Whether it is an article about an Oberlin student, a secretly taped physician at Planned Parenthood, or Mitt Romney speaking to a group of donors, I want to know what has been left out before making a judgment. The title of the Atlantic article is “The Rise of Victimhood Culture” and the writer uses this single student as the primary example of this rise, yet leaves out the key fact that she organized the event that precipitated these exchanges and that this accounts for at least part of her anger.
Why is it important to recognize that there is a backstory in this instance? Because articles such as this lead to opinions like this: “There is now no acceptable way for white people to behave that is approved by the self-proclaimed victims.” One college student’s over the top response, made in anger, now affects a person’s view of some immigrants in an adverse way, thanks to a journalist who chose to leave something out in order to make a point seem more powerful.
For the record, in the past two weeks I’ve asked four people where they are from based on accent. This occurred in the grocery store and at a tailor shop. They were from Honduras, El Salvador, Nigeria and Germany. I’ve told two people with name tags that they had really beautiful names–both from Africa. In each instance this opened the door to a brief conversation that each person seemed very happy to engage in. One person missed his family terribly and seemed to be grateful to be able to say that to a stranger. The vast majority of people want an opportunity to tell their stories. They just don’t want to be judged.
It all comes down to respect, affect, and genuine interest. It takes a little practice. If a “self-proclaimed victim” shrugs me off occasionally, it’s their right. But it won’t stop me from talking to interesting people.
MidwestDad3 - your first paragraph makes a great point. I was thinking about this whole situation and it struck me that the fundamental issue is that someone piggybacked on the event announcement to promote something else. What if the piggyback had promoted a frat party [example deliberately chosen due to strong opinions here]?
I think what we are dealing with for the initial trigger to this whole thing is a basic jerk.
Mamalion if you were in the library with this boy and saw him reading a book and your comment was you must be a good athlete, then yes that would be aggressive. The example you gave was that he was skating and did well. Saying he was a good athlete at that point (or a good skater which maybe you had already said) would not be out of context or even remotely suggesting that was all he was good at.
Many URMs at elite schools have to deal with those who believe they only got in because of their race or, in some cases, athletic ability. I could see how comments that elude to that would be micro-aggression. Many times it is meant to remind the person what others are thinking, but could be inadvertent. Certainly that assumption needs to change.
The Atlantic article made it sound like this blog at Oberlin was active and that people were constantly pointing out microagression. This seems like an isolated incident and that her real anger was over the way the boys played soccer, not the use of a particular term.
^Yes. However, the author of this article was afraid to assign any blame whatsoever to the individuals (I wonder why? Worried about being called a racist? ), and chose instead to blame the problem on victim culture. Did any Oberlin students call out the girl for over-blowing a minor slight? When it’s the culture that’s responsible, then the individuals are not responsible and then no one is forced to consider the legitimacy of his or her claims and actions.
And for the record, regardless of what the backstory is, the only respectful way to deal with an interpersonal problem is privately, one on one–especially when it’s a matter of words.
There was no piggybacking. This was the normal night for intramural soccer. The guy knew his teammate was Hispanic, although he seemed to be unaware she had organized the speaking event, so he wrote her an email telling her their shared soccer team would be playing as usual in case she decided not to attend the event.
My mistake then. I thought there was a broadcast announcement that was responded to with the futbol announcement. If this was direct communication between two people that already knew each other, this whole thing is childish.
I’d like to take a shot at this question. Speaking is a normal activity. If somebody is praised for being “articulate” after a normal conversation, or asking a question in class, or the like, it seems strange, and if it happens frequently to a black person, then I think it’s natural to hear “for a black guy.” If the black guy gives a great speech, why wouldn’t you just say, “That was a great speech–you are very eloquent.” Why would you say that the person is “articulate?”
Some of you may remember Barbara Jordan. People were almost stupefied by her speaking ability–I don’t believe for one second that it would have gotten the same kind of attention if she had been white.
