Assignment

New folder/Political Cartoon IRI.docx

1

5

Student Name

WR 121

Teacher Name

Date

In today's political climate, and specifically around the issues of inequality based on ethnicity and race in the united states, every citizen of this country is a stakeholder. This idea doesn't seem to be commonplace in many of the voices emanating from this emotional and too often violent debate. University campuses are a unique reflection of society, in that they often thrust many different groups into a highly diverse environment where interaction and the exchange of ideas is both encouraged and necessary. This presents many challenges, and many opportunities for learning and for growth, but also for conflict and pain, sometimes unintended, sometimes deliberate, and unfortunately often inflicted by institutions. Why are we all so emotional around this discussion? How have we come to fear that which is not like us? It isn't hard to imagine why people of color are emotional: they are the most directly hurt by any form of discrimination whether by an institution or by individuals, but we are all hurt when one group has to work harder to achieve the same results, we are all hurt when ignorance is tolerated, and we are all hurt when (justified) anger does not move to positive energy. How do emotions and notions of power and privilege affect the outcomes in conflict resolution? Where does freedom of speech fit in when words can be a violent weapon? This discussion should aim to separate the notions of aggression and microaggression by drawing a line between intent, and error or misconception, not to absolve the ignorant party of any responsibility, but to foster an environment in which learning is cultivated, and where initial emotional responses are acknowledged then redirected to fuel growth and mutual understanding. Finally, this idea that we are all stakeholders must be explored further. The balance of power is a source of friction, and the idea that power is a zero-sum resource is perhaps one of the many deep roots of the problem. In essence we all gain, and none of us have anything to lose, by moving this discussion further down the path of peaceful resolution.

In the academic world, and specifically around the issues of antiracism, Ali Michael proposes that “a critical piece of the inquiry model of learning is that it cannot be based solely on our own existing understanding” (Michael 29). She further suggests the Johari Window as a model for examining how to gain deeper understanding over our own shortcomings. Specifically, over that which we don’t know we don’t know. This is important. A well-meaning student may directly offend another, or indirectly perpetuate the institutional nature of discrimination that exists today. What she means to say is that the notion of colorblindness that is popular among white millennials is counterproductive since it does not account for the fact that it is simply ignorant, literally, of the complex dimensions of racial identity. She is then correct in asserting that “we also have to act in ways that are intentionally anti-racist to explicitly eliminate racist impact on students” (Michael 66). Finding ways to explore what our identities have in common, may be just as important as asserting our identities’ uniqueness. Perhaps considering what it means to be white in earnest self-reflection may shed some light on the nature of privilege.

Racial identity is extremely relative, and communication around it has a deep relational aspect. This is due to the environment in which we grow up either as white, or as a person of color. Joshua Miller and Ann Marie Garran agree when they state that “people of color will be more aware of the salience of their race and how this can threaten their well-being in a racist society,” they add that “white people will encounter less dissonance between their race and their social world and experience less disequilibrium so they likely will not have to be conscious of their race constantly” (Miller and Garran 88-89). At this intersection we begin to discern the notions of privilege and power as major players in this conflict. They simplify matters by assigning responsibility broadly when they say that “the persistence of racism relies on collusion of the majority of white people in the United States, a form of by-standing that allows existing racial privileges for whites and the web of racism for people of color to remain unchallenged” (Miller and Garran 276). We must not ignore that causing harm, even unintentionally, has very real consequences for the victim. A thought reflected by Miller and Garran who propose that simply “having the courage to move beyond our comfort zones, extending that compassion to others through our actions” is a solid place to start (Miller and Garran 277). In other words, we must recognize our shortcomings, our negative emotions, such as fear, and redirect our energy in a more productive manner.

In the same way that fear affects white people’s ability to move the conflict forward in a positive way, anger, even justified, has the same effect on the abilities of people of color to do the same. Evelyn Lindner states that “our emotions affect conflict and conflict affects our emotions” (Lindner 268) This is reminiscent of the tendency of closed loop systems to entropy. Without new energy, there is a loss of momentum; a new challenge then, according to Peter Coleman who forewarns that “significant changes in the status quo of the balance of power between parties can affect experiences of relative deprivation and increase conflict aspirations.” (Coleman 133) In other words, the zero-sum notion of power seen as two sides of the same scale is largely responsible for engendering conflict. We, as American college students of all ethnic backgrounds, need to shift our understanding to something perhaps more counter-intuitive, where the two sides of the scale may never move in opposite directions, where if one side gains, then so does the other and vice-versa. Peter Coleman agrees when he states that “cooperative interdependence in conflict leads to orientation of gaining “power with” others” (Coleman 136). That is, “power with” others as opposed to “power over” them. This argument is corroborated by Lindner’s concluding thought that “for complex long-term problems, we need to entertain superordinate regulatory loops in our higher brain structures [and] slow down our thinking processes so we can assess them” (Lindner 285). In essence, this simply means that progress, understanding, and eventually resolution can only happen when rational thought is driven by a controlled release of the energy fueled by emotion, all parties are equally invested, all parties are equally represented, and all parties see themselves and each other as equal stakeholders.

