Is the University Traumatizing 'Gen Z'?

 

Is the University Traumatizing Generation Z?

  TRIGGER WARNINGS                        

                                                                      CANCEL CULTURE                            

VIRTUE SIGNALING           

                                                                  SAFE SPACES          

SAFETYISM

WARNING!! THIS ESSAY DISCUSSES OFFENSIVE WORDS. DO NOT READ THIS ESSAY IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED BY PROFANE WORDS 

(but please ask yourself why?)

As any student or educator knows, words matter. Words represent ideas in the culture and, without them, there would be no culture since the maintenance of society is necessarily dependent on verbal communication, and this is especially true for a species that relies so heavily on symbols and language to convey ideas amongst ourselves.

Other animals communicate vocally and with gestures and symbols too, but humans have a unique capacity to communicate the culture through symbols organized into recognizable patterns, and these patterns (words) can be strung together to convey extremely complex sets of ideas in the form of sentences, either written or spoken. In fact, our culture exists precisely because we are able to so easily transmit these often complex ideas across generations in this way.

Sure, we can and do communicate in non-verbal ways like other animals do, but our unique ability to use symbols to communicate often lofty, complex and esoteric ideas – in the form of words and sentences - is what distinguishes us from other species, and it is also the reason why we have been able to evolve into such complex, organized societies, and to create such amazing technologies and solutions to modern social problems. No other species has ever been able to evolve so rapidly and successfully because of this ability to communicate so effectively - to pass along cultural attitudes, values, beliefs and the entire history of our species, to the next generation, so that they can then pass it along to their offspring. Remarkably, humans have also used this symbolic skill to express our thoughts through art and music, allowing our creative brains to stretch even further beyond the reaches of reality. It’s quite an impressive feat, and we should not feel so egocentric as to not pause for a moment to realize how far we’ve come and how much we’ve achieved as a result.

But this ability to communicate symbolically is also a big reason we have had such a long history of social conflict because these symbols, it turns out, also facilitate and foster tribalistic, in-group/out-group divisions, sometimes leading to unimaginable acts of hatred and violence, usually in the name of one’s identified race or ethnicity, class, religion, nation, gender, or sexual orientation/gender identity. When our symbols reflect pride in a national identity, for instance, those ideas are then in conflict with competing national identities, forming the classic, in-group vs. out-group phenomenon that sociologists and psychologists have understood to be a major driving force for developing personal or group-level biases and prejudices, which are the main ingredients of cultural hatred and violence in the world. So, for better or worse, our capacity to use symbols, gestures, and words is the history of our evolution and, without them, modern humans would not be the dominant species on the planet, if we were to exist at all.

For language to be an effective means of communication, however, there needs to be commonly-held, shared understanding of those words and what they mean. In the realm of sociology and social psychology, there is a theoretical orientation known as symbolic interactionism, which posits that, in order for a society to take shape and sustain itself, individuals must know (to a large extent) what others mean by what they say. There must be shared meanings among members of a group, and when it’s lacking, that group or society becomes chaotic and disorganized as people’s perception of things (their definition of the situation) dictates what actions they will take – and these misperceptions sometimes produce biased perceptions of reality which can easily lead to real conflict and violence, particularly between dissimilar groups. So, it should not be surprising to learn that intergroup conflicts and hostilities are common among groups that do not regularly communicate with each other, or that do not communicate effectively with one another, such as groups falling into the separate (perceived) categories of race, class, gender, sexual identity/orientation, disability, religion, political affiliation, and others.

So, for the rest of this essay, I’d like to talk about the significance of words and their meanings across generations of young adults since, in this class, we’ll be talking a great deal about our society from the vantage point of both. Specifically, let’s examine how older generations understand (or misunderstand) the latest generation to enter college, Generation Z, and their unique experiences with social media and technology, and the words and ideas they use to express that experience.

To be clear, when I use the term, Gen Z, I am referring to those born roughly between 1997-2012, although some on the early fringes of these years may identify as a “Millenial” (roughly 1981-1996) or may identify with a cohort yet to be labeled.

But I use the term Gen Z somewhat reluctantly, and with some irritation at the term itself. How short-sighted and non-descriptive is this term, Gen Z! First of all, since we live in the United States of Amnesia, we can forgive those born so recently for not knowing why they were labeled with it. You see, once upon a time there was a generation known as Generation X (initially known as the “Baby Busters”). As a member of Gen X (born roughly 1965-1980), I can attest to the fact that the previous generation, the so-called “Baby Boomers” (who I shall ignore here, they get plenty of attention in the culture elsewhere) didn’t know what to make of us. And we didn’t either. We were a lost generation, the first ‘latchkey’ kids who mostly came from divorced households and two working parents. And contrary to what I’ve heard repeatedly in the media today, neither Millenials nor Gen Z were the “first generation to earn less than their parents”. No, sir. That distinction will always belong to Gen X, the generation that brought you rap music, hip hop culture, new wave, punk rock, heavy metal, and grunge music. You are welcome.

When Millennials first began to appear on the streets, you might recall that we first called them “Generation Y”, although nobody knew what the “Y” stood for. It was just the letter that came after “X”. Which is why you are being called “Gen Z” today. No other reason, just laziness. But if history is any guide, your label will not stick. A label more descriptive will take its place. Already, labels like, “Zoomers”, “NetGen”,  “Homeland Generation”, and “Post-Millenials” have been circulated by journalists, magazine editors, and advertisers trying to be the first to achieve “stickiness” of their label/brand. My preference is what some have tagged, “iGen”, meaning internet generation, since yours is the first generation to have been fully immersed by the internet your entire lives, never without a computer, phone, tablet or headset. Always with a SCREEN. Even millennials did not experience this daily saturation of screens, and the advent of modern-day social media is simply a warp-speed transformation of the culture that nobody saw coming, not even mentioning the looming cultural shockwave of climate change that iGen will have to deal with (or die trying). For the sake of your attention span, let’s leave that generational issue for another day. Let’s focus on communication, media and technology here.

