b) the additional opportunities they facilitate. A university education isn’t just a product one buys; it is an opportunity that one receives and a door that opens other doors that would otherwise remain forever closed without it. And this opportunity comes easier to groups with certain privileges and, although this is a stereotype in and of itself, I submit to you that this group (at the racial level) is Caucasians.
In my opinion, affirmative action creates an unavoidable discrimination paradox. By stereotyping social groups into disadvantaged categories, or in other words, by assuming that certain groups do not have the power or resources to gain access to or secure certain products (or opportunities) affirmative action is in effect perpetuating stereotypes that often are the source of discrimination and consequently social inequality. Affirmative action discriminates against the stereotyped “advantaged groups” by giving an advantage to the stereotyped “disadvantaged groups” when these groups compete for resources. It simultaneously promotes reverse discrimination, while, as mentioned earlier, perpetuating stereotypes of disadvantaged groups that lead to the discrimination that causes social inequality. However, with many policies in the public arena, I believe it’s also equally important to look at the intents and available alternatives to fight a certain issue.
I do not believe it is the intent of affirmative action to discriminate against groups like Caucasians. Yes, it is an output of that policy, but I submit to you that it is an effect that policy makers and the American public (since this is supposedly a democracy, the citizens themselves must also accept some responsibility for the policies that are in place) have decided is worth the negative externalities that result. Often the law aims to hold those who are perceived to hold power and resources responsible for groups that do not have these same advantages. For example, consider pedestrians laws. Pedestrians have the right of way, much to the irritation of drivers (including myself) who often are frustrated at the time it takes to stop and wait for fifty billion Zoobies to cross the intersection that leads to J-Dawgs. Why should I have to wait for these students to cross the street when I’m the one in the vehicle? After all, in the jungle gorillas do not stop and wait for bunnies to cross the jungle floor while they are running around. It’s the pedestrian that has the potential to be seriously injured if they are hit by a car, shouldn’t they assume the responsibility for not being hit by one? Perhaps this analogy is a little exaggerated, but I think it drives my point home.
We are not gorillas on the jungle floor, we are human beings. And as such we have, often as a society, agreed that sometimes responsibility for certain groups should be shared by all of society instead of individually. These groups are often the disadvantaged or the vulnerable, be it racial minorities or pedestrians crossing a busy street. These ideas of shared responsibility, the obligation of those with power and resources to help those who don’t have resources (the “with great power comes great responsibility” cliché), have given birth to a lot of controversial policies like Medicaid, welfare, and affirmative action. Now where is the line between the appropriate amount of responsibility that advantaged groups should assume for the disadvantaged and vulnerable? I don’t know. But, I believe that policies like affirmative action often strive to achieve some sort of solution that is close.
Let’s be clear though, I’m not saying that policies like affirmative action or Medicaid are fail-proof solutions to society’s ills. Like I said before, affirmative action itself perpetuates stereotypes that lead to discrimination. Not every African American lives in the hood and has a single mom that barely makes ends meet. And not every Caucasian male comes from an affluent family in the suburbs. Sometimes the policy may give an undue advantage to a racial minority that doesn’t fit the stereotype and take away an opportunity from a perceived advantaged individual that doesn’t fit the stereotype either. There is likely a better solution out there, one that does not promote a paradox of both reverse discrimination and continuation of harmful stereotypes. (Please note: I do not believe the only goal of affirmative action is to force shared responsibility for social groups. It also (at least attempts to) play a big role in fighting existing discrimination systems and prejudiced individuals, I go into this more in part two). Until we find a better solution though, I am okay with a disadvantaged member of society getting a job over me because, hey, let’s face it, I probably have the resources to go out and find another one somewhere else when there’s a chance that they may not have that same chance.
(2) This brings me to my second point, the bake sale. Let’s just start off by saying, personally I found the way the republican club brought this situation to people’s attention highly distasteful. I believe it was even brought up in the CNN video clip that people perceived the club to be making light of a serious issue and thus belittling those who deal with discrimination in the first place. Although I do not believe that it was this club’s intent to belittle the issue of discrimination, I submit that the manner in which they seemed to joke about it had the potential to be very offensive to people who deal with discrimination.
Let’s pause here and state the obvious, at least to those who know me personally. I am not Asian. I am not Hispanic. I am not gay. I am not African American. I am Caucasian. How can I possible come off as a legitimate source talking about discrimination? Well, in many cases I can’t. I will never know the experiences of being the only African American in a BYU classroom that is attempting to discuss racial issues. I will never understand the experiences of a Hispanic who is stopped by the police in Arizona simply because they are Hispanic. And the groups I listed above are not an exhaustive list by any means of the types of possible discrimination that one can find in the US, or the world at large. I speak from my own experiences, more specifically in this case as a woman. I do not intend to come off as an expert on discrimination nor pass judgment on others who have differing opinions about discrimination and the social policies that deal with it. I merely feel like my experience can be worthwhile and add to the shared pool of meaning that we call society.
Often in talking to friends, classmates, co-workers it seems as though many feel like discrimination is “an issue of the past.” We all learn about the Civil Rights movement in school; we are currently living in an era of the LGBT rights movement. Society today, at least for the most part, seems to have moved past issues of prejudice and bias. Right? Wrong.
