<p>Way to evade my question, alh ;)</p>
<p>This thread leads me to ask: is it ever possible to have a valid opinion and expertise about anything you have not or cannot experience? For example, are only those people who have been on welfare allowed to have an opinion about it? Can a male ob-gyn ever be considered an expert on pregnancy and childbirth?</p>
<p>I think the answer is yes. And that all opinions from all perspectives are valid and relevant. Which is why the “check your privilege” shut down is unhelpful because it invalidates a perspective, and in this case, one that is judged solely on appearance. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is possible to have opinions. </p>
<p>However, It’s not always possible others will politely remain silent when they strongly disagree…especially if they’re not the type to suffer fools gladly. </p>
<p>That’s not to say one cannot feel having the comment “Check your privilege” was unjustified and an attack on oneself. </p>
<p>However, there are more effective ways to rebut this than writing an essay which seems more like an exhibition of one’s retention of SAT vocab and glaringly ignoring the fact one’s father received a substantial government subsidy during his college years in the midst of discussing how everything he has is from “hard work”. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When taken to uncritical extremes, that very mentality is exactly what works like “Idiocracy” were satirizing. </p>
<p>“when someone says “check your privilege”, what they mean is embrace and admit that you have preconceived notions and a specific world perspective, and to set those aside for a second and just listen.”</p>
<p>And there is inherent arrogance in that statement - that the speaker alone is somehow magically able to transcend his / her specific world perspective, but the person to whom the statement was directed cannot (or at least cannot without significant prompting). I think that’s obnoxious.</p>
<p>It also places a wall between people.
If the object is improving communication, that statement is attempting to shut it down or at least imply that some of us are more deserving of being heard.</p>
<p>When people bristle at the “check your privilege” reprimand, it’s often because they perceive that they’re not being engaged as individuals, but rather as a demographic whose parameters are easily drawn by a handful of convenient descriptors, ie., you’re “white” and “male”, so OF COURSE you’re never been subjected to XYZ treatment. Nobody likes being depersonalized, or worse, dehumanized. Interestingly though, the purportedly “privileged” may have said something indicating that he too, is guilty of depersonalizing his rhetorical opponent, the result being that they simply talk past one another, never attempting to encounter each other as individuals whose lives possibly vary from a demographic model.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The first thing I thought of when I read the above quote is the anger and discouragement minority applicants with exemplary grades, test scores and extra-curriculars often feel when their college acceptances are summarily dismissed as having been a result of Affirmative Action. Their achievements mean nothing. Their struggles mean nothing. Their individual circumstances are irrelevant. They are reduced to a handful of convenient demographic descriptors whose sole purpose is to bolster a condemnatory argument. It’s just as insulting and dismissive as the “It’s a black thing: You wouldn’t understand” saying you use to see years ago on some tee shirts (…I hated those tee shirts). </p>
<p>Everyone brings their own experiences and perspectives to a discussion/argument. It’s true that aspects of everyone’s life fit within the parameters of one of more demographic boxes. Problems arise when we assume that “the other’s” life can be distilled to a simple formula that explains everything about them. The irony is in how we bristle at having been made facile in someone else’s eyes, even as we do the exact same thing to them. The shame is in the fact that we don’t even seem to notice ourselves doing it.</p>
<p><a href=“http://ted.coe.wayne.edu/ele3600/mcintosh.html”>http://ted.coe.wayne.edu/ele3600/mcintosh.html</a></p>
<p>Imho, it boils down to whether or not you think “white privilege” even exists. Whether it is minimized or maximized, applied on a macro or mico level, does it exist? If so, then who are the recipients? Can you be white and not be a beneficiary of that privilege? If not, then does history have no bearing on our lives today? Can you be a tree with no roots? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, it is entirely possible that the net effect of “white privilege” (a better term would be “non-white tax”) is that it is costly to non-white people, but produces no gain (perhaps even a loss) to white people in a macro sense (though specific white individuals may gain something in a local sense). I.e. a “tax” is taken from non-white people, but the revenue is thrown away or wasted so that there is no benefit overall.</p>
<p>The problem, I think isn’t with the concept of privilege, which the writer of the article does seems to be (willfully) misunderstanding. I think the problem is with the term, which has become loaded, and the way in which it is often used. If people would talk around the phrase instead of resorting to pat formulations, these conversations might go a lot better.</p>
<p>I’ll use a deliberately non-loaded example. One of the major conferences in my field is scheduled to be held next year in a popular vacation area. It won’t wind up being exponentially more expensive than this year’s conference, but the difference is significant enough to be legitimately burdensome for graduate students and many non-tenure-track faculty. Suppose a tenured professor said to me, at this year’s conference, which was held in a far less desirable locale, “Wow, is it nasty out today! I can’t wait for next year - sunny tropical paradise, here I come”!</p>
<p>If I responded with “Check your privilege,” that would immediately put the professor on the defensive - and be, IMO, pretty rude on my part. The initial statement might have been, in context, a little tin-eared, but I can hardly expect every person to be so intensely self-conscious about every interaction that they’re never going to (or shouldn’t) come out with an unfiltered thought. The professor has every reason to be excited about next year’s conference, which, as I’ve already said, does not represent such an overwhelming economic barrier that I would expect her to have automatically thought of it. </p>