With the advent of smartphones, social media and 5G Wi-Fi, coupled with the rising tide of for-profit Artificial Intelligence (AI) and virtual reality (VR) systems, this new generation marks our entry into an entirely new era of social interaction that will likely transform other major social institutions as well. For example, what happens to education when AI system like ChatGPT begin producing high quality essays, reports, and research papers, complete with citations, in seconds (no plagiarism required)? Well, get ready, because it’s already here and students are using it, and talking about ways to further refine and utilize other technologies via social media platforms like TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram, which are also iGen’s preferred sources of news and information about the world. Have you designed your avatar yet?

But these new and accelerating digital technologies in the Age of iGen have also brought unforeseen problems for society, including increased stress and anxiety for young people who spend so much time online, immersed in their chosen social media platforms – platforms that use predictive algorithms to push products and ideas, and that profit from taking advantage of the human tendency toward confirmation biases that can easily alter our perceptions of reality, as we are fed full of stories that we want to see, hear and read, and as we are simultaneously led away from counter claims that we find distasteful or “offensive”. Added to this computer-generated psychosis is a constant barrage of misinformation (unintended false information) and disinformation (intended false information) that iGen must weed through daily. So saturated with this digital selection bias, that today’s students cannot be blamed for not having a complete picture of the world they live in, or of having a complete picture of how to live in the world. They experience their world on a screen, mostly. So, it’s understandable that they are so easily influenced by what those screens are showing and saying to them. And since social media is their primary server of reality, we should also not be surprised that their overall worldviews can be misdirected as well, often leading to hyper-tribalism, bullying, depression, heightened anxiety, and suicidal ideation.

But is iGen too saturated with computer algorithms that flood them with words, images and slanted messaging that distort and tilt their perception of the world? Do these algorithmic inundations really lead to heightened stress levels and increased mental illness, alienation, depression and suicide? It seems so. For example, in terms of the social science, here’s an abbreviated bibliography of a few recent studies showing increases in depression, anxiety, suicide, and other mental health problems associated with increased screen time and social media, adapted from Lukianoff and Haidt’s recent book, The Coddling of the American Mind (a primary source for this essay).

Retrieve from this shared Google Drive file

Surely, as individuals, some are not disaffected in this way. Some iGen students are able to navigate through the myriad of potential traumas that await them in the digital landscape of social media and arrive at adulthood as strong, independent thinkers and learners, fully aware of the pitfalls of accelerated, obsessive, and biased media that can distort their perceptions of themselves and of society. But many do not. Many succumb to the constant barrage of claims and narratives that skew us into believing that the world is too scary, too safe, or too flat. All of which shapes and reflects an American culture of fear.

For some, this fear of the world as it exists also includes a fear of the world as expressed in words, since words can sometimes express cultural ideas, values and beliefs that run counter to one’s perception of reality, and which can threaten our core identities as an individual, group member, or nation. That is the promise and peril of language, something our species has pondered for millenia.

So when do we censor certain words that might offend, in an effort to protect those identities? When does the offense of a word spoken aloud become more than offensive and become truly harmful to the individual or group? Do words even have such power to scar us that deeply? More directly, can words traumatize? I contend that they can’t, at least not in the context a college classroom devoted to learning about culture and language itself. Sure, your stepdad screaming obscenities at you while he’s kicking you out of your home (or beating you) could be traumatizing, and you might recall a scene similar to this whenever you are “triggered” by the words he was yelling at you, but it wasn’t the words themselves that did you harm, it was the memories and emotions it evokes.

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me”

-Christian Recorder, 1862

If words cannot break us, then perhaps we are granting them with a power that is neither earned nor deserved. Although words are important expressions of human emotions, motivations, and intent, they do not actually take the action – people do. In other words, they can be used to describe human activity, but a word is just made of letters, it cannot do anything itself, including causing trauma. Words cannot traumatize you. Only your emotions can do that. Like the philosopher Alan Watts, (1915-1975) has said,

You can’t get wet from the word, ‘water’

And lest we forget the virtues instilled by overcoming adversity in life, by suffering through hard times and reaching the next day’s dawn, and by learning from our mistakes – mistakes that can only occur by immersing yourself in a world of unknowns, a world full of diverse ideas, some of which you will find frightening, offensive, or distasteful, at least at first.

That which does not kill us makes us stronger

-Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, 1888

 

After all, how can you understand your own attitudes, values and beliefs if you are never asked to confront them? Understanding that offense or trauma experienced from a word(s) – regardless of how it is spoken or read - comes from within you, from your brain’s perception of it, and not from any external source, means that you have the power within you to interpret, ignore, or adjust your perception of that offense any way you like. The word doesn’t affect you, only your emotions can do that. And you always have the choice to turn that screen off, or go somewhere else.

As Amanda Gorman (Poet Laureate and spoken word artist who orated this poem at Barack Obama’s presidential inauguaration) has expressed in her poem, Good Grief:

The origin of the word, “trauma” is not just “wound” but “piercing” or “turning”, as blades do when finding home. Grief commands its own grammar, structured by intimacy and imagination. We often say “we are beside ourselves with grief” we can’t even imagine. This means English can call us to envision more than what we believe was careable of even survivable. This is to say, there does exist a Good Grief. The hurt is how we know we are alive and awake.”

