<p>What I am trying to point out is that on one hand you say privilege exists and on the other hand you say get over it and proceed to point out someone who is even more disadvantaged. Does the degree of disadvantage negate the disadvantage of the first person. Do I think my son is privileged to attend one of the finest universities in the US? Absolutely. It is cheaper for him to attend his university than our local state school. That doesn’t negate the fact that there are many people on campus who lead a very privileged lifestyle, some of whom may be unaware of the hardships faced by students on campus who are not so fortunate as they. While I agree that the phrase ‘check your privilege’ is a phrase that is probably only going to garner antipathy, if no one says anything, how does anyone learn anything from the diverse group of people around them? I found the young man who wrote the Princeton article to be the perfect example of someone who needs a reality check. </p>
<p>I also agree that PC has gone too far. However, throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, isn’t going to make it any better for the situations that truly do need addressing. </p>
<p>I have given several examples and I want to tie them together by reiterating that having privilege is not a problem. People are not trying to say you shouldn’t be educated or have money or move freely and safely through the world or be a man. However, understanding of the lens of privilege becomes really important when people are making policy (school, government, healthcare, company, other) and in positions of power and ostensibly are trying to make effective change or make a system run more smoothly or just make the world a better place. If we are not alive to some of the variations of experience and circumstances we are unlikely to choose the best approaches and solutions. </p>
<p>How do you know this? Or why do you assume they are unaware? Why is it acceptable to make these types of assumptions about them (as actingmt said, that some privileged people are “idiots”)? </p>
<p>As for Fortgang, what exactly did he say that makes you conclude that he is “the perfect example of someone who needs a reality check?”</p>
<p>Has it been asserted that information about the variations of experience and circumstances are being denied to the students of Princeton? I didn’t see that. What I saw was that a white male should shut up about his opinion, because he is privileged.</p>
<p>“Privilege and discriminatory ignorance go hand in hand. Thats the whole point.”</p>
<p>And I think we have a winner of the most incorrect statement on this thread.</p>
<p>I think that nails it, and perhaps that is the salient point that many are disagreeing with here. Purely because people are privileged in some way absolutely does not mean they are filled with discriminatory ignorance. As my dad eloquently puts it (actually, this is eloquent for him, being from the unprivileged lower class), “I don’t need to eat crap to know it tastes bad.”</p>
<p>In my opinion, the people who have the highest level of discriminatory ignorance are not those of privilege. To be honest, you are often looking at the least educated, lowest income individuals who are highly discriminatory. A generalization of course, but this thread seems to be mostly about generalizations.</p>
<p>Nobody said that! It’s the other way around. Being filled with discriminatory ignorance usually means that someone is privileged, but not the converse. You can be privileged and not be ignorant, but discriminatory ignorance usually implies that the person doesn’t know about some issue because they haven’t experienced it themselves.</p>
<p>Let me give an example that I talked about upthread. Not having any mobility problems, I ignorantly assumed that a certain restaurant was accessible to people in wheelchairs. I was ignorant because I was privileged in that I don’t use a wheelchair. If I did use a wheelchair, that happy ignorance would not be available to me. I would necessarily be familiar with the problems people in wheelchairs face because I would have experienced them myself. </p>
<p>You can be privileged and not ignorant, or privileged and ignorant.</p>
<p>@flossy The concept of privilege isn’t about having minorities struggle through life. It’s about living in a world that is catered towards people who are white and have other privileges like ring able bodied or straight or Christian or right handed. The fact that you can’t see this shows that you are blind to your privilege. Obviously nude shoes can’t exactly match someone’s Skintone, but more often than not, they are made with Caucasians in mind. Which is why they are so light. Nude colored or nude shoes never have a dark color. Ever. The same thing applies to band aids which were designed to blend in with skin. The skin of who? The skin of Caucasians. See through your privilege and CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE.</p>
<p>@jym626 It is meant to give the appearance of showing skin without being revealing. The skin of who? The skin of Caucasians. That’s the entire point. The mesh dancers wear looks ridiculous on people with darker skin and fits perfectly on who? Do I have to continue to spell it out?</p>
<p>We should all take this quiz. I’m not gonna lie and pretend that I didn’t have a very high score. I got a 66/100. But that doesn’t make me ignorant the the struggles other people face</p>
<p>Saintfan, I agree that understanding the lens of privilege is important for policy-makers. The problem is that it would seem, according to your reasoning, that any person making a decision affecting groups of which he is not a member is by definition suspect unless his views on a particular issue align precisely with those of the minority or otherwise disadvantaged group. </p>
<p>This is not a tenable position, because people are always going to be governing, or teaching, or judging a wide variety of people, not all of whom will be from the same racial, gender, or socioeconomic group as they themselves are. Even in a perfectly proportional society, this also means that members of minority groups in particular are usually going to be governed, taught, and judged by those outside of their group. I’m not willing to concede that no white man can ever treat a minority or woman fairly or effectively in those contexts. </p>
<p>What you and others seem to be advocating is scenario - again, not a tenable one - where people of a particular group get sole authority to determine policy matters affecting that group. This sounds OK, until you consider that most decisions that affect that group will also have some effect on the rest of society as well. I don’t think a world in which the poor make decisions about welfare, immigrants set the policy on immigration reform, young black men create the drug laws, the disabled decide on what accommodations should be required, etc would lead to an improved and more just society. It would lead to tyranny by the minority.</p>
