The Conversation on Race and Hanlon's Razor

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Welcome to 2013, where Americans are, once again, calling for a national, local, personal, conversation on race.  Every time this comes up I find myself rolling my eyes, sighing, and waiting for it to pass.  Unfortunately, this time it seems to be a little more persistent than the last few times, so I got past that and into the question of "what does 'a conversation on race' even mean".

First, a disclaimer.  I'm a young, white, male; I won't be claiming to understand what racial prejudice feels like.

Now that that's out of the way, let's start with something, 90% of us can agree on (I made up that statistic, but it isn't relevant to my immediate point).  Racism is bad.  I know that seems trite, but I'm afraid that if I don't say it explicitly, someone might misunderstand my point.  If we can agree on at least that point, then we have a starting point for a conversation on race, which brings be back to the question, "what does 'a conversation on race' even mean" and the follow up question of "what does 'a conversation on race' look like".

On a national level, I don't think a conversation on race can happen.  At least not right now.  And why?  Because no one at a national level actually wants to have one.  Realistically, neither side (Democrat or Republican) has anything to gain by resolving racial conflict.  The Democrats can count on racial tension to galvanize their base (regardless of race, all true Democrats hate racism and injustice with righteous fury).  Meanwhile the Republicans, with their decidedly rockier relationships with minorities in general, can count on playing the 'playing the race card' card to rile up their own base.  Since both sides benefit from the controversy, I can't see either side truly investing in actually addressing it.  If the cynicism of that offends you... well... this is called "The Cynical Hammer", what did you expect?

Okay, but if we rule it out at a national level, we can still have this conversation at a local or personal level, right?  Yes... maybe.

On a local political level, these conversations happen when they're needed, without the national call to action.  When there is a race problem in a city, the city... eventually... addresses it.  I think there's plenty of room to improve on that process, but that is going to rely on the personal conversations.  Cities develop problems of race, not because they're led by cackling hooded figures who swear their allegiance to the Klan, but because they honestly don't see the policies and practices as racist or even creating a racial bias.  If you want to have a constructive conversation about those policies, they need to be approached as well-meaning, but ignorant, not malicious.  Accusations of deliberate racism are only met with defensive posturing and denial.  Instead of bringing accusations, bring data, bring evidence that; well meaning as the policy surely was, it is clearly failing on racial lines.  I know that places the burden on the victims to prove that they are victims, but we're at a point where we're not dealing with deliberate racism (for the most part), we're dealing with institutional, incidental, and accidental racism, and it needs to be addressed as such.

That brings me to the point of the personal level of conversations.  First, we should accept that racism is never going to go away completely.  People are typically hardwired to relate better to things that are similar to themselves and there will always be a certain, subconscious level, that feels that way.  The best we can really hope for is to relegate it to the same level of importance as differences in height.  Second, we should accept that both sides are probably going to have valid opinions and that disagreeing on something is not inherently racist.  Third, and most importantly, we absolutely must accept that discussing these issues and asking questions does not make someone a racist or even intolerant.  We will not move forward until we can accept that sometimes people don't know they're being offensive.  Accusing or scorning individuals for trying to improve their attitudes only discourages them from trying.

And both sides need to take responsibility for their part in the conversation.  When a white guy reaches out and says "how can I be less offensive" someone should take the time to answer the question.  All too often the attitude seems to be "you should already know that, how dare you ask" and, you know what, yes, maybe they should, but they don't, and they're asking, so answer the damn question.  And, when they don't ask and they're way out of line, say something.  Say it politely, but firmly, and repeatedly if necessary.

In conclusion, I'm going to relate a pair of anecdotes.  I'm not going to claim that in every circumstance that racism and homophobia parallel.  I don't think they do, because there is something to be said for the fact that you can't necessarily identify a gay guy or a lesbian on sight.

First, I want to vouch for the effectiveness of honest conversations about offensive things.  In college my fraternity, spurred by drunken antics, periodically threw informal "ask a gay guy" sessions.  The questions ranged from benign to raunchy, from mechanics of how things work in bed to the social norms on who pays for dinner, and they touched on what is and isn't offensive.  And people left knowing more than when they came in.  Some took it to heart, some didn't, but they were productive enough to happen periodically.  It is always better to ask the question and get the answer, than to make an assumption and be wrong.

Second, I had a roommate who knew I was gay, that idly, and with know malice towards me, would resort to using "fag" as a synonym for "idiot".  I politely, repeatedly, and firmly reminded him that was offensive.  (OK, I hit him in the arm with a wiffle ball bat every time he did it, but it was college and that was relatively polite.)  He finally snapped that I would never change the world.  My retort, and I wish I had this much wit most of the time, was "I'm not trying to change the world, I only need to change you".  And that, ultimately, is the truth here.  Racism, and all prejudice, born out of ignorance, can't be fixed at a national level.  It can only be fixed by one person reaching out to another; by one person saying "this is something I don't know how to address appropriately" and another saying "that's okay, this is how".