                                                            -Call Us What We Carry, Amanda Gorman

As an American sociologist who has been teaching classes like Deviance, Social Psychology, Introductory Sociology, and Race Relations for 20+ years, I regularly confront this issue in classroom conversation devoted to the question posed by Gorman, Nietzsche, Watts and others: Can words traumatize?

Each year in my Deviance class, for example, when discussing the power of language (as an element of culture), I sometimes write certain offensive words on the chalkboard (the only remaining practical use of this ancient, incarnate, tabula rasa), including the “C-word” and the “N-word”. But I write the whole word, and invite students to say those words aloud, in order to evoke the various meanings of those words, so that we can consider the various cultural impacts on various communities – to learn from one another exactly how these words are received and interpreted by different groups of people – so that we might learn from the mistakes we may have made in our own interpretations of those words, or of their impact on others. This lecture, by the way, was inspired by the feminist playwright and activist, Eve Ensler, who created the now-famous Vagina Monologues (where the audience is invited to loudly proclaim “C—T!” in an affirmational part of the play called, “Reclaiming Cunt”).

But Dr. Laundra, couldn’t you have the same conversation by just saying, “N-word” or “C-word” during your lectures, so no one will be offended?

Yes and no. Yes, I could just say, “C-word” or “N-word” instead of spelling out the word in full, and sometimes I do but, in doing so, I am contradicting the major lesson of the day, which is that words have meaning, and that word, the “C-word”, does not mean the same thing as saying, “cunt,” a word you can feel. Shouting “fuck!” out loud does not mean the same thing as shouting “fudge”, no more than shouting “the N-word!” is the same thing as saying “nigga” or it’s more historical, derogatory pronunciation and the weight and gravity of a shameful American history that makes it sting so much for so many black folks.

How can you fully appreciate the emotional, historical, or dynamically-evolving meanings of these words without ever uttering them, especially since how you say them often changes their meaning? In a world where the college classroom sometimes involves an actual trigger, do we really need to elevate the mere offense of a word to a level akin to an actual physical trauma? I find that to be disrespectful and insensitive to those poor souls who have actually experienced a school shooting, or who have suffered such physical pain elsewhere in the world. Is the trauma of hearing a bad world in a classroom really the same kind of trauma experienced by students currently living in Ukraine, taking their exams in the (relative) safety of a frozen bunker or subway station in Kyiv, with Russian missiles exploding above their heads, and with no heat or electricity? Should we NOT think of these experiences differently? Perhaps we need a different word for the sort of ‘trauma’ experienced by merely hearing words. Are you traumatized, or are you just offended? Did the word bring back bad memories or associations that remind you of something that personally affected your well-being, or of a time when you were actually brutalized, or do you just think God won’t like it if the sound produced by those letters reaches your ears?

Of course, none of this means we shouldn’t be sensitive to others’ feelings, especially whenever we speak or write publicly. It is a diverse world, so we should make every effort to communicate respectfully and with prosocial intentions, particularly in a classroom, knowing that some individuals come to the space with different backgrounds and experiences with words, some of which have caused real emotional harm. The woman who was raped, or the young black man who grew up in a predominantly white, redneck, rural town, both have different feelings about certain words that are often heard in public, and which cause little or no distress for the majority of us. So we should be mindful of that fact and make every effort to choose our words more carefully, especially in those social settings. And this, my friends, is also why there are situations where you should not utter an offensive word while others are allowed to (e.g. the “N-word”). But it’s also the reason why we shouldn’t act as if those words don’t exist in society, or to regard them as “off limits” for no other reason than they might be uncomfortable to talk about in a college classroom. After all, what better ‘safe space’ exists for young adults to have that kind of conversation?

I try to remember to provide a “trigger warning” prior to having those sensitive conversations (about offensive words and their various meanings), but I’ve chosen not to avoid the conversation since my students are exposed to those words all the time out there in the so-called, “real world”, where no such warnings are offered or expected. For example, just open your laptop or phone and you can easily find famous celebrities like Dave Chappelle or Trevor Noah using the offending “N-word” without censure (or even a “bleeeep”).

Still, we can and should take care when using loaded words like these in public. But it is in the ‘safe space’ of a college classroom where students can expect to be treated with fairness and dignity, and where we gather to respectfully listen and learn from others with differing viewpoints. So we must honor those views, including from those individuals who have experienced genuine trauma in their lives due to acts of prejudice and hate reflected in those words (and, when possible, allowing those individuals to bow out of the conversation). But we must also honor the core values and purpose of academe, which is to learn how to think openly and critically. That requires that we expose ourselves to views that we might find offensive or distasteful, or that simply make us uncomfortable. How can you even begin to comprehend the emotional or social harm caused by misogynistic or racist ideologies in society if you are too traumatized to hear the ‘offensive’ words used in everyday conversations that represent them, let alone the voices of actual victims of these poisonous belief systems? In the social sciences, we tackle these difficult issues head on, because to avoid them in order to keep peace in the classroom only serves to ensure those shop-worn attitudes and prejudices will be passed along to the next generation, and the next. We must listen and learn, with minds open, in order to form reasonable conclusions and to devise rational and effective solutions to social problems. If you cannot tolerate hearing the words that express racism or sexism in society, how can you ever fully appreciate the effects of those words on certain individuals or groups? How can we be adequately sympathetic to the plight of others without meaningful immersion into those lives, and how it really feels to be that person?  

