This is a reflection on a "proof-text" (quote) from The Practice of Ethics by LaFollette. The section it comes from is, Part two - Racism.
LaFollette speaks about reverse discrimination againsts dominant groups and their experiences of reverse discrimination as a source of expectations. He goes on to state:
“We could have a world in which the tables were turned: where blacks had systematically enslaved and mistreated whites for hundreds of years, where whites had been systematically excluded from power and wealth. In that world, discrimination against whites would be worse than discrimination against blacks. However, that is not our world, and knowing the nature of this world is critical to knowing how to behave. Sound moral judgments depend critically on knowledge of the relevant context, including knowledge of history, politics, economics, and psychology.” (p.72)
The academic year is winding down and the last thing I want to think about are the last few assignments before graduation. I have my move back home to plan, and my job search to spend time on, and the last thing I want to do is open another book. But luckily for me, every book I have opened for graduate school always manages to engage me. As I sat down to read “The Practice of Ethics”, I thought, "Geesh, another book on ethics", but soon I was reading and reading and reading. The book was filled with quotes like the one above. These quotes always rejuvenate me and feed my curiosity to continue my work as a social justice advocate.
The road to developing my identity as a social justice advocate has not been easy. I am learning to straddle the quite and naive person I was before and the person I am today to as not to lose who I am and my past experiences. I continue to lead with an open mind, engage in active dialogue and seek to understand.
The quote above takes me back to the time when a student at the University of Texas tried to pass a bill, or create a scholarship (I forget what it was) for white men only. He felt as it white men were at a disadvantage when it came to receiving aid, or something to that effect. While I understand the intent of his actions, what he failed to recognize is that the ‘disadvantage’ he felt was created by his own ‘people’. He was using this system of oppression that affects marginalized identities as a way to cover up the reality - that of oppression as opposed to reverse oppression. I have always been an individual that listens patiently to the other person before voicing my own opinions or providing a counter-response, and I often found myself speechless. I did not know how to support my own opinions, and I was afraid of getting my head bitten off, which I have seen happen countless of times. However, UVM-HESA has helped me find the appropriate tools to create “sound moral judgments” in my responses. I can walk out and join a conversation and voice my opinion by providing “relevant context, including […] history, politics, economics, and psychology”.
The other day I had an intense conversation with an old acquaintance from A&M regarding LGBTQA centers and other identity centers on universities. He argued how universities and colleges, especially state funded schools, did not need identity centers because all students, or people for that matter, are created equally (This conversation was spurred from an article about providing a 'traditional values' center on college campuses). Below is our conversation:
A&M: Strange. In a time when we are laying off teachers, we are proposing this? I am quite conservative, but mainly I object to wasting my money on anything. I would argue that the GLBT centers except in genuine study of Human Sexuality, are a waste of money, but the answer to wasting money isn't to waste more. Silly legislation.
Me: well, I would argue that GLBT centers are not about the study of human sexuality but more about a safe space for oppressed sexual identities and allies. If I were to say that I ever felt "uncomfortable" in a space where my heterosexual self was the minority, well, GLBT identified individuals have felt uncomfortable their entire lives. It’s like saying, if there are multicultural centers; well let’s have a white center. I think this whole idea of “traditional” values is ridiculous and yes, legislation is silly!
A&M: I see it quite differently. I see all people as individuals, not as members of groups. I know some people identify more with a group than as an individual, but to me the beauty in human beings is our uniqueness. There will always be places for people to group together. I am a Presbyterian, so I feel more comfortable being in a Presbyterian church. I can’t say that I feel uncomfortable being around those who are unlike me. The pressure to feel safe among one’s own kind could be lessened by the majority engaging in educating themselves so that fear doesn’t rule us. That will not happen in my lifetime, so I would appreciate it if University administrators were left alone to meet market demands without undue legislation. Sexuality, even in the majority heterosexual pops, is so widely varied that you couldn’t even say that we are even similar. I interact with my wife completely differently that man. Again, uniqueness is the rule, not the exception.
Me: Right, I agree in that university administrators should be left alone, but when you have ties with the state, its gets sticky. The only thing we can do as a university community is to provide the safest learning environment for all students. And some of us hold oppressed identities, including myself, where we turn to sage spaces such as an LGBT center or multicultural center to express ourselves, and until individuals learn to “engage by educating themselves”, communities will continue to need such centers. And yes, sad to say, it might not even happen in my lifetime as well.
A&M: I wouldn’t count on it.
A&M: A fascinating thought just crossed my mind though. I do not identify with being white, protestant or other category. In fact, I've never felt at ease with any people but my chosen family (the wife I married and the kids we made), and not even my biological relatives. Are we pursuing a phantom when we seek to feel accepted? Maybe I am weird.