Dancing is a somewhat less normal activity. Would anybody really hear that “for a white person” in such a comment, without more? I do think a white person might hear that parenthetical if he goes down to the park and shoots hoops with a bunch of black guys who say, “Hey, this dude can jump!” Is that a micro-aggression? I wouldn’t take it as one–although it does connect to a stereotype that white guys can’t jump.
But I also think there is a qualitative difference between put-downs of the out-group by the in-group and the reverse. It’s not always easy to identify the in-group, but sometimes it is.
@MidwestDad3 “Whether it is an article about an Oberlin student, a secretly taped physician at Planned Parenthood, or Mitt Romney speaking to a group of donors, I want to know what has been left out before making a judgment.”
So it’s all part of the great Right-wing Conspiracy. So happy we cleared that up. Please.
Are white people ever permitted to be labeled as the out group, even if they are, or does their “white privilege” invalidate all slights and insults against them? I ask because we have been in situations where we have been the out group, and I noticed no sensitivity to that fact. When my D was racing youth track–a predominantly African American activity in our region–all the track fans near me called out to D’s competitors “Beat the white girl!” Imagine the reaction if I had yelled to my D “Beat the black girl!”
Similarly, our high school has become just like the one discussed upthread in which Caucasians are stereotyped as being the dumb, lazy students. In fact, despite having all the qualifications for honors English (including the second highest language and math achievement test scores in her middle school), D was excluded from honors English and social studies placement in high school because they thought she’d be “too busy with sports.” In our high school, Caucasians make up 65% of the school population, yet in D’s AP and honors classes she is often the only non-Asian and there are never more than 4 non-Asians out of 25-30 students in the class. So can white people claim institutional discrimination, or is it OK for the school to claim Caucasians simply aren’t qualified? When the shoe is on another foot, there is outrage. But no one in our district is sounding any alarms.
I really think that most of the dialogue concerning micro aggression should be between the parties involved. If I’ve said something to offend an individual they should tell me. I will make the determination whether or not they are merely being thin skinned, mistook what I was saying or perhaps whether or not I really did have a prejudice. It would create dialogue and likely be educational for both of us. I think taking this kind of thing public without first dealing with it directly is ultimately going to have the affect of dividing people and stifling conversation. People will simply stop talking because they really don’t know what might trigger offense in others. Ad hypersensitivity to today’s instant media and you have a recipe for people choosing to check out of the conversation not the other way around. Even worse would be rules or laws designed to modify speech or behavior concerning such perceived slights. We would be drifting towards a world that looks much like “1984”. I get the impression that many in the microaggression crowd would like to see this happen
It’s disingenuous to not acknowledge that a disproportionate number of black students are recruited for athletics. After all, at UNC Chapelhill it wasn’t a European History department that was committing fraud to enable white football players to maintain their playing eligibility.
Overseas, people don’t tiptoe around the OBVIOUS fact that people are of different races/sexes.
I’m a white person, so I feel I can say this: did you ever notice that when a group that is used to winning all the time starts to lose occasionally, that the rules need to change?
However, it is true that, in the US, white people are much less likely to be an out-group than non-white people are. So the experience of being in an out-group is much more common for most non-white people than for most white people.
Justice is justice, and we need to protect all members of the society regardless of the strength of their current social position. After all, the future is unknown and therefore today’s winners are tomorrow’s losers (if you want to make it about winning and losing, Hunt, which I really don’t)–especially if the society sanctions the kind of minority outrage spewed toward this young man who is probably just a busy college student who didn’t keep up with the personal lives of all his acquaintances enough to know the girl was an organizer of the Hispanic event. He’s the loser in this, but it’s not because he had too much privilege and abused it, but rather because PC mania has made it impossible to call out a minority for bad behavior so by default he must be to blame.
It is shortsighted to only care about injustices to the non-dominant group. Not to suggest any of this is even remotely at the level of the Holocaust or other serious oppression in world history, but I think Neimoller’s principle is important: He said,
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