Moreover, we lose sight of the University mission of the pursuit of fair and open-minded critical thinking whenever we engage in “virtue signaling” actions, such as accusing others of ethical misconduct or “microaggressions” simply for using words that some find offensive. This can produce a “chilling effect” on campus, when students remain silent when sensitive subjects like racism and bigotry are brought up, or when faculty (especially non-tenured, junior faculty) are more concerned with being viewed as disruptive to the administrative will of Chairs, Deans and Provosts, than with engaging in free and open discussions that reveal underlying toxicities in the culture. We also lose sight of the constitutional right to free speech in a free society.

Indeed, the threat to free speech isn’t just coming from overly zealous ‘word nazis’ on college campuses across America who are insisting on using correct pronouns (she/her or they/them), removing public statues, and disinviting guest lecturers who they are offended by. Conservative-minded groups have also seized the moment to reshape the culture by banning certain books that offend their political or religious sensibilities. In fact, using this same logic of censorship, over 20 states have banned, or are in the process of banning, books that teach so-called, Critical Race Theory, which is deemed to be any text that focuses on white oppression of people or communities of color, to the exclusion of white history, or that could potentially make white people feel guilty or bad about white oppression. In their words, it could traumatize these white kids! So, talking about slavery from the perspective of slaves, since it might offend certain folks in a college classroom, may not be a legal curriculum in many states in the near future. And in other states, outlawing curriculum that addresses gender identity or LGBTQ issues is also underway, and in some cases those books have been burned!

Is this the kind of censored society we want to live in? Is it even possible? George Orwell thought so! Or perhaps we won’t need legislation or a totalitarian government to dictate the new word rules. More likely, we will engage in (intentional or unintentional) acts of self-censorship in the form of only speaking and writing in ways that will offend no one, or by getting synaptically stuck in our own self-affirming, bias-confirming, social media platforms, which diminishes our capacity for critical thinking. Or maybe we can learn lessons from China’s new digital surveillance society, where every citizen is seen through a government lens, where the people ‘behave’ themselves out of fear of governmental or corporate reprisals.

Wherever society is taking us, for better and for worse, it is iGen who will be taking us there. Where GenXers and Millenials can take pride in being part of a cultural wave of diversity, openness and inclusiveness (and we must acknowledge the Baby Boomers for their civil and human rights campaigns that spawned all others), it is iGen who have made this ‘safe space’ their home. It is iGen who have taken the ideals of their predecessors and are actually living their lives accordingly, amidst the technological revolution that is upon us, one that is accelerating and dramatically re-shaping how we will communicate in the future. What an amazing time to be alive! To witness this sweeping transformation, and to control its direction and scope, should be regarded as a privilege and an honor. And all the generations before you are counting on you to take us in the right direction.

So please don’t fuck it up!

Ken's Sabbatical to Ukraine: Blog

 https://keninukraine.blogspot.com/

A Football Fantasy: Sociological Reflections on Race and the Uneven Playing Field

Imagine playing football on a field where the home team has the advantage of playing on a downhill slope, and with the wind and sun at their backs, and where the visiting team’s side of the field is marked in twenty yard increments rather than ten, so that they must move the ball twice the distance of the home field to score a touchdown. Would you say this game is being played on a level playing field with fair rules?

Obviously, players in such a game would not have equal chances to succeed, but what if the home team was also unaware of their unfair advantages? What if the game was being played on a foggy day and the home team could not see the unequal slope of the field, or feel the surging winds blowing in the face of their opponent? Would players on this team feel as proud of their victory under such conditions?

Imagining a football game being played this way, under these unfair conditions, is difficult for most of us because we expect fair play when we compete, and we are surprised to learn that such unfair conditions could even exist because we have not played such a game before. But some Americans are quite familiar with these rules and, even though they play anyway, they might harbor a certain resentment toward the rule makers, or even the opposing team’s players who had no part in making those rules, especially when the home team players claim that the game was fair all along. 

Now imagine that the home team’s referee wants the home team to win, so she calls more penalties on the visiting team to keep them from scoring. Which team would be more upset about those bad calls on the field? If you found yourself on the visiting team forced to play this unfair game, who would you resent more, the referee for making bad calls on the field, the rule makers for creating a game with such unequal advantage, or the home field players for not acknowledging their advantage when they win a game that’s been fixed?

Or would you just be pissed at Colin Kaepernick and the Millikin football team for the manner in which they brought the issue to your attention? 

We need to remember that the whole point of these demonstrations is to raise awareness about all the unfair, discriminatory types of racism in the criminal justice system toward African-Americans, including police brutality. In a country that prides itself on freedom of expression, why are we obsessing over the form of that expression rather than the issue at hand? We seem to have forgotten the most basic civil right that formed the foundation of our national heritage - the freedom to protest peacefully. Instead, we seem to have adopted a form of Nazi patriotism, where flag waving is mandatory, and where one person (or one team) is condemned for exercising their American right to peacefully dissent in whatever way they choose. Isn’t this ideal the very right our soldiers have fought and died for? Isn’t this why this ideal was established in the FIRST amendment, and not the second or twelfth? Sadly, some have succumbed to conservative political correctness over America’s proud heritage of freedom of speech, in a country that been a beacon of openness to ideas, including those ideas that sometime offend us.

The “controversy” over Kaepernick’s refusal to stand during the national anthem exposes our nation’s ignorance of the game itself, more than it does his audacity to do so. The negative reaction to our own Big Blue football team to remain in the locker room during the national anthem, showing respect through individual silent reflection (or one player’s decision to stand), likewise underscores our national deflection of the real issue of racial inequality more than it does the Fox News narrative that Millikin must hate America and its soldiers.

