BLOG: Add Your Voice

Add your voice by giving some feedback to these questions.

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/mlk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 666

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/mlk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 666

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/mlk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 666

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/mlk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 666

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/mlk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 666

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/mlk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 666

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/mlk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 666

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/mlk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 666

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/mlk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 666

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/mlk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 666

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/mlk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 666

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/mlk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 666

Blogging: Diversity

What is it and who needs it?

Why do we care about diversity?

What does diversity mean to your generation?

Who are YOU?

What’s NOT diversity?

How can you best describe diversity here on this campus? now/today? What do you envision it becoming?

You are invited to post your candid thoughts to any of the above questions,

or ask your own for the rest of us to answer!

To add your comment, click on the title of the post you want to comment on,  or on the the counter that displays the number of comments for each post. You can also register for the site and make your own post in this category.

There are now separate categories relating to the different types of diversity issues. If you’d like to discuss one of the more particular sets of issues click on the category below and respond to the questions on the sub-category page.

Racial and Ethnic Diversity

Sexual Identity and Preference

Sex and Gender

Religious Diversity

Cultural and Economic Diversity

RLC A.W.A.R.E. Discussion “Feminism: Old School, New School, or Classic?” Tuesday at 5:30

RLC  A.W.A.R.E. Discussion
“Feminism: Old School, New School, or Classic?”

The Womens Issues Residential Life Community (RLC) is sponsoring a discussion of women’s and gender diversity issues in connection with the Shape of Diversity Project. Come discuss what it is like to be a woman at SAC and how Feminism applies (or fails to apply) to you.

“I do not want you to ignore my identity, nor do I want you to make it an insurmountable barrier between our sharing of strengths… I am your sister.” Audre Lord

An Open Discussion with Faculty and Students: How do issues of Diversity and Gender present Imagethemselves to the current generation of women at Saint Anselm College: Are women still struggling against a male-centered system of oppression and privilege? Are they newly empowered to take on the world on their own terms? Or are there types of women’s issues that still apply and are relevant across the generations.

Homemade Food and Refreshments will be served! Yum!

Join us!

RSVP on Facebook:

Time Tuesday, February 8 · 5:30pm – 7:00pm

Location Bradley House Lounge

Created By Lucubrations,Brittany Handcock, Megan Leahey, Alyssa Hatem, Justine Johnson

RLC a.w.a.r.e. Discussion “Feminism: Old School, New School, or Classic?”

RLC a.w.a.r.e. Discussion:
“Feminism: Old School, New School, or Classic?”


An Open Discussion with Faculty and Students:

  • How do issues of
    Diversity and Gender present themselves to the current generation of
    women at Saint Anselm College:
  • Are women still struggling against a
    male-centered system of oppression and privilege?
  • Are they newly
    empowered to take on the world on their own terms?
  • Or are there types
    of women’s issues that still apply and are relevant across the
Tuesday, February 8 · 5:45pm – 7:00pm

Location Bradley
House Lounge

“I do not want you to ignore my identity, nor do I want you to make it an
insurmountable barrier between our sharing of strengths… I am your
sister.” Audre Lord

RSVP on Facebook:

A dialogue on Biracial Identity by Ken Taylor (from Philosophy Talk)
Here is the program that this dialogue went with:



*     TO LIVE IN CHRIST JESUS, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1976:

“Homosexuals, like everyone else, should not suffer from prejudice against their basic.
human rights. They have a right to respect, friendship and justice. They should have an
active role in the Christian community.”

Washington State Catholic Conference, 1983:

“Church teaching is positive with regard to homosexual persons considered in the totality
of their beings…Church teaching does not morally condemn homosexual orientation…,Nor .
are homosexual persons to be blamed for not changing their orientations…Church teaching
. indicates that even with regard to homogenital activity no one except Almighty God can .
make certain judgments about the personal sinfulness of acts. ..the prejudice against
homosexuals is a greater infringement of the norm of Christian morality than is:
homosexual orientation or activity.”

Congregation of the Doctrine of the
Faith, 1986:

“It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the objects of violent malice
in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors
wherever it occurs…The particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin.”

Conference, 1987:

“Those who are gay or lesbian…should not be objects of discrimination, injustice or
violence. All of God’s sons and daughters, all members of our society, are entitled to the
recognition of their full human dignity.”

United States Catholic Conference, 1990:

“Sexuality..,is a fundamental dimension of every human being. It is reflected physiologically,
Psychologically, and relationally in a person’s gender identity as well as in one’s primary
sexual orientation and behavior. For some young men and women, this means a discovery
that one is homosexual, i.e., that one’s ‘sexual inclinations are orientated predominately
toward persons of the same sex.’”

