Tuesday, October 14, 2008

inscrimination, discrimination

So what do we do, in a world where people are both routinely denied laurels and special recognition because of how they are different (and different for reasons not of their choosing)... but where they are also often the recipients of the same, and for the same reason?

How do I feel about this?

In high school my friend John used to complain about what he called "inscrimination", where people who were different were the recipients of awards, or applause, or (worst of all) outward and too-enthusiastic shows of friendship from their peers. In my friend's view, such positive attention was as offensive as negative attention. Because it wasn't genuine. Because it was an artifact of the very difference that we, as good enlightened late-20th century high school students, were supposed to ignore. This thinking is at the heart of one of the pillars of anti-affirmative action thinking. The other is the factor that, in jobs and college admission offers-- as in awards like Homecoming Queen-- we are dealing in zero-sum games. When someone is the recipient of preferential treatment because of the way they are different or disadvantaged, that cuts against someone who is not so preferred.

What John wanted was admirable, and it's the same thing that Ward Connerly and other affirmative action foes want. A truly open and free and fair society, with neither preference or discrimination for those outside the norm. A high school, a culture, where difference really doesn't matter.

But life, I'm afraid, is not that simple. These old ways of discrimination have a way of outliving anyone who would openly endorse them. And the stark question remains: what if denying this preference really does ensure that these people will have no opportunity to excel at all? Affirmative action foes want to keep the conversation centered purely on principle. But what about the consequences? What if ending widespread affirmative action means that black college attendance rates become extremely low-- as evidence from the California public education system seems to suggest they might? Can't even the most hardened anti-AA warrior concede that there are practical public disadvantages to having college attendance-- and effectively, participation in the American middle class -- be drawn along racial lines? I know that many would say quite openly that they don't care if any black people at all go to college, as long as the selection is based on equitable and fair criteria. For myself, I think the existence of a permanent black underclass has been a major detriment to a just and secure American society, and I can't imagine a way in which ending affirmative action-- without some concurrent effort to ameliorate black poverty and joblessness-- could have a positive effect on that reality.

What happens when we know that not giving some weight to the conditions of difference that certain among us have ensures that they won't achieve things like winning Homecoming Queen? Click through. Look at her smile. Could I deny her that moment? Could you?

And, of course, while it may be true that she only won because she has Downs syndrome, this is also true: the fact that she has Downs syndrome is precisely the reason why skeptics would be skeptical of her winning in the first place. Saying that it's unfair for her to win because she is the beneficiary of Downs syndrome ignores the fact that it is the physical and mental disability that she has suffered as a result of that condition that makes us so certain that her victory was the result of "incrimination". Not giving her the crown out of a strangled sense of obligation to what she has had to overcome does not, I'm afraid, teleport us into the level-playing field my friend, and so many others, have imagined, any more than giving her the crown somehow elevates her outside of the social un-personhood that intellectual disability sadly can create in peer groups. One way or another, her disability remains; I've long imagined that it's our deep discomfort with that inescapable reality that compels us to practice "inscrimination" in the first place.

With black and other racial minorities, too, we must remain cognizent that both our efforts to help them overcome prejudice, or our refusal to do so out of the principle that doing so only exacerbates that prejudice, does not change the fact that we have this thing called race, and it is complicated. This isn't to analogize being black with having Downs syndrome. Black people of course don't face the real physical or cognitive challenges those with Downs syndrome face. But whatever happy notions of a post-racial age the Obama candidacy or our continued fight against racism or simply living in the 21st century might give us, we must remember that there is such a thing called race, though we will of course have severe disagreements about what that racialization means. I've noticed that many white people become uncomfortable in class settings when race is discussed, and I believe it's because it's only when we talk about race that white people feel racialized, whereas most non-white people feel racialized far more often. It's important to remember that, I think.

That's not to say that we should feel guilty, for not being racialized, only that we should try to remain cognizent of that difference, as I do believe mutual understanding-- or at least the attempt at such-- is a key to maintaining a working society. People freak out when they feel they are being prescribed guilt; I think that's handicapped many liberal social projects. The point isn't to feel guilty about the existence of race but to not allow ourselves to fall into the pleasant fiction of the raceless world. This campaign has given us many reasons to cheer where we have gone, but it should also remind anyone who would care to look that race is still with us. Being black still means something. I now support class-based affirmative action over race-based affirmative action, out of political pragmatism more than anything else. But remember: neither affirmative action or the end of the same will change the fact that being black, being a racial minority in white America, means something, and will for a long time.

What do I do with this girl? Do I cringe at the condescension? Or do I thrill to her opportunity to experience this moment? I am disturbed by the over-earnestness of the gesture, but god, I am put off by some of the commenters on Jezebel who are criticizing this-- they are too smart by half, too self-satisfied in their certainty that this is the wrong thing.

Could they pass the ultimate test of whether they really think that this is an injustice? Could they tell that girl, to her face, that she doesn't deserve what she has won?

Could I?

9 comments:

q said...

Here's a far simpler and more likely reason for white people to be uncomfortable when people begin discussing race: there are far too many who would be all too willing to misconstrue or misrepresent anything white people say on race as racist.