Like many of you, I found myself having to defend Millikin’s decision to support the team, after the social media blitz that followed soon after Fox News and other conservative media outlets sacked us for doing it. On Facebook, for example, I was scolded for working at such an unpatriotic school, and “one of the most black and liberal colleges around”. I mean, just read the comments underneath the original article from Fox News and you’ll see the outrage of some voices in conservative, white America over everything except what the demonstrations of Kaepernick and our football team are all about. They are way out of bounds in this regard. Across the country, and across most sports, athletes are expressing their concern over racial injustice in the criminal justice system. Even superstars like women’s soccer phenom (and former sociology major of mine at the University of Portland :), Megan Rapinoe, who continues her solo demonstration. Listen to her defend her anthem-kneeling here.  

So let’s get back in the game. Let’s talk about the central issue - the unjust system of criminal justice in this country – the racially systemic problems inherent in our system that the Black Lives Matter movement has been so successful at elevating to a national conversation (and why police departments across the country are currently reforming their police conduct practices following federal investigations by the Department of Justice in both Ferguson and Baltimore after the BLM outcry). And let’s talk about the reasons why Kaepernick’s mere kneeling, or our school’s support of our team’s decision to offer our players the freedom to express themselves how they wish, has agitated so many people around the country. A sociological perspective can help us better understand the game we are really playing here.

As white people we don’t readily see our advantages, and we are often perplexed by the visiting team’s outrage over injustice on the field of play because we do not suffer those injustices nearly as often. Have you ever watched a tight game with a friend who roots for the other team, and noticed how much more upset he gets when the referee fails to drop a flag for defensive pass interference when your team just scored on that play? It’s kinda like that.

Maybe it’s just easier to blame the game’s losers. As Michelle Alexander points out in her recent book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, we throw far more penalty flags at African-Americans than Whites for similar infractions, disproportionately targeting one team over another, resulting in systemic disadvantages that keep one team from winning, an intentional function of the modern criminal justice system. If you happen to have been born on the winning team, and fail to see the advantages your team has been given, you might take the time to read her book, or consider the volumes of scholarship on the subject of racial injustice in our criminal justice system, such as these several hundred, peer-reviewed studies that say the same thing.  Or you could listen to the voices of history that remind us of the true nature and scope of persistent racism in America, voices largely absent in traditional history classes, such as Frederick Douglass who said in 1853:

“A heavy and cruel hand has been laid upon us. As a people, we feel ourselves to be not only deeply injured, but grossly misunderstood. Our White countrymen do not know us. They are strangers to our character, ignorant of our capacity, oblivious to our history and progress, and are misinformed as to our principles and ideals that guide us as a people. The great mass of American citizens estimates us as a characterless and purposeless people and, hence, we hold up our heads, if at all, against the withering influence of a nations’ scorn and contempt.”

And finally, if you are a visual learner, I implore you to watch a new documentary on Netflix entitled, “13^th” for a powerful, eye-opening examination of racism in the criminal justice system, where reputable experts in the field examine this form of institutional racism with a historical lens.

Ironically, most of those who should probably educate themselves on these facts won’t bother with it, exercising their privilege to ignore the facts about that very privilege. They don’t need to bother with trying to understand how American life is experienced differently by Black men and women in America because they have never really felt this experience, and because they feel they are not directly affected by it. This is one form of white privilege: the privilege of not having to educate yourself about the minority experience in America. It is the privilege of ignorance.

Instead, as white Americans, we use our privilege to deflect the national conversation from these uncomfortable facts toward a tangential conversation about patriotism and how it ought to be publicly displayed, uniformly. Of course, we should be proud to be Americans, but our national pride should not discourage outrage over injustice no matter how we choose to voice it. So, for example, instead of acknowledging the anger expressed by a student like LeRyan Wolfe, who has written several heart-felt essays on the subject of white privilege recently, we can avoid facing it by slamming him for the “offensive” words he’s used to call out the uncomfortable subject of racism, or by dismissing his opinion as just that of another “angry Black man”, which is another form of privileged deflection. He’s just being a bad sport about it, complaining about the rules of the game. That’s what “people like that” do.

But what LeRyan is really trying to do is to call a foul in a game being played on an uneven playing field, with referees who are paid by the home team. The referees in this game are the police officers patrolling the streets of our community, and the uneven field we are playing on is our criminal justice system. So even though the referees are not to blame for the rules of the game, we can understand why the visiting team might be angry with them for favoring their home team – as misplaced as that anger may be - because they represent this historical injustice. And as spectators we should at least be honest enough to recognize our team’s unfair advantage when the referees make bad calls that cause the other team to lose.

And we shouldn’t be so vexed when the other team takes a knee.

Kenneth Laundra, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Sociology

Department of Sociology & Organizational Leadership

Klaundra@millikin.edu

10/20/16

Ground Rules: Starting a Climate Change Debate

by 

Kenneth H. Laundra, Ph.D.

Conversations about climate change are too often reduced to ideological arguments, ending in fractured feelings and indignant stances that harden over time.  Just when we need to talk about solutions to the crisis, we find ourselves mired in the quicksand of rhetoric and political innuendo. Try talking to a climate change denier about climate change and soon you’ll be talking about “climate gate”, Benghazi or Obamacare, instead of talking about advances in clean energy technology that can save us from pending environmental calamity. For the deniers, climate change is simply a political issue, so you’ll fail to convince that person that it is real and imminent. Since it is merely a political issue, like with religion, the subject of climate change has become too sensitive for polite conversation, and even taboo in mixed social settings (like the 2008 Presidential election).

