The reasons those mindsets are “not good enough” is because each preserves the status quo. And the status quo is not level.
Exposing folks to privilege is always a good thing We had a 3 day session at work on diversity issues. As a straight white male, it wasn’t always comfortable but it was important to do. It definitely changed how I view things and think about interactions
We are not white, but very economically privileged. I remind my children all the time how lucky they are and how accomplished their peers are who arrive at the same place without the same privileges. Having been on the other side of the tracks, I"m frankly glad my kids recognize the privilege they have. It wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if the college they attended reminded them too. Maybe it will inspire them to accomplish more since they have more.
To those of you who favor these kinds of exercises, I have a question: Do you want to be right, or do you want to actually reach people?
Do white people have “privileges” that non-white people don’t? Yes, of course. All things being equal, it is easier to be white than to be black.
The problem is that all things are almost never equal, which is how you get to the absurdity of calling out a miner’s kid from Appalachia or someone’s Holocaust-survivor grandparents for “white privilege.” And yes, I get that the miner’s kid and the Holocaust survivor do still have white privilege – but the idea that either of these people need to be educated in that privilege, possibly by a middle-class black student at an elite college, is frankly offensive. More to the point, perhaps, it isn’t likely to resonate for them, and not just because they are intransigent and unwilling to own up to the past, but because as much as the concept of privilege might theoretically acknowledge other types of struggle, it is almost always invoked in terms of a few specific identifiers that don’t encompass the complexity of actual, individual human experience.
By all means, we should discuss diversity, and make sure students know that not everyone’s experiences of this country are equal. But it seems to me that starting out by immediately putting people on the defensive over characteristics beyond their control is the wrong way to do that, and unnecessary, to boot. A person can understand inequities in this country, acknowledge a history of discrimination, and be willing to fight existing evils – or be taught to know and do these things – without being made first to undergo divisive exercises in self-flagellation.
Why would the student feel embarrassed? The fact that emotions were felt is an indicator. That the school did something that challenged the parents’ views is fantastic given that the OP felt outraged by it (if it were trivial to them it would not have merited mention here).
Physical harm is different than saying words that can be dismissed as not worth bothering with. Embarrassment may come from awareness of how one has behaved…
This leads me to another issue. Why do parents choose private schools, certain school districts et al if everyone is the same? Why not work to make sure everyone in the community benefits from your wealth? Why not pay higher taxes (at local, state or national levels) so others can have your advantages? Why bother wanting name brands when lesser goods suffice? I am reminded of that play/movie question- “Why can’t a woman be like a man?” Why doesn’t everyone believe exactly as I do???
I could go on and on. So can others. I think enough has been said that the OP did not get the support desired. Their world was disrupted. Beginning of a college education that changes their kiddo’s life.
Good quesion. How do you propose then that people be “reached” on issues of privilege and systemic issues of prejuice, racism, classism, homophobia, sexism?
How should a white, straight, upper-class man be " reached" so that he is not offended by the discussion? Especially, if as you put it, the discussion is being led by…a middle-class black student (gasp)?
These exercises often take into account issues of religion (thereby covering your Holocoaust survivor) and issues of ecnomic inequality (your miner’s kid). They also generally include issues of regionalism, opportunities available/not available, issues of health (mental and physical).
This can be seen as a “divisive exercise in self-flagellation” or it can be seen as a chance to think, grow, appreciate that we are not all starting out from the same place in this country. Some of us have had it much, much easier and will continue to do so because of qualities outside of our control. Some will have it much tougher. It may be uncomfortable to acknowledge that you have benefitted from that system - but it is an important exercise in self-awareness to be able to see that.
“Privelage is now used in such a negative connotation”
“Pwithout being made first to undergo divisive exercises in self-flagellation.”
I think part of the issue is folks trying to turn the concept of privilege into a negative instead of it being an awareness, just “a thing”. It exists. That’s undeniable to me. You can choose to acknowledge that and other differences - the fact that things really aren’t equal for all even if they attend the same school, or you can choose to fight the concept and equate it to being attacked. IMO, it is a real, tangible thing. Grass is green, 1+1=2, some people are born with characteristics beyond their free choice that give them more or less luck/advantage/opportunity in life.
“immediately putting people on the defensive over characteristics beyond their control”
I do find it interesting that things are constantly phrased here in a way that is the everyday existence of marginalized groups.