<p>The best we can do, it seems to me, is to include the voices of the minority in the conversation and work toward a society with a diverse group of leaders, educators, and law-makers, although, as I said before, this would STILL be a world in which certain groups would be a distinct minority. We’re not totally there yet, but we are making some progress - and, ironically, the places in which that progress has been perhaps the most rapid are precisely the settings in which cries of “privilege” often fly the freest. In the meantime, let’s not dismiss anyone’s perspective because of where they come from. Adding another voice doesn’t mean shouting the first speaker down and implying that his perspective - but not your own - can never be anything other than blinkered and ignorant. </p>
<p>I got a higher score too. That doesn’t make me ignorant, but it does mean that I have the privilege to not know first-hand what difficulties people who are not as lucky as me face. I have the luxury not to know about these issues if I don’t choose to learn about them.</p>
Personally, I wouldn’t say this to Fortgang the first time I heard him make such a statement. But I might say it to him if he showed a pattern of making statements like this without backing them up with anything other than an uninformed opinion. This is what annoys me about this whole thing–the idea that Fortgang was shut down or silenced. I just don’t think he’s that kind of guy. I think anybody who said this to him had been in extended discussions with him. He whole argument shows that he doesn’t really get the idea of white privilege (and wealth privilege), even though surely it must have been explained to him.</p>
<p>Note: if the issue was whether people on welfare should be working, I think the relevant privilege is more likely to be wealth than race or gender.</p>
<p>Then I assume you would also say it to the black woman who repetitively made the same statement and couldn’t “back it up” with anything other than an “uninformed opinion?”</p>
<p>I am a pretty active community volunteer, working with non religous organizations, mostly environmental.
Some of the most polluted areas of my county are where those who are lower middle class or low income live.
( including my own area). Generally it often means neighborhoods of those of color.
Generally it also means that those working to clean up those areas are not of color, although we need more help.
A lot more help.
I have not always been middle income, but I have always volunteered in my community.
But it is very frustrating when everyone looks like me, whether it is at a parent meeting of an all city school held in an African American neighborhood in an attempt for more participation, tutoring students in an inner city school or cleaning up a toxic river that many families fish out of for their dinner.
Community service cant just be a Caucasian value if we are going to build a safe healthy community for everyone.</p>
<p>@apprenticeprof . . . not at all. An example: I am going to make a giant assumption that people can agree that it’s good if all children are vaccinated. If anyone at all is in charge of policy around health care delivery and has that goal they might want to know how best to achieve that. I know and accept and am not faulting that many people believe that insurance is for catastrophic events not day to day stuff. That is a totally valid philosophy. I have heard it follow that given the nature of insurance as designed for catastrophic events health insurance should not cover preventative care - that should be paid out of pocket. The assumption there is that paying $120 or whatever it is for a well baby check up plus the cost of vaccinations is an easily absorbed amount in people’s budgets (I am putting aside the if you can’t afford them don’t have them argument in this case). However, many kids are likely not to get their well baby checks and stay current on their vaccinations due to cost is they are weighing the cost outlay in that moment. If they put off preventative care out of cost considerations they may be setting themselves up for higher, truly catastrophic costs later. </p>
<p>In this case the “lens of privilege” is looking at the incremental cost of the visit and vaccination as being negligible. If the goal is total vaccination - even if you have a philosophy about the nature of insurance being for unplanned, catastrophic events -would it not result in a plan that better meets your goal if you are able to consider it from another angle and look at the impediments to achieving that even if they aren’t ideal in your eyes? The state of Texas took this approach RE the HPV vaccine against standard state philosophy and much to the dismay of many and cheers of others.</p>
<p>No place did I say that only people of that group can make policy or be considered as “stakeholders” or can have valid viewpoints or “sole authority”. That is pure crazy talk. I have said exactly that given the nature of who tends to hold positions of power, awareness and openness to experiences not their own will improve their effectiveness.</p>
<p>“That doesn’t negate the fact that there are many people on campus who lead a very privileged lifestyle, some of whom may be unaware of the hardships faced by students on campus who are not so fortunate as they”</p>
<p>And people who have experienced hardships also don’t always realize that the so-called “privileged” people they are deriding may have suffered hardship in their own way - just not necessarily with respect to socioecon status. That’s what’s galling. You could be calling Richie McRich privileged because he’s white and affluent and for all you know Richie was beaten senseless every night by his alcoholic father. Oh, but he’s “privileged” because he doesn’t have to worry that storekeepers won’t wait on him. Please. Everyone has crosses to bear. EVERYONE. “Check your privilege” is a statement that works under the assumption that if you are white and higher SES your life is just la-di-da bed of roses perfect. THAT is ignorant. </p>
<p>" Privileged youth tend to live in homogeneous environments where most of the young people are as privileged as you. That doesn’t mean that you don’t work hard and don’t merit whatever assets/bonuses/lifestyle that you have. However, when you get out into the real world, and let’s face it college is not the real world, you should be able to recognize and acknowledge that you are privileged. I cringe when I think about how clueless I was to the realities of life when I was younger."</p>
<p>What makes you think that people who are more well-off don’t know this? My kids are MORE than aware that they’re very lucky to come from an intact, upper middle class, no alcoholism/drug/abuse issues, enough money to be full-pay and parents who value education, blah de blah blah blah. Why would you think they wouldn’t know that? But are they required to mention that all the livelong day not to be tagged as “privileged”?</p>