The Theory of Mediocrity

I've been working on this post for almost a month now and suffering from severe writer's block.

It seems like every few months some politician or pundit starts ranting about science that they clearly don't entirely understand. The outcome tends to range from humorous to downright terrifying. Take, for instance, the "series of tubes" incident from a couple years ago. It was relatively painless and everyone had a few laughs at the 84 year old senator's expense. (Ironically the series of tubes analogy is actually a fairly good, if overly simplistic, one.) But Senator Stevens clearly had no idea what he was talking so vehemently about. That's a dangerous situation with a relatively simple solution. We need to learn to trust scientists again.

I don't know when we stopped trusting scientists, but (as I often do) I blame the 80's. More accurately, I blame Reagan. Sure, it probably isn't his fault, but the culture that decided to elect an actor over a navy man who did his post-grad work in nuclear engineering has clearly been convinced that scientists are not to be trusted. Since then, and for as long as I've been alive, it's been an ongoing discussion of elitist attitudes.

I actually had someone ask me the other day why I should trust the experts on a topic over someone with a business degree. He called me an elitist and accused me of looking down on business majors. He didn't seem to care that it was a question of constitutional law, and when I offered to defer to his expertise on business questions he thought it was all a big joke.

Let's face it, experts are not always right, but as a general rule they know a lot more than the general public does on their subject. That is, after all, why they are called experts. They've typically gone to school for many years on their subject, and generally worked in the field as well. They don't just walk in off the street, declare themselves experts, and start pontificating on the subject (well, not usually).

Don't misunderstand me however, I'm not saying experts should control everything. Scientists are not necessarily good leaders, those are two unrelated skills. A good leader however should trust his advisers. A good leader doesn't have to be the smartest person in the room, in fact a good leader only needs to be smart enough to surround himself with people who are smarter than him and then listen to them.

We, as a society, need to stop punishing elitists. We need to stop beating up the smart kids in elementary school. We need to start rewarding the best and brightest instead of just the ones with a good throwing arm or the ones who can hit a fastball. We need to stop giving jobs to people who look and sound like us and start giving them to the awkward people who can do the work twice as well. And finally, we need to stop electing the people who make good drinking buddies and start electing the people who can outsmart us all.

My Words, Like Silent Raindrops, Fell

Okay so tomorrow is the "Day of Silence". The whole event is based on ending discrimination in highschools and colleges against GLBT students. It's certainly a noble cause and something that more people should put effort into. They point out that one of the biggest factors is that no one talks about the problems that GLBT students face. They have therefor chosen the only natural form of protest, being silent.

I'm going to give you a minute to let that sink in.

Yes, they're trying to fix too much silence by being deliberately silent. They explain it best on their "speaking cards":

"Please understand my reasons for not speaking today. I am participating in the Day of Silence, a national youth movement protesting the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies in schools. My deliberate silence echoes that silence, which is caused by harassment, prejudice, and discrimination. I believe that ending the silence is the first step toward fighting these injustices. Think about the voices you are not hearing today. What are you going to do to end the silence?"

This message always bothered me. The whole concept that people notice silence seems to fly in the face of their problem that no one is noticing the silence. There isn't much more I can say on this. GLBT students need to be noticed. Stand up. Speak, shout, yell at the top of your lungs if you have to. Do anything other than stay silent.

The China Syndrome

Alright, so apparently Beijing is hosting the summer Olympics this year. I don't think this is news to anyone but it's more interesting than anything that's been going on in the presidential election lately. It seems people with too much money and/or time on their hands (i.e. protesters) have a problem with China's handling of Tibet, Taiwan, Darfur, Human Rights, and the Spanish Inquisition.

It really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who's been awake at some point in the last 50 years that China doesn't have the most stellar record on dealing with problems the way Americans and Europeans think they should. But with a population the size of Europe and North America combined but only 1/4 the GDP it's a bit ill-conceived to expect them to react the same way (and that's before we even talk about the societal and governmental differences).

Don't misunderstand, I'm not defending the Chinese actions or positions, just trying to point out the western hypocrisies on the issue. Is China mishandling some of these situations? Almost certainly. If the Olympics weren't being held only months before a presidential election would we still hear politicians crowing about it? Almost certainly not.

Let's face it, as Americans we don't care about other countries unless they get our attention for some reason. There's a lot of talk about saving the people in Darfur but when it comes right down to it we have a "not my problem" attitude. We can't fix Darfur without significant military force and, ironically, most of the people who protest the genocide are also opposed to military force. This leaves me with a conundrum as to how they expect us to fix things. Are we supposed to stand at the border and yell at them until they do what we want?

So now China is hosting the Olympics and people are suddenly concerned about all of their problems. Naturally they're addressing their concerns in the only most reasonable of ways, by harassing the Olympic Torch relay. In the end no big sweeping changes will come from the protests. They aren't going to affect national or international policies because as soon as the Olympics are over the attention will be gone and people will still be dying.