Freddie said...

Perhaps. Misconstruing people, certainly, is a fault. But so is allowing the chance of being misconstrued to prevent you from engaging on a subject as important as race.

william randolph said...

Although it's beside the point, I want to believe that we live in a world where a community can love someone with Down syndrome enough to do something out of the ordinary just to make her happy. If that's over-earnestness... And surely, here of all places, we can admit that the meaning and requirements of “homecoming queen” are not fixed. (I've no clue whether that's what happened in this particular case.)

As for the rest... as a Southerner, it hits pretty hard that, as you've said, the past doesn't just disappear with a new generation, and some ghosts will haunt us for a long time.

q said...

I don't think it's a fault at all. Rather, it's self preservation. Doing otherwise would be self destructive in this age where information has an infinite shelf life and it is so easy to reach so many.

Freddie said...

But silence does nothing for any of us, and indeed there are many societies that are damaged by things that go unsaid.

One way to confront the problem is to lower the level of the rhetoric in our racial discourse, as I advocated for here.

q said...

Certainly, saying nothing is damaging for society as a whole. However, there are definite benefits for those who are silent. Speaking out only begins to benefit most individuals when society itself begins to change. That, of course, is why it is so frustrating that any mildly contrary idea can be shut down completely with accusations of racism. Some, the very few, can make their living out of being first and trying to change the tone of national discourse, but most just want to go on living their lives.

Read the post you referenced, and spot on.

I'd be quite interested in hearing your opinion on "White Guilt" by Shelby Steele. I thought it was very good, but you seem to have considered this subject in far more depth than I have and may have more criticisms. Thanks...

bcg said...

I think it would be easier to tell the winner with Down's Syndrome that she didn't deserve it than to tell the runner-up that she didn't deserve it.

This to me seems like exploiting a person with disabilities to make everyone at the school feel really fantastic about how charitable they all are. What about all the regularly ugly and stupid people who didn't win, but who aren't so ugly and stupid as to warrant compassion from the general population?

I'm not trying to be a hardass, either. I can see an argument that this makes her much, much happier than it would have made the runner-up, and if I'm going to be voting for someone to win, knowing who will be happiest is as good a criterion as any other. But there are many things in life that can delight a person with limited mental ability much more than a person closer to the average.

I know it probably makes a lot of people feel good that this can happen, and maybe a part of me does, but mostly I just feel shitty at yet another condescension leveled at someone who doesn't understand what's going on as a currency for their conscience.

Freddie said...

I have two questions for you, bcg. The first is that, if indeed this girl is incapable of understanding condescension, is she really being condescended to at all? Surely there is a self-reflective property of the feeling of condescension that makes it almost entirely a function of whether the person in question feels condescended to. In a simpler vein, if this girl is incapable of understanding the tangled mass of motives that compelled her peers to vote her Homecoming Queen, due to her cognitive impairment, doesn't utility suggest that the happiness she enjoys, and the pride her peers feel in electing her-- however ethically dubious-- is worth it in the end? I'm not saying that purely rhetorically; as I've said, I don't know what to think. But the question, it seems to me, remains open.

And I'm still left with this problem: if we're so sure that she didn't deserve to be Homecoming Queen, the only reason we can have for feeling that way (not knowing this girl beyond her disability) is for the fact that she has Downs syndrome. So if we've come down to the conclusion that someone with Downs syndrome cannot have legitimately won the award of Homecoming Queen, how are we pragmatically different from someone who would say "No one with Downs syndrome deserves to be Homecoming Queen"? Whatever our rationale for this assumption-- and I think we're both doing this out of a desire to not insult this girl or similar people in the process of perhaps unfairly praising them-- I can't imagine it's righteous if we arrive at a place where we have eliminated the possibility that someone with Downs syndrome could be a fair Homecoming Queen. That's discrimination, whatever the motives or rationale. And it damns through the soft bigotry of lowered expectations; how can we be so sure she doesn't deserve this for "the right reasons"?

bcg said...

First of all, I wanted to say I really appreciate the good faith - I was worried I was coming off too harshly.

If she doesn't understand the condescension, is she really being condescended to? I don't know. If I were her, I would think so; since I'm not her, this is really the best I can do. I can try to imagine myself as having cognitive impairment, but this exercise strikes me as useless. All I can do is try to treat others with the respect that I would want if I were in their position. If I were in her position, I would feel humiliated. She doesn't appear to be humiliated, but I'm wary to tear down my moral instinct and begin assuming that what's best for other people (especially people not as smart as me) differs from how I'd like to be treated. I remain suspicious of our ability to understand the world as they understand it, and so this attempt to manipulate their input is obviously suspect, as well.

Doesn't the end justify the means in this case? Given the situation you describe, probably. My only defense rests on, "Is this good for people with DS?" and my answer is no - but all that does is reveal an inability to see any part of her person past DS, which works against my point of trying to respect people with DS (which was your third point, I believe). This is the conundrum of trying to help a group if you think like someone who is anti-affirmative action - the argument falls apart on itself, "We should treat THEM like everyone else!" has already violated its own prescription.