Me: Well . . . in my experience when one holds a dominant identity you do not feel an affinity with those in that community because it’s not a salient identity you think of, I do not feel the need to be accepted by 'my' heterosexual counterparts because that’s a dominant trait I hold. However, when I am in a room and am the only woman or person of color, I seek out the women and people of color, and if there are none, I seek out allies . . . and that’s another discussion all in itself is it a phantom? I don’t know. I would say no. But then I would argue that it’s not even about feeling accepted, it’s about being understood.
While I did not throw in scholarly work, I was able to engage in a conversation I would have otherwise left alone. My responses were backed up and affirmed by my own work, and if he would have decided to throw in a response to the effect of “where does it say that, or what studies show that students need identity centers”, I know I would have thrown in some theory and well-known names. Conversations such as these serve as a dilemma for me because I can either choose to ignore them and let them be, or provide my own context as to why I am sharing the specific article. When I post an article I do not typically voice whether I am for or against the topic addressed. I am curious to see what individuals think, and perhaps play devil's advocate and create a learning moment out of it.
I received support from fellow social justice allies and it just felt intrinsically great to be able to state my opinion in my own words without seeming radical, nuts, or extreme as some people tend to view social justice allies. The following comment is from a friend in response to my conversation above:
Friend: Following Amanda Flores's heated convo on her wall. Cheering you on homegurl!!! Throw some petagogy of the oppressed in there too. He'll never know what hit him, just like his banking information. :)
While I did not throw in some pedagogy of the oppressed (because that calls for a whole other conversation on its own), it felt good knowing that others understood where I was coming from and listened to what I was saying. Because of the literature I have engaged with these past two years, I have become confident in articulating my thoughts. I am able to pick and choose my ethical battles. As a soon-to-be student affairs professional, how ethical would it have been for me NOT to respond to my friend’s comment? How ethical would have been to delete it? How ethical was it for me TO respond?
I like to think I did the right thing.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Monday, May 2, 2011
The Practice Ethics: Racism
LaFollette speaks about the reverse discrimination dominant groups experience as expectations and how these expectations can be viewed as discrimination. He goes on to state:
“We could have a world I which the tables were turned: where blacks had systematically enslaved and mistreated whites for hundreds of years, where whites had been systematically excluded from power and wealth. In that world, discrimination against whites would be worse than discrimination against blacks. However, that is not our world, and knowing the nature of this world is critical to knowing how to behave. Sound moral judgments depend critically on knowledge of the relevant context, including knowledge of history, politics, economics, and psychology.” (p.72)
The academic year is beginning to wind down and the last things I want to think about are the last few assignments before graduation. I have my move back home and my job search to think about and spend time on, and the last thing I want to do is open another book. But luckily for me, every book I have opened for graduate school always manages to engage me. As I sat down to read “The Practice of Ethics”, I read and read and read. Quotes like the one above rejuvenate me in continuing my work as a social justice advocate.
The road to developing my identity as a social justice advocate has not been easy. I am learning to straddle the person I was before and the person I am today to as not to lose who I am and my past experiences. I continue to lead with an open mind, engage in active dialogue and seek to understand. The quote above reminds me of the student who tried to pass a bill or create scholarships for white men only because he saw white men at a disadvantage in receiving aid, something to that effect. While I understand the intent of his actions or reasoning, what he failed to notice is that the ‘disadvantage’ was created by his own ‘people’. This system of oppression that affects marginalized identities is being used as a way to cover up the reality. It is being skewed by the dominant group when they bring in ‘reverse’ discrimination, oppression, etc. I have always been an individual that listens patiently to the other person before saying my own opinions, and often find myself speechless because I did not know how to support my own opinions, and hence why I was afraid of voicing my opinions. However, UVM-HESA has helped me find the appropriate tools to create “sound moral judgments”. Now I can walk out and join a conversation and voice my opinion by providing “relevant context, including […] history, politics, economics, and psychology”.
The other day I had an intense conversation with an old acquaintance from A&M regarding LGBTQA centers and other identity centers on universities. He argued that universities and colleges, especially state funded schools do not need any type of identity centers because all students, or people for that matter, are created equally (This was an article I shared on my profile to invoke conversation with friends). Below is our conversation:
A&M: Strange. In a time when we are laying off teachers, we are proposing this? I am quite conservative, but mainly I object to wasting my money on anything. I would argue that the GLBT centers except in genuine study of Human Sexuality, are a waste of money, but the answer to wasting money isn't to waste more. Silly legislation.
Me: well, I would argue that GLBT centers are not about the study of human sexuality but more about a safe space for oppressed sexual identities and allies. If I were to say that I ever felt "uncomfortable" in a space where my heterosexual self was the minority, well, GLBT identified individuals have felt uncomfortable their entire lives. It’s like saying, if there are multicultural centers; well let’s have a white center. I think this whole idea of “traditional” values is ridiculous and yes, legislation is silly!