I think it’s generally too easy for Caucasians to dismiss discrimination as a problem of the past. Individually we are not racist or sexist. We don’t treat women or Asians differently simply because they are women or Asian. Compare today’s world to the world of the 1950’s, when groups like African Americans had to use separate bathrooms. Today’s world doesn’t look like that. Obviously, this is correct. Today’s world does not look like the one of the Civil War era or the middle twentieth century. Often, we feel as though we are punished and held responsible for actions that we personally have never committed against minority groups. But, I submit to you that there is a different type of prejudice that lives today. One that is more built into the systems of how society operates and functions. One of assumptions and judgments that are often more unconscious than conscious. Let me explain.
Culture and society are inescapable. We all shape and are shaped by them. We have preferences and biases. These biases and judgments are shaped by the media, culture, and personal experience. They can be either positive or negative. And they can change. To demonstrate, I’ll use some personal examples. Once again, let’s preface this by reiterating that these are my personal opinions. I do not intend the stories below to seem as though they are “man-hater” stories or that they are unduly judgmental of the LDS/BYU/Utah community. They are just experiences of discrimination that have often defined real struggles for me while attending college and living in Provo and interacting with the LDS community in other places. I am sure I have often played a role and helped perpetuate these injustices often enough to be held accountable for their existence and prevalence as well.
There are often rigid views about the “appropriate” roles for men and women in the LDS community. These standards are based from scripture, comments from general authorities, and also from the Family: A Proclamation to the World. Now I’m not going to start quoting scripture here because I’m sure for every 5 scriptures I find to back up what my view is, another person could find 5 other scriptures (or perhaps even the same) to back up their different view. Neither do I want to play a battle of “oh, you think that’s bad, well what about this” in an attempt to best someone in a contest of what discrimination they have faced from either gender. I believe these issues are issues in and of themselves and deserved to be considered either way because I believe that most often they are perpetuated by people who do not consciously perceive their discriminatory nature. Perhaps by sharing the personal struggles I’ve had we can move one step, albeit a small one, forward in tackling these issues.
From a professional standpoint many LDS (both men and women) assume that if a woman is working outside the home it is because they have extenuating circumstances that necessitate them to do so for the welfare of their family. In addition, a woman goes on a mission simply because she is not married or has not prospects. She must go to graduate school because she has nothing better to do since she is not married. The worthiness of females is questioned when they plan on and prepare to have a career by getting an education, especially in a degree that is outside what is typically considered (also a sexist incidence) the domain of traditionally female careers (i.e. education, nursing). In the business world, married men refuse to go out on lunch meetings with female co-workers simply because they are female. There is still a major salary gap with women receiving much less pay than men for performing the exact same job. Men receive jobs over women simply because they are perceived to be the more important hire since they are assumed to fill the role of the traditional “bread-winner.”
I know when quoted all together, the list seems kind of ridiculous and one’s first reaction is to say well I certainly don’t believe those things nor have I perpetuated those stereotypes. But, if you stop and honestly think about it for a moment aren’t you guilty of buying into these mindsets at least at some point in your life or in some circumstances? I know I am. And that makes me sad. Mostly because I would like to proclaim that I do not discriminate against women. I am a woman for heaven’s sake; I can’t also be guilty of the crime I sometimes suffer from. And yet I am. Often I know it is because I have been accustomed to thinking about things from a narrow perspective. We all fall into habits and systems of thinking and like an unconscious reflex we perpetuate these stereotypes.
In today’s world I believe this unconscious form of discrimination is more common than those who are wearing white hoods and calling down hell fire. Unconscious and unintentional discrimination is still discrimination. When asked if it was appropriate to attend lunch with a female colleague is appropriate, I think many LDS men would immediately answer no. This is not because they are intending to be discriminatory against women, but because they are buying into and subscribing to a system that they have been taught is right. However, does this not imply to me as your female colleague that I am not as trustworthy as a male colleague? You deprive me of an opportunity to build a meaningful relationship and influence you in a way that could potentially be beneficial for the both of us. Of course there is a level of appropriate behavior to maintain and there are things that are just stupid that one should avoid, but reconsidering this situation (which is just a small one) is something worth considering.
Alright, right about now you’re probably wondering how this all ties together. Well. Hopefully this makes sense: Discrimination is real. It’s often unconscious and unintentional but it exists. Dealing with discrimination is often a serious life struggle for many to overcome. So, by denying the validity of the existence of the problem or the seriousness of the problem, you are denying the life experience and possibly self-defining experience of another. Having a bake sale that seems to trivialize the importance of discrimination issues also seems to belittle those who are most affected by the issues. We should not ignore the plight of groups that have experiences outside of our own. Affirmative action attempts to combat discrimination perhaps just by forcing groups to interact with one another when they otherwise wouldn’t. For me personally, gender discrimination in personal and professional relationships has often defined the way I pursue goals and how I perceive myself. To be told by another that this problem isn’t really that serious anymore or to have it dismissed as a thing of the past is hurtful, almost and possibly as hurtful as the discrimination in the first place. We can never know or understand the experience of another.
So I guess to end this long and rambling thought process, I’ll simply say please reconsider and recognize and tackle discrimination head on, rather than trying to forget and make light of a situation that potentially is life-changing for others. I don’t think a cupcake war over public policy at Berkley is the best representation of the full scope of this problem. I know I’ve spoken rather definitively on some issues that many are likely to disagree with and I would encourage anyone to please comment below. I do not presume to have an exhaustive repository of information on this issue nor even much adequate experience to make myself an expert either. But, what I do know is that discrimination has shaped this country, it has shaped our past, it will shape our future, it shapes public policy, it shapes the make-up of society, and it has shaped me. Our country still has a long way to go, as do I, in understanding what discrimination really is and how we can truly overcome it.
