I think it is a crying shame that NPR fired long-time journalist and commentator Juan Williams yesterday for honestly sharing a prejudice. What he said was indeed expressing a prejudice, there is no doubt about that, but it is only once we all start being honest with ourselves and in our conversations about our prejudices that we can see them for what they are and work on them. Feelings are never right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable, it is how we choose to act on our feelings that counts. Juan Williams is not a bigot, in fact, he is a champion of civil rights and fairness for all. Every single one of us has prejudices. Should we just never express them and hide them away in the closet? There is a truism often quoted in 12-step programs that says "You are only as sick as your secrets." In other words, only by being honest with ourselves and others can we be healthy, and this applies, I think, not only to individuals but to society. Pretending we aren't afraid of something, someone or some group only makes the fear grow darker and more powerful. Acknowledging it, owning it and exploring it takes the power from fear and empowers us to choose how we act.
What Juan Williams specifically said was admitting a fear. He didn't say the fear was fair, in fact, I think the whole point was that he was admitting a prejudice. We would all be healthier as individuals and a nation if we searched our souls and did the same. What he actually said is that, when he is on a plane, if he sees someone in Muslim "garb" (his word), he feels fear. That is indeed a prejudice, as just because someone is wearing the clothing of their culture and/or their religion, it certainly doesn't mean they are a terrorist with intentions to blow up an airplane. Juan's feeling of fear in that situation is both prejudiced and somewhat irrational. Yet it is his feeling and feelings don't have to be fair or entirely (or even partially) rational. I said it before but it definitely bears repeating: feelings are feelings, it is how we choose to act on them that counts.
Juan Williams has consistently stood for civil rights, fairness and justice in his career, and he is also very honest. Unfortunately, he was unjustly fired yesterday for just that refreshing honesty that our society so desperately needs to be healthy. The most disgusting part to me was when the person from NPR who fired him said that his remark should be between him and "his psychiatrist". What an ugly, ignorant, uncalled for, classless attack. She's the one who made an inappropriate comment, an attacking, ugly comment. Juan Williams, on the other hand, was honestly admitting a fear and prejudice, in order to further the dialog about it in our country.
From earlier blogs of mine, for example, when I came out strongly for the mosque to be built near Ground Zero, you all know I stand against discrimination, for fairness, and passionately for civil rights. That is precisely why I do NOT have a problem with, and indeed actually applaud, anyone who can admit a prejudice. We all have them. Admitting a prejudiced feeling does not equate to behaving with discrimination in our actions. It doesn't mean that person is a bigot. Far from it! Admitting a prejudice means that person is honest with themselves and the world, and is willing to face their fears, which is the only way to move past them to a tolerant world.
Showing posts with label prejudice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label prejudice. Show all posts
Friday, October 22, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Florida to Allow Gay Adoption: a Great Day for Civil Rights, Children and True Family Values
I was very heartened to learn yesterday that the overturning of Florida’s 30-year-old, wrong-headed law prohibiting gay people from adopting in the state has been upheld. This is a victory for our constitution, for civil rights and for the children of Florida.
There are so many kids in the system who desperately need loving homes. Under what was, in my opinion, the unconstitutional ban on gay adoption in the state of Florida, gay people were allowed to foster but not adopt, which makes no sense. If a single person or couple is evaluated by the state and found to meet the requirements for fostering children, why can’t they also adopt? There is absolutely no reason other than ignorance, prejudice and/or bigotry against gay people to deny them the same rights as straight folks, and to deny the kids of Florida a far bigger pool of potential permanent, loving homes.
When I was in 10th grade, I had a great sociology teacher. He was great because he wanted to teach us to THINK. Years later, I got my degree in cultural anthropology and sociology. Coincidence? You be the judge. But I digress. One day, this teacher somehow started our class on a discussion/argument that got extremely heated, and I recall that it was basically yours truly here against the entire rest of the class, especially one girl who was extremely worked up and vehement about her argument/point, which was, in my strong opinion then and now, based entirely on ignorance and prejudice. Don’t ask me exactly how or why this teacher, bless him, got his class of 10th graders arguing about prejudice against gay people back in, gosh, when was this, 1977? 1977! The thought of gay adoption, let alone gay rights of any kind, back then was completely beyond RADICAL, yet somehow, he had us talking about it. I think maybe it started from a general discussion on prejudice and discrimination in society, but however it started, the argument between me and the class ended up being about, as I recall it, either “Why shouldn’t homosexual people be allowed to have kids just like heterosexual people?”, or it might have even just been (remember, this was 1977) “Can homosexual people be trusted around children?" I can’t remember what exact question got this argument going but I clearly remember that class because that was one time in my life when I stood up for what I believed in and did not back down, even though the entire class was sneering at my point of view and, like I said, this one ferocious girl was just FURIOUSLY up in my grill, attacking me vehemently over it.