A&M: I see it quite differently. I see all people as individuals, not as members of groups. I know some people identify more with a group than as an individual, but to me the beauty in human beings is our uniqueness. There will always be places for people to group together. I am a Presbyterian, so I feel more comfortable being in a Presbyterian church. I can’t say that I feel uncomfortable being around those who are unlike me. The pressure to feel safe among one’s own kind could be lessened by the majority engaging in educating themselves so that fear doesn’t rule us. That will not happen in my lifetime, so I would appreciate it if University administrators were left alone to meet market demands without undue legislation. Sexuality, even in the majority heterosexual pops, is so widely varied that you couldn’t even say that we are even similar. I interact with my wife completely differently that man. Again, uniqueness is the rule, not the exception.
Me: Right, I agree in that university administrators should be left alone, but when you have ties with the state, its gets sticky. The only thing we can do as a university community is to provide the safest learning environment for all students. And some of us hold oppressed identities, including myself, where we turn to sage spaces such as an LGBT center or multicultural center to express ourselves, and until individuals learn to “engage by educating themselves”, communities will continue to need such centers. And yes, sad to say, it might not even happen in my lifetime as well.
A&M: I wouldn’t count on it.
A&M: A fascinating thought just crossed my mind though. I do not identify with being white, protestant or other category. In fact, I've never felt at ease with any people but my chosen family (the wife I married and the kids we made), and not even my biological relatives. Are we pursuing a phantom when we seek to feel accepted? Maybe I am weird.
Me: Well . . . in my experience when one holds a dominant identity you do not feel an affinity with those in that community because it’s not a salient identity you think of, I do not feel the need to be accepted by 'my' heterosexual counterparts because that’s a dominant trait I hold. However, when I am in a room and am the only woman or person of color, I seek out the women and people of color, and if there are none, I seek out allies . . . and that’s another discussion all in itself is it a phantom? I don’t know. I would say no. But then I would argue that it’s not even about feeling accepted, it’s about being understood.
While I did not throw in scholarly work, I was able to engage in a conversation I would have otherwise left alone. My responses were backed up and affirmed by my own work, and if he would have decided to throw in a response to the effect of “where does it say that, or what studies show that students need identity centers”, I know I would have been able to do that, even throw in some rights movements, provide a historical context. Conversations such as these serve as a dilemma for me because I can either choose to ignore the first comment and let it be, or provide my own context as to why I am sharing the specific article. I got lots of support from fellow social justice allies and it just felt intrinsically great to be able to state my opinion in my own words without seeming radical, nuts, or extreme as some people tend to view social justice allies.
The following comment is from a friend:
Friend: Following Amanda Flores's heated convo on her wall. Cheering you on homegurl!!! Throw some petagogy of the oppressed in there too. He'll never know what hit him, just like his banking information. :)
While I did not throw in some pedagogy of the oppressed (because that calls for a whole other conversation on its own), I felt good knowing that others understood where I was coming from and understood what I was saying. Because of the literature I have engaged with these past two years, I have become confident in articulating my thoughts. I am able to pick and choose my ethical battles. As a soon to be student affairs professional, how ethical would it have been for me to NOT respond to my friend’s comment? How ethical would have been to delete it? How ethical was it for me to respond?
I like to think I did the right thing.
“We could have a world I which the tables were turned: where blacks had systematically enslaved and mistreated whites for hundreds of years, where whites had been systematically excluded from power and wealth. In that world, discrimination against whites would be worse than discrimination against blacks. However, that is not our world, and knowing the nature of this world is critical to knowing how to behave. Sound moral judgments depend critically on knowledge of the relevant context, including knowledge of history, politics, economics, and psychology.” (p.72)
The academic year is beginning to wind down and the last things I want to think about are the last few assignments before graduation. I have my move back home and my job search to think about and spend time on, and the last thing I want to do is open another book. But luckily for me, every book I have opened for graduate school always manages to engage me. As I sat down to read “The Practice of Ethics”, I read and read and read. Quotes like the one above rejuvenate me in continuing my work as a social justice advocate.
The road to developing my identity as a social justice advocate has not been easy. I am learning to straddle the person I was before and the person I am today to as not to lose who I am and my past experiences. I continue to lead with an open mind, engage in active dialogue and seek to understand. The quote above reminds me of the student who tried to pass a bill or create scholarships for white men only because he saw white men at a disadvantage in receiving aid, something to that effect. While I understand the intent of his actions or reasoning, what he failed to notice is that the ‘disadvantage’ was created by his own ‘people’. This system of oppression that affects marginalized identities is being used as a way to cover up the reality. It is being skewed by the dominant group when they bring in ‘reverse’ discrimination, oppression, etc. I have always been an individual that listens patiently to the other person before saying my own opinions, and often find myself speechless because I did not know how to support my own opinions, and hence why I was afraid of voicing my opinions. However, UVM-HESA has helped me find the appropriate tools to create “sound moral judgments”. Now I can walk out and join a conversation and voice my opinion by providing “relevant context, including […] history, politics, economics, and psychology”.