There is hope, and much work to do. Ruth Sidel states that “administrators, teachers, and students then face the critical task of finding new ways to facilitate communication among disparate groups, of helping people from different backgrounds live together, and of creating a sense of connectedness in the outside world” (Sidel 9). It is hard to elaborate on her clear suggestion. Perhaps it may help to juxtapose this with her assessment that “among many barriers that many students have had to face in recent years are virtually continuous clashes stemming from prejudice, ethnocentrism and fear” and that “at the root of these clashes are entitlement and power” (Sidel 79). She implies that all of these clashes have been a result of deliberately malicious actions meant to elevate the status of one group above that of another. That is certainly at least partially true, but it is not the whole issue; it does however, run parallel to my argument that ignorance and apathy are at least as much responsible as fear and prejudice, or entitlement and power. Lindner inversely reflects my argument when she explains why we might experience anger such as “when we deem that the person who hurts us has sufficient control over the situation to avoid harming us” (Lindner 275). Sidel, in contrast, paints a cynical picture of the college student. She also contradicts her earlier assessment that students are “complex, sometimes conflicted players in a drama that is not, for the most part, of their making, but is nonetheless one for which many of them feel genuine concern and a sense of responsibility” (Sidel 9). This directly reflects my motives for exploring this thorny issue.

Finally, we must acknowledge the overarching issue of the institution as the main perpetuator of racism and inequality. It is not the scope of this discussion to review the history of racism at the hands of the United States government, though it is essential to acknowledge the heavy influence of the past on our present policy, and their inherent bias. Coleman specifically addresses this issue, reminding us that “the powerful also largely determine what is considered to be important, fair, and just in most settings and thus shape and control many methods of resolution” (Coleman 121). The convergence of these ideas of race, of power and government, and the deeply entrenched bias in the identity of our nation, resonates with Michael Ramirez’ cartoon criticizing the Obama administration for carrying-on with failed policy, to appease the population, and quiet our fear of change. Ramirez, let us be frank, mocks the American people for being blind and resting easy in the illusion of safety, rather than stepping outside of our comfort zones, and demanding real progress (Ramirez).

The unique opportunity presented by the nature of college campuses, that is, the high concentration of diverse and disparate groups, creates in us a responsibility or a duty to educate ourselves, and each other, in good faith and with compassionate intention, about what makes us different and what makes us the same, so that we may finally design ways to not only coexist, but to cooperate in making all of our lives better and safer in a world that rejects all notions of inequality as acceptable traits of our society. How much idealism is too much? How much is too little? Can we begin at the level of personal responsibility for our thoughts, our emotions and our actions, and push out and up through institutions and communities? Who holds the proverbial key? Is it the government, the people as whole, Millennials, or the next generation? Peaceful protest in the names of prosperity, and equal opportunity for all stakeholders is vital, and aggressive campaigns to reform policies which hold inherent bias must be once more de rigueur, and our prejudice must be turned away from each other and instead, to the very entity that separates us based on the color of our skin, our economic status, or any other differentiating factor. This cannot be the sole responsibility of the oppressed, and ignorance can no longer be condoned as a viable solution. Stop being colorblind when color is often the sole criteria on which institutionalized racism rests on. How do we bring stakeholders to the conversation? Who decides what is acceptable to say and what is not? There is no simple way to balance the importance of freedom of speech and the damaging nature of hate speech, since the lines are impossible to draw clearly. Can we improve the landscape of this conflict by adding more policy? As a nation, we seem to hold firm onto our constitution, against which all laws are meant to be weighed. Let us not forget that the document was written by wealthy white men a long time ago, in a world where slavery was a legal business, and neither slave nor woman had a vote. Isn't then our constitution the ultimate failed policy? Do we not need laws that better represent the interests of all people equally? Finally, we must look for those who gain the most by perpetuating the culture of racist oppression. The question is: why is someone still allowed to profit from it.

Works Cited Coleman, Peter T. "Power and Conflict." Deutsch, Morton, Peter T Coleman and Eric C Marcus. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass, 2006. 120-143. Print. Lindner, Evelyn G. "Emotion and Conflict: Why it is Important to Understand How Emotions Affect Conflict and How Conflict Affects Emotions." Deutsch, Morton, Peter T Coleman and Eric C Marcus. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2006. 268-293. Print. Michael, Ali. Raising Race Questions. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 2015. Print. Miller, Joshua and Ann Marie Garran. Racism in the United States. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2008. Print. Ramirez, Michael. Untitled. Investors Business Daily. 2015. Web. Sidel, Ruth. Battling Bias. New York, NY: Viking, 1994. Print.