Basically, this girl kept equating homosexuality to pedophilia (although I’m sure she didn’t know that word), saying that gay people are dangerous around kids because they might molest them. She kept using the word “perverted” and “perverts” and arguing that these “perverts” couldn’t be trusted around children, OBVIOUSLY. Every time she asserted that, I kept responding that a homosexual person is no more likely to molest a child than is a heterosexual person. There are heterosexuals who would molest children, and there are homosexuals who would molest children, but being one or the other as a sexual orientation doesn’t have anything to do with the likelihood of molesting children!
Well! This girl just got more and more FURIOUS with me, like how could I be so STUPID not to get her brilliant (not—try totally ignorant and bigoted) point that, apparently, all gay people are predisposed to be child molesters. And the more she kept insisting upon that, and literally getting in my face about it and egging on the entire class into attacking me, the more I would not back down and kept saying that homosexuality and pedophilia/being a child molester have NOTHING to do with one another!!!!! God knows there are plenty of heterosexual child molesters! Sexual orientation, one way or the other, does not equate to pedophilia.
The reason I just harked back to that long ago, incredibly heated-n-lengthy argument in that great teacher’s 10th grade sociology class (and he, by the way, just sat back and did not intervene, as I recall, but the entire time, I felt like he was really proud of me, which helped me continue to take on the entire class and that one worked-up, intimidating-to-beat-the-band loon in particular) is because I think that, even though that was 1977 and this is 2010, unfortunately, those misconceptions and prejudices still remain to a degree in our society. While we have come a very long way in terms of attitudes towards homosexuality and how homosexuals are treated under the law, I think there is still the idea that somehow gay people are not to be trusted around children, which just makes NO sense to me. I’ll say it again: a gay person is no more likely to be a pedophile than a straight person is. So that argument against gay adoption just makes no sense.
There are other so-called “arguments” against gay adoption (and gay marriage and other gay rights), of course, but break them down into their essential components and they are all based on bigotry against gay people. Period.
The real facts on the ground are that children need loving parents. There are many decent, loving gay folks who would love to be parents. Why not add to the pool of potential adopters, when we have such a staggering number of children languishing away in state care, in the foster system? But as compelling as that argument is, it too misses the main point in a way: the main point doesn’t have to do with numbers of kids waiting for homes, it has to do with what is right, morally and legally, and what is right is that ANYONE who is a decent, loving human being and has the necessary means, support system and ability to parent a child should have the opportunity to adopt a waiting child. More importantly, any child who is waiting for a permanent family should never be denied the chance to have one if one is there! I hope that the state will see sense, and not appeal this. Surely they want all the children in their care now and in the future to have every opportunity to be adopted into loving families. That’s what I call true “family values”.
Further Reading:
Miami Herald article of 9/23/2010
New York Times article of 9/22/2010
ACLU press release of 9/23/2010 on commondreams.org
There are so many kids in the system who desperately need loving homes. Under what was, in my opinion, the unconstitutional ban on gay adoption in the state of Florida, gay people were allowed to foster but not adopt, which makes no sense. If a single person or couple is evaluated by the state and found to meet the requirements for fostering children, why can’t they also adopt? There is absolutely no reason other than ignorance, prejudice and/or bigotry against gay people to deny them the same rights as straight folks, and to deny the kids of Florida a far bigger pool of potential permanent, loving homes.
When I was in 10th grade, I had a great sociology teacher. He was great because he wanted to teach us to THINK. Years later, I got my degree in cultural anthropology and sociology. Coincidence? You be the judge. But I digress. One day, this teacher somehow started our class on a discussion/argument that got extremely heated, and I recall that it was basically yours truly here against the entire rest of the class, especially one girl who was extremely worked up and vehement about her argument/point, which was, in my strong opinion then and now, based entirely on ignorance and prejudice. Don’t ask me exactly how or why this teacher, bless him, got his class of 10th graders arguing about prejudice against gay people back in, gosh, when was this, 1977? 1977! The thought of gay adoption, let alone gay rights of any kind, back then was completely beyond RADICAL, yet somehow, he had us talking about it. I think maybe it started from a general discussion on prejudice and discrimination in society, but however it started, the argument between me and the class ended up being about, as I recall it, either “Why shouldn’t homosexual people be allowed to have kids just like heterosexual people?”, or it might have even just been (remember, this was 1977) “Can homosexual people be trusted around children?" I can’t remember what exact question got this argument going but I clearly remember that class because that was one time in my life when I stood up for what I believed in and did not back down, even though the entire class was sneering at my point of view and, like I said, this one ferocious girl was just FURIOUSLY up in my grill, attacking me vehemently over it.
