John,
Thanks for sending this editorial. Would you mind if we share it with
our students?
Is anyone discussing the Bennett comment in class? Reactions from
students?
Andi
--------------
Every object, every being,
Is a jar of delight.
Be a connoisseur.
~Rumi~
Life is raw material. We are artisans. We can sculpt our existence
into something beautiful, or debase it into ugliness. It's in our
hands.
~Cathy Better~
Things which matter most should never be at the mercy of things which
matter least.
~Johann von Goethe~
Dr. Andi Stepnick
Associate Professor and Chair of Sociology
300-C Wheeler Humanities Building
Belmont University
Nashville TN 37212-3757
Direct Line: (615) 460-6249
Office Manager: (615) 460-5505
Sociology Fax: (615) 460-6997
----- Original Message -----
From: John Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2005 1:39 pm
Subject: TEACHSOC: Re: Letter in response to Bennett
>
> Melanie E. L. Bush's letter to the Washington Post in response to
> WilliamBennett's comment reminded me of one I wrote for the
> Harrisburg Patriot
> News (which was published). I use it in class and it generates good
> discussion! It was written in 2002 when suggestions to limit
> internationalstudents and stories abounded about discriminatory
> acts against Arabs and
> Muslims.
>
>
> "Profiling Can Be Costly to Society, People
>
> John W. Eby, Ph.D.
>
> Published in the Patriot News
> Harrisburg, PA
> Sunday, August 4, 2002
>
> With very few exceptions, every person named in current and past
> businessscandals is a middle-aged white male. Practically no
> business scandals are
> perpetrated by women, persons of color, or young people.
>
> White, middle-aged males are the key villains at Tyco, Adelphia,
> Rite Aid,
> WorldCom, Enron, InCom, Arthur Anderson, Global Crossing, and
> Xerox. The
> not-for-profit sector has been victimized by pyramid schemes by
> the New Era
> Fund and Greater Ministries, again perpetrated by white males. If
the
> accusations against Martha Stewart are proven to be correct, she
> may well be
> the exception that proves the rule!
>
> Given these facts, it is prudent to profile middle-aged white
> males. Do not
> do business with them. Certainly do not trust them to manage
> financialassets or run large powerful companies. When one comes
> close, hold on to
> your purse. Only a fool would choose a white middle-aged male to
> managetheir investments or as their accountant or stockbroker, or
> for that matter,
> their lawyer, priest or politician!
>
> Ridiculous? Of course! But no more so than the profiling many of us
> accept without question; profiling that chooses particular racial,
> ethnic,or religious groups for particular scrutiny by police or
> profiling that
> discriminates against persons from particular countries or
> religions simply
> because a few of them are terrorists. This profiling is advocated
> by some
> high government officials. Surveys show that many Americans are
> prepared to
> restrict the civil liberties of certain groups because of their
> profile.
>
> Profiling is a form of generalization that seems necessary and
> harmless. We
> profile every time we make a quick judgment based on external
> appearance.
> We can tell a lot about a person by their facial expression, the
> kind of
> clothes they wear or how they speak. But even this kind of
> profiling, based
> on choices people make, is often very misleading.
>
> Profiling by race, ethnicity, religion, or color is dangerous and
> can be
> very costly to individuals and to society. This is true when
profiling
> results in special treatment for profiled persons such as being
> stopped by
> police, followed in stores or excluded from certain places.
>
> Recently, a real estate agent told a client they would not be
> comfortablein a particular neighborhood because they fit a
> particular profile. In other
> places people have been put off airplanes, refused service in
> stores or
> stopped by police. Some have been imprisoned.
>
> International students face new obstacles to study in this
> country. Some
> immigrants will be excluded because of their profile. Mosques
> have been
> desecrated.
>
> There are several kinds of profiling and generalizing. We often
> generalizefrom an individual to a group, particularly when
> minorities are involved.
> If we only know one person from a group, it is natural, but
> sometimes very
> misleading to assume that all members of the group are like the
> person we
> know. We attribute the acts of a few to the group.
>
> Some fundamentalist Christians bomb abortion clinics and are
> active in hate
> groups. Some fundamentalist Muslims are terrorists. It is
> seriously wrong
> to assume that all Christians or Muslims support those actions or
> to blame
> their religion for the misguided actions of individuals.
>
> Another form of profiling, goes the other way, applying a
> generalizationfrom a group to an individual. This is dangerous
> even if the generalization
> for the group is true. Men tend to be more aggressive and less
> nurturingthen women. But we all know men who do not fit that
> stereotype and know that
> the nurturing part of men should be encouraged.
>
> A third, more subtle form of profiling is based on using rates at
> which a
> phenomenon occurs within a particular group to suggest a causal
> relationshipto the race, religion, gender, color or ethnicity of
> the group. We might
> assume that since white men have higher rates of business fraud
> than any
> other group, there is something about being white and male that
> makes people
> immoral.
>
> We often do this with family structure or unemployment rates or
school
> performance. In the past, research that linked intelligence with
> race made
> this serious error. When we make this error we forget that society is
> structured to place certain groups in situations related to
particular
> characteristics.
>
> Middle aged white males have a higher rate of white collar crime
> becausethey are over-represented in positions where they have
> opportunity to commit
> those crimes, not because they are white. It is discouraging, but
> likelytrue, that if women or persons of color were equally
> represented in similar
> positions they would most likely have similar rates of fraud!
>
> Profiling unfairly discriminates against people, limits
> opportunity and
> prevents society from using the skills and contributions of
> profiled people.
> It would be particularly costly to make it more difficult for
> internationalstudents to study in the United States or to restrict
> immigration or to
> exclude certain profiled groups from particular jobs. Expelling
> white males
> from business and accounting programs in colleges would not be
> very smart!
>
>
> Our society has worked hard to provide opportunities for persons
> from all
> ethnic, racial and religious groups. We are strong because of
> contributionsof diverse people. Let's continue to resist the
> tendency to profile in
> ways that turn back that progress and put people of color or of
> particularnational origins or of particular religions at a
> disadvantage. Judge people
> by their character and their actions, not by the color of their
skin.
>
>
> John W. Eby, Ph.D. is an upper middle aged, white, male
> sociologist from
> Dillsburg. "
>
>
> >>> "Melanie E. L. Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/05/05
> 12:52 PM
> >>>
> fyi
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Submitted to the Washington Post
> but not published
>
> October 1, 2005
>
> To the Editor:
>
> William Bennett is right about one thing: that whole issue of
> crime and
> race
> has been on my mind recently. So here's a thought experiment for
> him. If
> we
> aborted all white children, the rate of white-collar crime would
> go way
> down--think Enron, World.com <http://world.com/>, Adelphia, etc. We'd
> probably see an even larger reduction in the incidence of
> Congressionalcorruption and malfeasance, including among high-
> ranking Congressional
> officers. The possibilities are huge, from organized-crime contract
> murders
> to hate-related crimes to things like the disappearance of
> hundreds of
> millions of dollars in Iraq. Speaking of which: think of the
> reduction of
> financial crimes and conflicts of interest in the military-industrial
> complex as a whole! As a plus, we'd lose some talk radio shows
> altogether,and even see a decrease in the number of stupid
> opinions on race expressed
> by former Cabinet officials.
>
> Not that I would actually propose doing this. It would be wrong, of
> course,
> and impossible, but it's just a thought. You know? I'm just saying.
>
> Luis Rumbaut
> Washington, D.C.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