So here we are. At the precise moment in time when humanity should be sounding the alarm on climate change, and working to offset the effects with a myriad of technological and social solutions now available, we are instead choosing to ignore the reality of our situation on this planet, which is, according to the brightest brains using the rigor of scientific methodology, quite dire. Unfortunately, the political schism that has deepened in this country has also co-opted any rational discussion of climate change, resulting in ideological dismissals on both sides that stifle any meaningful conversation about it, typically reduced to emotional outbursts instead of understanding. So we watch the glaciers melt faster than our frosty opinions, because we too often hold our convictions closer to our hearts than we do the facts. So how do we overcome this rhetorical obstacle to climate change awareness? Given the current ideological divide, I think we need to first talk about how we are going to talk about it.

In order to have a meaningful conversation like this, you must first agree to use a common language. We talk with words, which represent specific ideas. So, if two people are using the same words, but those words have different meanings, then you are not talking with that person, you are just talking to that person. They don’t understand what you’re saying. Worse than that, they think they understand what you’re saying because the words you’ve used mean something else to that person. You are not standing on the same conceptual ground, and you misunderstand each other.

Establishing the ground rules – the rules by which your conversation will stand on – is imperative for having a meaningful conversation. This means agreeing on a common language and, in the context of climate change, it means agreement on what form(s) of knowledge are within range and, in turn, what forms of knowledge are out of range. In the case of climate change, the universal language we must all use is the language of science. It is simply the most rigorous and reliable source of knowledge on the matter, so we have to collectively agree to base our opinions on it, even if it rubs up against other beliefs or ideologies we may hold dear. And to be a good scientist, you must also be willing to change your mind. If you can’t entertain the possibility that an objective conversation on climate change might change your mind, then you shouldn’t bother in the first place, because the goal of this particular conversation is to find consensus on what to do, if anything, about climate change; and this is not merely an academic or philosophical debate, because we are ultimately debating future action which will rely on consensus-building, and this will ultimately require somebody to change their mind.

Unfortunately, as the so-called “national debate” over climate change ensues, it is largely driven by a politically-minded, profit-driven media that are more than happy to over-hype straw man positions on the subject, using purposely opaque and passing reference to the actual knowledge base, and panel discussion among experts of disrepute in formats that pass as real news. So no incentive even exists for consensus-building around the scientific evidence, or for changing minds. This is a troubling stalemate because, if we accept science as our common language in this debate, we are running out of time.

As an example, allow me to collapse a number of conversations I’ve had over this issue with colleagues, students, friends and family into a single, prototypical one. You may find this conversation familiar to you. It goes like this:

CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER: “I think global warming is real, but I’m not sure it’s entirely a man-made thing, and I’m not sure there’s even anything we can do about it. I mean, the science isn’t settled yet. There is honest disagreement among the experts. We should wait before we take any big action, until we know more about it.”

CLIMATE CHANGE BELIEVER: “Actually, there IS consensus among most of the scientists that climate change is real, that it is man-made, and that the problem is becoming increasingly perilous to life on this planet, in a way never before experienced by humankind.”

CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER: “Well, you don’t know that for sure. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.”

After somewhere between twenty seconds and two hours of back and forth, the parties agree to disagree. Stalemate.

Been there?

It’s as if we’re talking about a moral, philosophical or spiritual issue, like abortion, socialism, or god in government. But we are not talking about those things. We are talking about climate change, a subject that is inherently and necessarily grounded in the scientific method, which is the most trustworthy form of knowledge we have devised as a species and, in this case, the form of knowledge having the only true bearing on any conversation over climate change. Climate change is a scientific issue, not a moral or political issue, and this deserves to be emphasized.

Consider how bizarre it would be for me to approach my mom or brother, who have both owned and operated a steel construction company for decades, suggesting to them that the buildings they construct might be stronger if they used wood or plastic instead of steel. I would immediately be dismissed as ignorant (or insane) because, to be honest, I don’t know the first thing about steel construction companies or how to make strong buildings. But I did recently see an article online that described a new plastic polymer that is said to be stronger than steel, so I know that my opinion is based, in fact, in fact. In fact is it. Not knowing much else about steel construction, I am not swayed by their further criticism of my claim, involving something about architectural integrity, capital cost incursions, international market prices, and OSHA standards (this is, by the way, a total guess).

Now imagine if I renounce their informed skepticism about my idea by saying, “well, you don’t know that for sure. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.”

You can see how obviously wrong I would be. In fact, it would be weird and kinda creepy. This is because I am offering an uninformed opinion based in a way of knowing that is not relevant to the issue at hand. My assumption that my uninformed opinion based in limited knowledge about steel construction should carry the same weight as one who occupies the field and who has a more complete, comprehensive understanding of the forces at play in the construction business – that it should actually have equal merit – is a faulty one. To further cloud our opinionate debates, particularly one like climate change, we have to also understand that our brains are biased toward what we already believe, due to our neuro-psychological tendencies to absorb information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs and values, what cognitive psychologists call a confirmation bias (one of many biases that color our worldview).  As Michael Shermer puts it, “Belief comes first. Evidence for belief comes second.”

In this way, we believe our opinion is equally valid because I believe opinions that draw on evidence are as equally valid as those opinions from anyone else who makes an evidence-based claim. But evidence does not equal fact, and a fact is only as good as the manner by which it arrives. And this is how climate change conversations usually go astray. We conflate various forms of evidence as equally true. We assign equal value to any claim that references a “fact”, regardless of how that fact comes to us.

