Prof. Robin E. Gomolin
Sociology 281
Fall 2005.
(December 11, 2005)
Prejudice
To render justice to the word Prejudice we have to agree that we do come to the discussion with our likes and dislikes. Our tastes, therefore, for various assortments of things, do reflect our prejudice of a given situation. Many examples of racial and sexual prejudices have been acted out here in the United States, and all over the world for that matter. From a Socio-Psychological point of view, it is the negative and hostile behaviors meted out to "a distinguishable group of people" (1) or a representative of said group that constitute prejudice. Even at the apex of academia, prejudice has appeared sometimes subtle as in my celebrated case which began in the spring of 1990 at the University of Massachusetts at Boston and a more overt demonstration with Brown v. Board of Education, another landmark-setting development within the parameters of academia. The latter illustration took place in the 1950s. Some fifty years later, and institutionalized treatment toward people who are considered "different" for example, within the University setting; are targeted, harassed, isolated and prevented from doing a fair showing of their true worth, academically, due to their "distrust" of the system and, at times, they have been singled out and received unnecessary attention from other quarters they would rather not be associated with. This latter utterance is indeed interesting because, it too, demonstrates, to some degree, some level of dislike by association.For the University of Massachusetts, which was founded in 1863, two years before the actual abolition of slavery in the United States, to have not voluntarily settled for damages sustained during the 1990 College of Arts and Sciences Honors Program War remains suspicious, alarming and down right prejudicial. The findings of said war which is herein known as: An Honors Program Report deals with prejudice veiled by the gross abuse of academic power. A state institution such as UMass Boston, therefore, has allowed for and has tolerated and condoned of prejudice, in a negative sense, within its midst. Personally, I can only hope that such lapses will be dealt with administratively and rendered less torturous for those who dare to enter in.
For UMass Boston, stereotypes parade themselves through diversity (which is a good thing) but it also can create a milieu for scapegoating. Void of a fair and true ARBITER, in cases of this nature, the search for justice on the part of the injured party can be futile. Without a consensus of fair play demonstrated from the top of the institution or organization then the rank and file and mere peons will assume that they have a license to abuse. In some cases, appealing to an outside source, far removed from the situation, can prove worthwhile. In the case of UMass Boston the involvement of Governor Mitt Romney could prove fruitful. Like the Jews of post World War I Germany who were made scapegoats of the dismal and depraved conditions that existed, following the war (2), I felt myself being a scapegoat. The Administration, like the German government, did not do enough to protect my civil rights. "Thus the Nazis created the illusion that if the Jews could be punished, deprived of their civil rights, and ultimately eliminated, all of the problems then plaguing Germany would disappear." (3) For me, in a 2005 Alternate Commencement Address, I referred to the scapegoating I have, personally, experienced at the University of Massachusetts as Academic Malpractice on the part of the Administration, some faculty and some staff. Fortunately or not, that situation remains debatable and I can only hope that meaningful changes will be made and some more suitable replacements can be found or to make come true Henry Thoreau's 1854 statement of: "It is never too late to give up our prejudices." (4) It might be argued that I have remained too docile on the subject but I just needed to put the happenings of 1990 behind me and move on. However, that has not been easy to do but with the kind assistance of academic advisers whom I now can trust I am confident that I can finally move on from the traumatic experience which has consumed so much of my time and energy. This unfortunate encounter, therefore, which dealt with "intimacy, passion and commitment" (5) on my part, I am now prepared to release to other realms of nature.