“We call on all Christians and citizens of good will to confront their own fears about

homosexuality and to curb the humor and discrimination that offend homosexual persons.
We understand that having a homosexual orientation brings with it enough anxiety, pain
and issue related to self-acceptance without society adding additional prejudicial,

“Educationally, homosexuality cannot and ought not be skirted or ignored. The topic
must be faced in all objectivity by the pupil and the educator when the case presents itself.
First and foremost, we support modeling and teaching respect for every human person,
regardless of sexual orientation. Second, a parent or teacher must also present clearly and
delicately the unambiguous moral norms of the Christian tradition regarding homosexual
genital activity, appropriately geared to the age level and maturity of the learner, Finally,
parents and educators must remain open to the possibility that a particular person, whether
adolescent or adult, may be struggling to accept his or her own homosexual orientation.
The distinction between being homosexual and doing homosexual genital actions, while.
not always clear and convincing, is a helpful and important one when dealing with the
complex issue of homosexuality, particularly in the educational and pastoral arena.”


“(Homosexual persons) must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every
sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

“Homosexual persons are called to chastity.” “Chastity means the successful integration of
sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being.”

Cardinal Basil Hume, London, 1995:

“Friendship is a gift from God. Friendship is a way of loving. Friendship is necessary for
every person. To equate friendship and full sexual involvement with another is to distort
the very concept of friendship. Sexual loving presupposes friendship, but friendship does
not require full sexual involvement. It is a mistake to say or think or presume that if two
persons of the same or different sexes enjoy a deep and lasting friendship then they must be
sexually involved.”

NCCB Bishops’ Committee on Marriage and Family, 1998;

“This child, who has always been God’s gift to you, may now be the cause of another
gift: your family becoming more honest, respectful and supportive…It seems appropriate to
understand sexual orientation (heterosexual or homosexual) as a deep seated dimension of
one’s personality and to recognize its relative stability in a person…Generally, homosexual
orientation is experienced as a given, not as something freely chosen. By itself, therefore,
a homosexual orientation cannot be considered sinful, for morality presumes the freedom to

choose….God loves every person as a unique individual. Sexual identity helps to define the
unique persons we are. One component of our sexual identity is sexual orientation..,All
homosexual persons have a right to be welcomed into the community, to hear the word of
God, and to receive pastoral care. Homosexual persons who are living chaste lives should
have opportunities to lead and serve the community.”

“You are always my child, nothing can ever change that, You are also a child of God,,
gifted and called for a purpose in God’s design,..In you God’s love is revealed.”


“It is important that Church ministers listen to the experiences, needs and hopes of the persons
with a homosexual inclination to whom and with whom they minister. Dialogue provides an
exchange of information, and also communicates a respect for the innate dignity of other -
persons and a respect for their consciences.”

Time for NFL to Jettison Rooney Rule

Regardless if you’re interested in sports or not, this issue reflects a larger idea that racial integration in sports – with all its different viewpoints and controversies – is something we must all be conscience of.  I think the “Rooney Rule” appears to undermine the process of integrating more racial diversity into the NFL.  In many instances, ESPN will break a story of a coach hiring in the NFL and later note that the decision is pending a minority candidate interview.  In fact, if I was a minority candidate, I would feel insulted by the process and would feel inclined to refuse to be a part of a flawed system that functions in order to fulfill a quota.  The NFL, as a league, tends to be very diverse with respect to its players.  However, I believe if the league wants to integrate more black coaches, for whatever reasons, it should take a different approach that does not exploit black head coach candidates.

Affirmative Action: Twenty-five Years of Controversy

I found this article to be not only interesting and relevant, but valuable, in that it offers both the pros and cons of preferential treatment within society.  I believe that some groups of people – not just simply all blacks or all Hispanics, but certain interracial urban communities as a whole – are at an economic disadvantage in comparison to other communities.  With that being said, it is quite clear how the issue of affirmative action can cause racial tension and some cases, even foster hostility.