Basically, this girl kept equating homosexuality to pedophilia (although I’m sure she didn’t know that word), saying that gay people are dangerous around kids because they might molest them. She kept using the word “perverted” and “perverts” and arguing that these “perverts” couldn’t be trusted around children, OBVIOUSLY. Every time she asserted that, I kept responding that a homosexual person is no more likely to molest a child than is a heterosexual person. There are heterosexuals who would molest children, and there are homosexuals who would molest children, but being one or the other as a sexual orientation doesn’t have anything to do with the likelihood of molesting children!
Well! This girl just got more and more FURIOUS with me, like how could I be so STUPID not to get her brilliant (not—try totally ignorant and bigoted) point that, apparently, all gay people are predisposed to be child molesters. And the more she kept insisting upon that, and literally getting in my face about it and egging on the entire class into attacking me, the more I would not back down and kept saying that homosexuality and pedophilia/being a child molester have NOTHING to do with one another!!!!! God knows there are plenty of heterosexual child molesters! Sexual orientation, one way or the other, does not equate to pedophilia.
The reason I just harked back to that long ago, incredibly heated-n-lengthy argument in that great teacher’s 10th grade sociology class (and he, by the way, just sat back and did not intervene, as I recall, but the entire time, I felt like he was really proud of me, which helped me continue to take on the entire class and that one worked-up, intimidating-to-beat-the-band loon in particular) is because I think that, even though that was 1977 and this is 2010, unfortunately, those misconceptions and prejudices still remain to a degree in our society. While we have come a very long way in terms of attitudes towards homosexuality and how homosexuals are treated under the law, I think there is still the idea that somehow gay people are not to be trusted around children, which just makes NO sense to me. I’ll say it again: a gay person is no more likely to be a pedophile than a straight person is. So that argument against gay adoption just makes no sense.
There are other so-called “arguments” against gay adoption (and gay marriage and other gay rights), of course, but break them down into their essential components and they are all based on bigotry against gay people. Period.
The real facts on the ground are that children need loving parents. There are many decent, loving gay folks who would love to be parents. Why not add to the pool of potential adopters, when we have such a staggering number of children languishing away in state care, in the foster system? But as compelling as that argument is, it too misses the main point in a way: the main point doesn’t have to do with numbers of kids waiting for homes, it has to do with what is right, morally and legally, and what is right is that ANYONE who is a decent, loving human being and has the necessary means, support system and ability to parent a child should have the opportunity to adopt a waiting child. More importantly, any child who is waiting for a permanent family should never be denied the chance to have one if one is there! I hope that the state will see sense, and not appeal this. Surely they want all the children in their care now and in the future to have every opportunity to be adopted into loving families. That’s what I call true “family values”.
Further Reading:
Miami Herald article of 9/23/2010
New York Times article of 9/22/2010
ACLU press release of 9/23/2010 on commondreams.org
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Facing the Faces of Prejudice
I was so shocked and saddened to hear the ignorant, hateful anti-Israel comments made by Helen Thomas. I couldn’t believe it at first, I mean, she’s Helen Thomas! I have always greatly admired her for her tenacity, her pluckiness, the sheer reliability of her presence at every White House briefing and press conference, asking the tough questions, always appearing unbiased and fair, a seemingly pure journalist, by which I mean one who checked her preconceived notions, if she had any (and we all do), at the door. She was all about getting the news, the unbiased news, and nothing but the news. I thought she was great, a trailblazing woman in what was, when she started, a profession dominated by men. Again, I submit to you: she’s Helen Thomas! Surely Helen Thomas couldn’t be ignorant about anything, let alone be prejudiced or even perhaps hateful. Surely no one who is obviously intelligent and thoughtful, bright and questioning, could also be prejudiced...could they? Frighteningly and confusingly, the short answer is: yes.
I had a very wise teacher in college (June Edson, wherever you are, your teachings are still remembered and appreciated by your students) who told us that, in life, people are always trying to present things as “either/or”, when very often the reality is actually “both/and”. “Both/and” is more complex, complicated and therefore harder to make sense of and understand. Therefore, us humans tend to try to make everything “either/or”, because complexity is challenging. To think that Helen Thomas could be all those good qualities I listed above AND also be ignorant and prejudiced is confusing, and produces cognitive dissonance...yet people are, in fact, a confusing, contradictory amalgam of qualities. People are often “both/and”, much as it sometimes shocks us.