In our technopoly, this modern information age we live in, facts are cheap and they enter our consciousness from all directions in rapid-fire succession. Most of these facts come at us filtered through an institutional agenda, such as the facts surrounding a woman’s biological capacity to “ward off” rape sperm to avoid pregnancy, the facts surrounding violence and guns in America, or the facts surrounding job growth under President Obama. But some of these facts come at us from more rigorous scientific inquiry via the established ground rules for discovery based in the scientific method. This is a very different way of fact-finding and, although science itself can be filtered through an institutional agenda as well, the knowledge attained through this method is still, by far, the most precise and useful way to know something in order to solve a complex global problem like climate change. When it comes to understanding the real, physical world in which we actually live, it is this method that gave us the gift of an evolved awareness of our place in the universe (e.g. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Einstein) and beyond (e.g. quantum physics), and which now gives us the gift of our more Earthy awareness about climate change.

This is not to say that science is always right (my brother reminded me that scientists once thought the Earth was flat, and that some still do). But science is also a method by which we discovered we were wrong and, because it is a method for understanding something, it is the reason why we continue to find truth through the mist of myth and superstition that have fogged our past – like the myth we shouldn’t take action to reduce greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere because we still don’t know enough about it, or because god will take care of it somehow.

You can form your opinion on climate change by citing a filtered fact, or you can form it by citing the sources of fact, which in this case is the congruent evidence that comes to us via the scientific method employed in climatology, Earth science, geology, physics, anthropology, sociology, history and many other divergent studies – all of which derive conclusions grounded in the scientific procedure, and all of which agree that, as a matter of species survival, we better get on top of this thing.

To do this, we must not allow biased claims funded by the very multinational corporations who will suffer from any redirection of current energy policy, or by those with the loudest voices who simply scream through their media megaphones, to carry the same weight as hard science. This would be equivalent to giving a sociologist’s opinion on how to run a steel business the same weight as that of the owner of that steel business. This would be obviously absurd because the sociologist does not understand the language of the steel business, and vice versa. In a very real sense, they speak a different language, so it becomes impossible to find common ground for consensus.

So with climate change, we need to start speaking the same language, the language of science. Until we agree to talk in words we can all agree on, words that have the same meaning to everyone, how can we agree on anything? After all, when was the last time you changed your mind about something after listening to someone speak in a language you could not understand? So let me end with this:

я верю в науку

You believe it too, don’t you?

Colored Coverage on Black Friday

Colored Coverage on Black Friday: Why Don’t Those Black Lives Matter?

One of the most common, and seemingly virtuous, criticisms of the Black Lives Matter movement is that, while the movement professes care and concern for the black community, and for young, black men in particular, it is silent on the subject of black-on-black violence in our inner cities, where there are far more incidents of black men dying, than are dying at the hands of the police. More succinctly, if the BLM movement really cared about black lives, it would be more focused on where most of them are killed. From this point of view, then, the BLM movement is inherently hypocritical, as it preaches fairness and justice for all black lives, while ignoring the plight of the vast majority of them. If you’ve heard this criticism before, it’s no accident, as the messaging has been flooding conservative airwaves for months now. In fact, when it comes to BLM, conservative outlets like Fox News talk of nothing else, even evoking the narrative of clownish and ill-informed presidential candidates like Ben Carson.

In context, I write this essay on Black Friday (November 27^th, 2015), a day in which the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the PUSH Coalition are marching in downtown Chicago to protest law enforcement handling of the Laquan McDonald case, where officer Jerry Van dyke, an officer charged with multiple, prior incidents of racial insensitivity, shot and killed a black man 16 times, using excessive force (by any definition of the term) and against de-escalation protocols for officers engaged in confrontations with citizens acting erratically, holding a knife, but not posing a direct and immediate physical threat to the officer. As just the most recent example of mistreatment of poor black males at the hands of law enforcement, Jesse’s coalition marched to promote racial justness in justice.

On this same day, the Chicago police held a press conference to announce the arrest of Corey Morgan, for the gang-related shooting of Tyshawn Lee, an 8 year-old black boy, targeted for assassination in a heinous and obviously immoral act of apparent gang-related revenge violence.

Cue the cries of “hypocrisy” toward the Black Lives Matter movement. Where are the protestors now?

Although it may be presumptuous of me to respond to a question set that is just beginning to embed itself into the fabric of conservative white American thinking, allow me to provide some answers to the question that is surely being generated by the narrow worldview of Fox News and their ilk, as the focal point of the conversation that we should be having:  

Question Set: Well, where is Jesse Jackson now? Why isn’t Jesse and the PUSH Coalition as incensed by the death of this little black boy at the hands of gang members, as by the death of a drug addicted psycho wielding a knife against the police? Why aren’t the BLM protestors out marching on the streets of Chicago today, as outraged by the death of an innocent 8 year-old black boy as by the death of a known criminal? Why are they against law enforcement but not against violence on their own streets? Why don’t they care about their own communities?

This question set surrounds a narrative that has been generated to draw a profile of an entire group of black Americans, if not all of them, characterizing the entire problem as a lack of character. The narrative is provocative, alarmist, racist, and intentionally misleading (source: Media Matters).

So let me offer some answers to this misguided question set in an effort to draw a different profile, and to provoke a different set of more meaningful questions, for your consideration.