On my first visit to the United States of America, in 1982, I was asked by Deborah Halber, a reporter from THE BAY STATE BANNER newspaper of my impressions of the racial tensions that exist in Boston to which I honestly responded, at the time, that I had not experienced "any racial hostility" (6) during my sojourn. Today, 23 years later, I think I understand what Deborah Halber was asking. If she were to ask such a question today I, unfortunately, would have to reply in the affirmative, that I have had such an experience. Let me defend my position on the matter by saying that when I came to the United States of America, then, in 1982, on an official visit, I was not privy to the racial politics of Boston and by extension Massachusetts. Yes, I knew of atrocities committed in the southern states of the United States as those were more blatant but the lure and mystique of Boston persist and despite my personal encounter with racial overtones since around 1990, I still like the ambiance of the Bay State -- Boston and Cambridge in particular. I have since been told by SOMEONE that: "I would go back to Jamaica. However, I would not visit Haiti." Although this reeks of prejudice and to some degree a lack of knowledge of culture, I think that the statement, a loaded one, could have been intended for me to "trip up" and let loose some unsavory words about Haiti. That, however, did not happen and I can say that I left the conversation a much wiser person. I had no intention, therefore, of scapegoating Haitians or stereotyping them as a people as that was not a negative prejudice of mine. I can be tenacious but a fanatic I am not. It was Winston Churchill, in 1944, who said: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." (7) I do hope my lecturer on the subject of the Caribbean has changed her mind! Failing which she remains chaste and as "rigid as a rock [foundation] in the sea." (8) Of course, chastity does have its positive side but it can function as a prejudice. Sometimes we fail to yield and, therefore, miss out on a lot of good stuff. However, the loss of one is the gain of another; another even more youthful and more caring.
Of course, I want to believe that my new found manner of channeling my energy and effort regarding the unsavory events of Honors 238 is honorable. Through the process of self evaluation, mainly dealt with in Sociology 281 -- Social Psychology -- at UMass Boston, I have been able to realize the influence of my environment -- society -- on me, as an individual, positively or negatively, and vice versa. There has been no need to view the core of the issue as an illusory correlation owing to the fact that it was highly personal but attracted company -- some good, others bad -- along the way. The thought that I was a member of the "out-group" reveals that some people lump others, who appear to be different from them, as the same. It cannot be true that all Italians are bigots. Such a statement would not be true. For instance: When the Italians and the Irish came to the United States of America were they readily adjudged as "whites"? For such a reason, therefore, we have to be cognizant of the fact that the out-group homogeneity label does not fit everyone. Outward appearances, veils included, do matter to some degree but they do not tell the complete story. Princes have been known to don rags!
In 1901, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said that: "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract. (9) To make come true this saying, then, it would follow the rules of logic that some people, adorned in academic regalia, appear to exhibit less brilliance the more they aspire for the Light -- God -- which should be our goal. A quick examination of self, however, should be able to correct the problem. We have to clean house at the top in order to give meaningful instructions to our constituents at large. However, logic might be too philosophical a tool to employ in some of these cases. At the core of some of us is the brute and as such, we, at times, have to treat them as such. However, compassion might be required to make them more civil. Here, I speak not as an alumnus but rather as a former elected representative of the people. I have found, in my public service career of some 25 years, that compassion is indeed a great stabilizer and an effective antidote. For the record, it must also be made clear that an elected position to government rivals none other. The Caesars had it right when they said: The greatest achievement (of men and women) is to found a Republic. My aunt-in-law, Monica English Hutton passed on the following "Real Life TV" quotation which I deem appropriate to end this segment with. It says: "What you are is God's gift to you. What you make of yourself is your gift to God." God has carried us thus far, He expects us, with His guidance, to do the rest.
----------------------------------------
(1) Aronson, Elliot, et al. Social Psychology, Fifth Edition, p. 433, Pearson, Prentice Hall, 2005.
(2) Ibid, pp. 459 - 460.
(3) Ibid, p. 460.
(4) Ibid, p. 464.
(5) Ibid, p. 337.
(6) The Bay State Banner, Thursday, September 16, 1982, pp. 2 & 17.
(7) Aronson, Elliot, et al. Social Psychology, Fifth Edition, p. 451, Pearson, Prentice Hall, 2005.
(8) Bandello, Matteo. Novellas (UMass Boston Honors 238 Class Hand Out, Spring 1990), p. 200.
(9) Aronson, Elliot, et al. Social Psychology, Fifth Edition, p. 443, Pearson, Prentice Hall, 2005.
No comments:
Post a Comment