The other day I had an intense conversation with an old acquaintance from A&M regarding LGBTQA centers and other identity centers on universities. He argued that universities and colleges, especially state funded schools do not need any type of identity centers because all students, or people for that matter, are created equally (This was an article I shared on my profile to invoke conversation with friends). Below is our conversation:
A&M: Strange. In a time when we are laying off teachers, we are proposing this? I am quite conservative, but mainly I object to wasting my money on anything. I would argue that the GLBT centers except in genuine study of Human Sexuality, are a waste of money, but the answer to wasting money isn't to waste more. Silly legislation.
Me: well, I would argue that GLBT centers are not about the study of human sexuality but more about a safe space for oppressed sexual identities and allies. If I were to say that I ever felt "uncomfortable" in a space where my heterosexual self was the minority, well, GLBT identified individuals have felt uncomfortable their entire lives. It’s like saying, if there are multicultural centers; well let’s have a white center. I think this whole idea of “traditional” values is ridiculous and yes, legislation is silly!
A&M: I see it quite differently. I see all people as individuals, not as members of groups. I know some people identify more with a group than as an individual, but to me the beauty in human beings is our uniqueness. There will always be places for people to group together. I am a Presbyterian, so I feel more comfortable being in a Presbyterian church. I can’t say that I feel uncomfortable being around those who are unlike me. The pressure to feel safe among one’s own kind could be lessened by the majority engaging in educating themselves so that fear doesn’t rule us. That will not happen in my lifetime, so I would appreciate it if University administrators were left alone to meet market demands without undue legislation. Sexuality, even in the majority heterosexual pops, is so widely varied that you couldn’t even say that we are even similar. I interact with my wife completely differently that man. Again, uniqueness is the rule, not the exception.
Me: Right, I agree in that university administrators should be left alone, but when you have ties with the state, its gets sticky. The only thing we can do as a university community is to provide the safest learning environment for all students. And some of us hold oppressed identities, including myself, where we turn to sage spaces such as an LGBT center or multicultural center to express ourselves, and until individuals learn to “engage by educating themselves”, communities will continue to need such centers. And yes, sad to say, it might not even happen in my lifetime as well.
A&M: I wouldn’t count on it.
A&M: A fascinating thought just crossed my mind though. I do not identify with being white, protestant or other category. In fact, I've never felt at ease with any people but my chosen family (the wife I married and the kids we made), and not even my biological relatives. Are we pursuing a phantom when we seek to feel accepted? Maybe I am weird.
Me: Well . . . in my experience when one holds a dominant identity you do not feel an affinity with those in that community because it’s not a salient identity you think of, I do not feel the need to be accepted by 'my' heterosexual counterparts because that’s a dominant trait I hold. However, when I am in a room and am the only woman or person of color, I seek out the women and people of color, and if there are none, I seek out allies . . . and that’s another discussion all in itself is it a phantom? I don’t know. I would say no. But then I would argue that it’s not even about feeling accepted, it’s about being understood.
While I did not throw in scholarly work, I was able to engage in a conversation I would have otherwise left alone. My responses were backed up and affirmed by my own work, and if he would have decided to throw in a response to the effect of “where does it say that, or what studies show that students need identity centers”, I know I would have been able to do that, even throw in some rights movements, provide a historical context. Conversations such as these serve as a dilemma for me because I can either choose to ignore the first comment and let it be, or provide my own context as to why I am sharing the specific article. I got lots of support from fellow social justice allies and it just felt intrinsically great to be able to state my opinion in my own words without seeming radical, nuts, or extreme as some people tend to view social justice allies.
The following comment is from a friend:
Friend: Following Amanda Flores's heated convo on her wall. Cheering you on homegurl!!! Throw some petagogy of the oppressed in there too. He'll never know what hit him, just like his banking information. :)
While I did not throw in some pedagogy of the oppressed (because that calls for a whole other conversation on its own), I felt good knowing that others understood where I was coming from and understood what I was saying. Because of the literature I have engaged with these past two years, I have become confident in articulating my thoughts. I am able to pick and choose my ethical battles. As a soon to be student affairs professional, how ethical would it have been for me to NOT respond to my friend’s comment? How ethical would have been to delete it? How ethical was it for me to respond?
I like to think I did the right thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)