Answer 1:  The protest today was about equal justice for African-Americans in our criminal justice system. It was not about gun violence on our city streets, or about black-on-black violence, or violence in general. Although these are important and worthy talking points, this demonstration today was about ongoing, historical, and systemic racism in our criminal justice system.  

Let’s turn it around and frame it in the same way, using the same reasoning, and ask these questions:

Are you offended by the fact that the National Rifle Association (NRA) does nothing to address homelessness? Why is the NRA so silent on climate change? Women’s rights? Are you as indignant about the failure of the NRA to engage in these more worthy issues as you are that Black Lives Matter has more to say about justice than about violence?

There is a valid line of reasoning that argues that all American should come together to address the root issues causing poverty, violence and despair in society, and that disproportionate black-on-black violence is one of the core issues that creates disproportionate contact between young, urban black males and the police and, thus, disproportionate numbers of the black community being brutalized and killed by police. But Black Lives Matter is a movement focused on racial equality in justice, not gun violence, just as the NRA is an organization devoted to gun rights, not poverty. Sure, gun violence is more common among the poor, but the mission of the NRA is primarily to protect the rights of gun owners, so they shouldn’t be expected to speak out for the rights of the homeless, even if the issues are arguably intertwined.

One might conclude (wrongly) that a movement called Black Lives Matter, would focus on the entire scope of issues that affect black lives, in the same way that we might conclude that Americans for Prosperity fights for all Americans seeking prosperity. But in both cases, these organizations have more particular focal points - on racial inequality in justice, and on advancing the interest of the top 1% of earners (billionaires), respectively.

Answer 2:  The black community (*) does care about all forms of violence against their young, black men, and about disproportionate black-on-black violence, and there is a LOT going on within the black community, particularly on a local level, to address street violence.

The other narrative being advanced by the conservative right is the story that violence in our inner cities is the result of inaction among the community most affected by it, and that this inaction is the result of trait deficiencies among the black community at large. It is a failure of will to address violence in their communities. The message to black America is clear: Get your shit together.

But here is a prime example of the orchestrated disinformation campaign brought by conservative media outlets, aimed squarely at the wrong target, in an effort to distort the truth, because the fact of the matter is that there are literally hundreds of organizations involved in reducing violence, organized at the grassroots level by members of these very same communities, just in Chicago alone (just Google “Chicago organizations against violence” for that lengthy list).

One of those organizations is Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition, who were lambasted in conservative media for being off point and entirely irrelevant to the core issues that need to be addressed by the black community. The Rainbow PUSH Coalition, whose mission is to, “protect, defend, and gain civil rights by leveling the economic and educational playing fields, and to promote peace and justice around the world,” are regularly portrayed as Jesse Jackson’s ultra-liberal, radical assembly of race-mongers whose main purpose is to divide the country along racial fault lines in an effort to strip hard working Americans of their wealth and status and, no doubt, to institute reparations for blacks on a massive scale.

As one of the more formidable human rights and social justice advocacy groups in this country, is there merit to this charge by conservative media of irrelevancy? After all, shouldn’t we expect that a group like the Rainbow PUSH coalition devote at least some of their resources to other issues, especially issues that the BLM movement is already covering?

And in fact they do. Outside the narrowly focused lens of scrutiny they receive from conservative media like Fox News, Jesse Jackson’s coalition has been heavily invested in a whole array of social issues, ranging from poverty and hunger, peace and justice, gun violence, home foreclosure, voter inclusion and voter registration. You can hear his actual views on BLM, black-on-black violence, his coalition’s real agenda, and the media’s treatment of these issues here.

With such an ability to control the conservative narrative, it should come as no surprise that what you didn’t learn on Fox News, was this recent alliance formed between gun control advocates and BLM, to address the intersection of black lives and disproportionate police contact. Or maybe you missed the story about BLM fighting for 1^st Amendment rights in politics in Los Angeles? Perhaps you also missed the story of how the BLM movement has successfully altered the national conversation on race, toward more acceptance of, and outrage against, racial injustices in our criminal justice system? Maybe you missed in because your chosen media would rather promote fear (“if it bleeds, it leads”), such as the highly skewed coverage of the small minority of violent BLM protestors, as opposed to more truthful storytelling of the BLM movement, which has been predominantly peaceful, diverse, educated, and multi-faceted in its tactics.

As an ironic aside, the other major news story of the day was of an active shooter on the site of a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs, Colorado, in which yet another angst-ridden white man shot up yet another public space (this time an abortion clinic), killing five people, including one police officer. If the killer’s profile – a white male - sounds familiar, it should. Yet, as of this writing, there was no mention in the media of the need to address the problem of white male violence (white males account for about 70% of all violent crime in America), or white-on-white violence (84% of whites are killed by other whites) in response to this incident.  

The Black Lives Matter movement should not be expected to address every single issue affecting the black community, nor more than the NRA should be expected to address every single issue affecting gun owners. More importantly, the BLM movement should not be constantly berated, belittled, and bedazzled by right-wing media for ignoring issues lying farther afield from its focus on racial injustice in the criminal justice system, especially when they are, in fact, involved in coalition efforts to address these issues as well.

Perhaps the better question is: Why didn’t you know about it?

You can check out Black Lives Matter for yourself, and form your own opinion. But as you ruminate, make sure the questions you ask yourself are the right ones – and not just a pre-packaged question set shoved down your throat by politically-conservative, corporate media.

Kenneth H. Laundra, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Sociology

Co-Chair, Dept. of Sociology and Organizational Leadership

Millikin University

klaundra@millikin.edu

11/27/2015

*the “black community” is a term deserving of a separate line of discussion but not within the scope of this article.