I felt the same shock and cognitive dissonance when Michael Richards, the brilliant actor/comedian who played “Kramer” on one of my all-time favorite TV shows, “Seinfeld”, erupted in an ugly slew of raw racial slurs at a heckler during one of his shows. No, it can’t be, I thought. It can’t be. How can someone who is so bright and sensitive (I believe an actor has to be sensitive in order to be a good actor, and Michael Richards is a damn good actor) and wonderful, ALSO be so full of unbridled hate? Now, true, in that case he was provoked and his anger, even rage, at the heckler in question was understandable, but NOT the words he chose to hurl at the guy. It showed a raw, ugly prejudice and hate that was right there under the surface and, as I said, I was shocked. I didn’t expect that from him, any more than I expected what I heard from Helen Thomas, or from a neighbor of mine who is soft-spoken and seems kind, yet often when our paths intersect as we are walking our respective dogs, she will make a comment about how she doesn’t like how “the gays have taken over the neighborhood.” I believe very strongly that, when you come face to face with prejudice and/or ignorance and/or hate, it is very important to stand up to it by making it clear that you do NOT agree with it, otherwise, if you remain silent, you are somehow complicit. So I always respond to my neighbor with something like “Well, I don’t care what anyone’s sexual preference is, as long as they are good neighbors, and actually, all the problem houses on and around our block seem to be populated by straight folks, as a matter of fact.” When I come face to face with prejudice, I try to respond in a way that not only makes it clear that I don’t agree with the statement, but also in a way that attempts to help the person somehow see the light, i.e., to see that they are being prejudiced, without me actually coming out and screaming “OMG, YOU ARE PREJUDICED!” I think it is better to try gently to undo some of their prejudice, than to come at them judgmentally in a way that makes them dig their heels in. And in the case of my neighbor, I’ve been able to get into a discussion with her that way and to learn that she actually thinks that, well, yes, now that you mention it, “they” are some of the best neighbors on the block, “even though I don’t agree with their lifestyle”. Okay, well, slight progress: she at least thought about things for a moment and realized that “they”—or at least the members of “they” that she knows of—are actually pretty decent neighbors.
It is challenging to think that not all ignorance, prejudice and hatred comes from people you would think of as being bad people. Sometimes it comes in bright, intelligent, sensitive, otherwise kind packages. This makes it even scarier, somehow, because we want to hate hatred right back. We don’t want it to be all enmeshed in a package that has good in there, that we don’t know what to do with, response-wise. But the hopeful part of that picture is: if there is a person in there, maybe they can be reached and helped to understand instead of to hate. This is why programs that bring together members of groups who tend to see each other as a subhuman “they” are so important and so effective at combating hatred, bridging differences, and fostering understanding and tolerance. For example, there are groups that bring together Israeli and Palestinian children, and the kids come away with a whole new understanding of “the other”. The “they” is no longer a subhuman enemy, but they are human faces, with human feelings, stories and history just like their own. When you realize and feel a common humanity with “the other”, then you can’t hate them anymore. Because they are you and you are they. The Palestinian kids come away with Jewish friends and the Jewish kids come away with Palestinian friends. So now forevermore when they hear hateful things about “them”, they aren’t a “them” anymore, they are a Sarah or an Omar, they are children just like themselves, with dreams and hopes and fears. They are human beings. We are all more likely to tolerate our fellow human beings, to make peace with our fellow human beings, than we are to tolerate and make peace with a “them”.
Just as the line from the musical “South Pacific” said that hatred “has to be carefully taught”, so too does tolerance, respect for diversity and understanding that we all share a common humanity. So when you are suddenly surprised to see the face of prejudice in front of you in a form you didn’t expect, try not to turn away in shock and dismay. Try instead to do something scary, challenging, but important: try to look that human face directly in the eyes and think: how can I respond in a way that has a chance of enlightening, instead of either remaining silent or simply judging? Because building a world of tolerance and understanding is something that we all have to commit to working on, and the way we work on it is to face bigotry head on whenever we see it in ourselves or others, stand up to it, and try to reach around and beyond it and grab for understanding of our universal humanity. Look beyond the ignorance, prejudice and hate in the person’s eye and see if you see any glimmer of light. If so, that’s what you try to reach and teach. That’s how we build a tolerant, peaceful world.