<p>Far better, I think, would be to say something like, “It’s a great location, but I’m not sure if I"ll be able to go - it does make it expensive for the graduate students.” That broadens her perspective to include that of a relatively less economically secure group, but doesn’t put the onus on her to have anticipated my point of view. The inability of any individual to independently account for every perspective is precisely why it is important to add more voices to the conversation.</p>
<p>In addition, however I phrased the objection, invoking “privilege” wouldn’t automatically suggest that my implied position that the conference should have been held elsewhere is the correct one. Most of the major associations in my field do have some graduate student reps precisely so that they can raise these kinds of issues - but even after listening to their concerns, one might be able to make a reasonable argument that other factors outweighed that of cost. For instance, maybe in recent years, the conference has found it really difficult to attract anyone other than beginning scholars looking for a resume build because tenured profs weren’t bothering to make the trek out to, say, Detroit in February. An alternative perspective isn’t always a winning perspective. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/between-the-lines/201202/ten-things-everyone-should-know-about-white-privilege-today”>http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/between-the-lines/201202/ten-things-everyone-should-know-about-white-privilege-today</a></p>
<p>If all are not “taxed” then one population has the privilege of not being “taxed”. That does not change the argument.</p>
<p>Slymlady, I think there is such a thing as white privilege in a broad social sense, but that its application is becoming more situational and subject to caveat than many people acknowledge. The same is true of male privilege. In certain circumstances, there is black privilege, Asian or Latin privilege, and female privilege as well. These are, however, still much more situationally restricted than either white or male privilege. </p>
<p>It seems axiomatic to me, that the various privileges have everything to do with history, and the social constructions that arise from it. Nothing societal occurs in a vacuum. Beliefs and assumptions are steeped in the events that precede them, and are passed down from generation to generation. They are only adulterated over time as other events (ie., movements, revolutions, ideologies, etc.) influence subsequent generations. I sometimes encounter in conversation individuals who seem to subscribed to the Etch-A-Sketch theory of social change. It holds that the influence of established financial, social and political institutions can be wiped clean from the collective zeitgeist with the stroke of a pen, the passing of a law, or electoral precedence. It’s been my observation that this form of thinking is often primarily self-serving, and highly disingenuous. :-/ </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, there is a rhetorical difference. Calling it “white privilege” implies that white people have something to lose by eliminating racism, while calling it “non-white tax” implies that white people would not lose anything (and may actually gain something) by eliminating racism.</p>
<p>Of course, beyond rhetorical differences, there is also the likelihood that a non-zero-sum outcome of eliminating racism would be that everyone (including white people) are better off (although non-white people would gain more than what white people would gain).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well-said.</p>
<p>I got to say I am much more intrigued by some of the anger from posters on this thread than I am by the essay of the student. I think we could write a book about the intensity of the responses to this one student’s opinion about the relative advantage of white male privilege.</p>
<p>What is extremely ironic about this entire topic is that white males or males in general are lagging their female counterparts in some very important areas related to K-12 educational outcomes and college/graduate school enrollments. They are also far more likely to be diagnosed with learning disabilities, medicated for ADHD and to have far more encounters with the juvenile justice system. Male privilege is a historic relic which fits a narrative of a bygone era on which many posters are still fixated. </p>
<p>^Not to mention that if you are a wealthy, white middle-aged male CEO or in the finance industry, you are probably the most hated man in America right now, especially if you also happen to own a gun. </p>
<p>Fortgang’s essay is part of the reason you can count me among the camp that believes we should spend less time discussing privilege. It’s not that it’s not a useful concept. There are clear and present advantages to being born and continuing to be recognized as a (cisgender heterosexual) white man in America. But the discussion has its limitations.</p>
<p>When people with privilege hear that they have privilege, what they hear is not, “Our society is structured so that your life is more valued than others.” They hear, “Everything, no matter what, will be handed to you. You have done nothing to achieve what you have.” That’s not strictly true, and hardly anyone who points out another’s privilege is making that accusation. There are privileged people who work very hard. The privilege they experience is the absence of barriers that exist for other people.</p>
<p>If a discussion about privilege serves any purpose, it is so that the privileged recognize their own and are then compelled to work to dismantle the structures that have bestowed privilege upon them. In order to do so, one would have to recognize the call to “check your privilege” as less of a personal attack, because it is not. It’s a wake-up call to action.</p>
<p><a href=“http://m.thenation.com/blog/179675-no-one-cares-if-you-never-apologize-your-white-male-privilege”>http://m.thenation.com/blog/179675-no-one-cares-if-you-never-apologize-your-white-male-privilege</a></p>
<p>A racial insult is a personal attack if the recipient thinks it is. Fortgang thinks “check your privilege” is, so his point of view should be respected. If anyone has a more subtle point to make, it is up to them to choose more appropriate ways of expressing themselves so that every student at Princeton, even Fortgang, can feel respected.</p>
<p>It sounds like affirmative action isnt working if barriers are still so onerous.
What else to do?</p>