I would answer with another question: Why the embedded assumption that it can’t be both?
Those are some of the most ridiculous questions, and I the point was??? Particularly: Why not work to make sure everyone in the community benefits from your wealth? Why not pay higher taxes (at local, state or national levels) so others can have your advantages? Ya, then they can sit around doing crack or just watching TV. People are different, some are lazy and some are hard working.
Some privilege is given but a lot has also been earned, by that student, their parents or many before them. We can never know the other person’s whole story. It’s easy to say the other guy must have been given everything - way easier than looking in a mirror.
Are you actually saying that the things a student’s parents (or grandparents, or great-grandparents) have done should count as having been earned by the student? Because that seems rather, well, off to me.
I am privileged. Acknowledging it, doesn’t put me on the defensive. Why should it?
My hope is that the awareness makes me less judgmental toward others.
To take a concrete example, women are underrepresented in big law as equity partners. Is the reason for this:
A) Male Privilege i.e. big law firms are engaged in systemic, illegal promotion and hiring practices
B) there is or was a pipeline problem
C) women are less likely to develop the book of business needed to make equity partner
D) women are more likely to want to pay off their student loans and then head into a smaller firm, in house counsel, government, non-profit legal services, or out of law entirely
E) all of the above
A role playing exercising which assumes the answer is A, and repeats the answer is A ad nauseam, is simplistic and moral proselytizing. An in depth look at the research, as well as interviews of current and former big law attorneys might be interesting.
Ok, I’ll play.
What creates the pipeline problem?
What stands in the way of developing the book of business?
Why would women want to head into smaller firms or leave law entirely?
Could it be that there are male privilege issues at play in all your answers?
The good ole boys club at the most prestigious law schools or at the biggest firms?
The preference for a male attorney by other male CEOs who create the book of business?
The fact that our male dominated government hasn’t thought it worth the effort to look at reasonably priced daycare so that Mom doesn’t need to cut her hours, or leave the big firm?
Or the fact that our society still expects it to be the wife who cuts back after kids are born and looks down on dad if he does it?
If in fact there are male privilege issues at the core of ALL the issues you mentioned…then why not focus on that one first?
My favorite story of people denying bias until it was proved is the one involving symphony orchestras. The male dominated audition comittees swore up and down that there was no bias. Men just had more powerful lungs and the Musculature to bring out the best sounds in instruments. And then the idea of behind the screen auditions happened and lo and behold many more women won the job. But there was no bias before. No privelege with being a man before the advent of screens . No siree Bob!
Lots of colleges and universities say “yes” to this question by giving admission preferences to unearned characteristics like legacy, relation to big donor, etc… URM is another such unearned characteristic, but it usually correlates to unearned disadvantage or anti-privilege in other aspects of one’s life, unlike other things like legacy.
Using the above lawyer example, is it wrong to acknowledge both #1 and #2 (because of 1 historically) are part of the problem? That’s all folks are asking for.
eta: but @CValle makes excellent points how all are fed by systemic bias.
Pipeline problems can linger for 30+ years. So if it was just a pipeline problem the correct answer might be there was male privilege back when your dad or grandfather graduated law school, but for the 18 year old male who might graduate law school in 7 years that privilege will be minimal to non-existent.
@roethlisburger Unless, of course, that 18 year old has a father and grandfather who benefited from that privilege, whose connections helped get him into Harvard law, whose connections helped land him his first job at that big fancy firm. Or perhaps it was that traditionally all-male study group that helped him get through school.
These things are complicated to unravel.
I think most people at this point just want them to be acknowledged. And yet, that seems to be a BIG problem for lots of people.
Some people just want to blame things for their shortcomings or lack of success. In none of the above examples was the suggestion that at some point in the line, someone earned it before someone benefited from it. That speaks volumes.
I’m not on the defensive about my privilege. I have it. I get it. But I’m also someone who actually has, in most respects, actually led a pretty charmed life, and knows she is lucky. If I were, say, a white guy who didn’t come from such a background, I suspect no amount of intellectual understanding of what privilege meant would stop me from resenting the heck out of being told to check mine. And, indeed, plenty of people apparently do resent these discussions.
If that resentment arises from fundamental intolerance, then maybe those are people we were never going to reach with any messages of diversity. But I have to think that there are people who might be quite receptive to, say, considering inequities in the criminal justice system or problems facing women in the workplace who are completely turned off by framing this in terms of privilege.