I had a very wise teacher in college (June Edson, wherever you are, your teachings are still remembered and appreciated by your students) who told us that, in life, people are always trying to present things as “either/or”, when very often the reality is actually “both/and”. “Both/and” is more complex, complicated and therefore harder to make sense of and understand. Therefore, us humans tend to try to make everything “either/or”, because complexity is challenging. To think that Helen Thomas could be all those good qualities I listed above AND also be ignorant and prejudiced is confusing, and produces cognitive dissonance...yet people are, in fact, a confusing, contradictory amalgam of qualities. People are often “both/and”, much as it sometimes shocks us.
I felt the same shock and cognitive dissonance when Michael Richards, the brilliant actor/comedian who played “Kramer” on one of my all-time favorite TV shows, “Seinfeld”, erupted in an ugly slew of raw racial slurs at a heckler during one of his shows. No, it can’t be, I thought. It can’t be. How can someone who is so bright and sensitive (I believe an actor has to be sensitive in order to be a good actor, and Michael Richards is a damn good actor) and wonderful, ALSO be so full of unbridled hate? Now, true, in that case he was provoked and his anger, even rage, at the heckler in question was understandable, but NOT the words he chose to hurl at the guy. It showed a raw, ugly prejudice and hate that was right there under the surface and, as I said, I was shocked. I didn’t expect that from him, any more than I expected what I heard from Helen Thomas, or from a neighbor of mine who is soft-spoken and seems kind, yet often when our paths intersect as we are walking our respective dogs, she will make a comment about how she doesn’t like how “the gays have taken over the neighborhood.” I believe very strongly that, when you come face to face with prejudice and/or ignorance and/or hate, it is very important to stand up to it by making it clear that you do NOT agree with it, otherwise, if you remain silent, you are somehow complicit. So I always respond to my neighbor with something like “Well, I don’t care what anyone’s sexual preference is, as long as they are good neighbors, and actually, all the problem houses on and around our block seem to be populated by straight folks, as a matter of fact.” When I come face to face with prejudice, I try to respond in a way that not only makes it clear that I don’t agree with the statement, but also in a way that attempts to help the person somehow see the light, i.e., to see that they are being prejudiced, without me actually coming out and screaming “OMG, YOU ARE PREJUDICED!” I think it is better to try gently to undo some of their prejudice, than to come at them judgmentally in a way that makes them dig their heels in. And in the case of my neighbor, I’ve been able to get into a discussion with her that way and to learn that she actually thinks that, well, yes, now that you mention it, “they” are some of the best neighbors on the block, “even though I don’t agree with their lifestyle”. Okay, well, slight progress: she at least thought about things for a moment and realized that “they”—or at least the members of “they” that she knows of—are actually pretty decent neighbors.
It is challenging to think that not all ignorance, prejudice and hatred comes from people you would think of as being bad people. Sometimes it comes in bright, intelligent, sensitive, otherwise kind packages. This makes it even scarier, somehow, because we want to hate hatred right back. We don’t want it to be all enmeshed in a package that has good in there, that we don’t know what to do with, response-wise. But the hopeful part of that picture is: if there is a person in there, maybe they can be reached and helped to understand instead of to hate. This is why programs that bring together members of groups who tend to see each other as a subhuman “they” are so important and so effective at combating hatred, bridging differences, and fostering understanding and tolerance. For example, there are groups that bring together Israeli and Palestinian children, and the kids come away with a whole new understanding of “the other”. The “they” is no longer a subhuman enemy, but they are human faces, with human feelings, stories and history just like their own. When you realize and feel a common humanity with “the other”, then you can’t hate them anymore. Because they are you and you are they. The Palestinian kids come away with Jewish friends and the Jewish kids come away with Palestinian friends. So now forevermore when they hear hateful things about “them”, they aren’t a “them” anymore, they are a Sarah or an Omar, they are children just like themselves, with dreams and hopes and fears. They are human beings. We are all more likely to tolerate our fellow human beings, to make peace with our fellow human beings, than we are to tolerate and make peace with a “them”.
Just as the line from the musical “South Pacific” said that hatred “has to be carefully taught”, so too does tolerance, respect for diversity and understanding that we all share a common humanity. So when you are suddenly surprised to see the face of prejudice in front of you in a form you didn’t expect, try not to turn away in shock and dismay. Try instead to do something scary, challenging, but important: try to look that human face directly in the eyes and think: how can I respond in a way that has a chance of enlightening, instead of either remaining silent or simply judging? Because building a world of tolerance and understanding is something that we all have to commit to working on, and the way we work on it is to face bigotry head on whenever we see it in ourselves or others, stand up to it, and try to reach around and beyond it and grab for understanding of our universal humanity. Look beyond the ignorance, prejudice and hate in the person’s eye and see if you see any glimmer of light. If so, that’s what you try to reach and teach. That’s how we build a tolerant, peaceful world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)