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]