Optional Ethnicities: For Whites Only? Mary C. Waters

Optional Ethnicity: For Whites Only? –waters


For Whites Only?
by Mary C. Waters
What does it mean to talk about ethnicity as an option for an individual? To argue that an individual has some degree of choice in their ethnic identity flies in the face of the commonsense notion of ethnicity many of us believe in—that one’s ethnic identity is a fixed characteristic, reflective of blood ties and given at birth. However, social scientists who study ethnicity have long concluded that while ethnicity is based on a belief in a common ancestry, ethnicity is primarily a social phenomenon, not a biological one. The belief that members of an ethnic group have that they share a common ancestry may not be a fact. There is a great deal of change in ethnic identities across generations through intermarriage, changing allegiances, and changing social categories. There is also a much larger amount of change in the identities of individuals over their lives than is commonly believed. While most people are aware of the phenomenon known as “passing”–people raised as one race who change at some point and claim a different race as their identity–there are similar life course changes in ethnicity that happen all the time and are not given the same degree of attention as “racial passing”.

White Americans of European ancestry can be described as having a great deal of choice in terms of their ethnic identities. The two major types of options White Americans can exercise are (1) the option of whether to claim any specific ancestry, or to just be “White” or American and (2) the choice of which of their European ancestries to choose to include in their description of their own identities. In both cases, the option of choosing how to present yourself on surveys and in everyday social interactions exists for Whites because of social changes and societal conditions that have created a great deal of social mobility, immigrant assimilation, and political and economic power for Whites in the United States. Specifically, the option of being able to not claim any ethnic identity exists for Whites of European background in the United States because they are the majority group—in terms of holding political and social power, as well as being a numerical majority. The option of choosing among different ethnicities in their family backgrounds exists because the degree of discrimination and social distance attached to specific European backgrounds has diminished over time…..


What do these ethnic identities mean to people and why do they cling to them rather than just abandoning the ties and calling themselves Americans? My own field research with suburban Whites in California and Pennsylvania found that later-generation descendants of European origin maintain what are called “symbolic ethnicities”. Symbolic ethnicity is a term coined by Herbert Gans to refer to ethnicity that is individualistic in nature and without real social cost for the individual. These symbolic identifications are essentially leisure-time activities, rooted nuclear family traditions and reinforced by the voluntary enjoyable aspects of being ethnic. Richard Alba also found later-generation Whites in Albany, New York, who chose to keep a ties with an ethnic identity because of the enjoyable and voluntary aspects to those identities, along with the feelings of specialness they entailed. And example of symbolic ethnicity is individuals who identify as Irish, for example, on occasions such as Saint Patrick’s Day, on family holidays, or for vacations. They do not usually belong to Irish American organizations, live in Irish neighborhoods, work in Irish jobs, or marry other Irish people. The symbolic meaning of being Irish American can be constructed by individuals from mass media images, family traditions, or other intermittent social activities. In other words, for later-generation White ethnics, ethnicity is not something that influences their lives unless they want it to.. In the world of work and school and neighborhood, individuals do not have to admit to being ethnic unless they choose to. And for an increasing number of European-origin individuals whose parents and grandparents have intermarried, the ethnicity they claim is largely a matter of personal choice as they sort through all of the possible combinations of groups in their genealogies….


However much symbolic ethnicity is without cost for the individual, there is a cost associated with symbolic ethnicity for the society. That is because symbolic ethnicity’s of the type described here are confined to White Americans of European origin. Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and American Indians do not have the option of a symbolic ethnicity at present in the United States. For all of the ways in which ethnicity does not matter for White Americans, it does matter for non-Whites. Who your ancestors are does affect your choice of spouse, where you live, what job you have, who your friends are, and what your chances are for success in American society, if those ancestors happen not to be from Europe. The reality is that White ethnics have a lot more choice and room for maneuver than they themselves think they do. The situation is very different for members of racial minorities, whose lives are strongly influenced by their race or national origin regardless of how much they may choose not to identify themselves in terms of the ancestries.

When White Americans learn the stories of how their grandparents and great-grandparents triumphed in the United States over adversity, they are usually told in terms of their individual efforts and triumphs. The important role of labor unions and other organized political and economic actors in their social and economic successes are left out of the story in favor of a generational story of individual Americans rising up against communitarian, Old World intolerance, and New World resistance. As a result, the “individualized” voluntary, cultural view of ethnicity for Whites is what is remembered.

One important implication of these identities is that they tend to be very individualistic. There is a tendency to view valuing diversity in a pluralistic environment as equating all groups. The symbolic ethnic tends to think that all groups are equal; everyone has a background that is their right to celebrate and pass on to their children. This leads to the conclusion that all identities are equal and all identities in some sense are interchangeable—”I’m Italian American, you’re Polish American. I’m Irish American, you’re African American”. {It’s seen as} The important thing is to treat people as individuals and all equally. However, this assumption ignores the very big difference between an individualistic symbolic ethnic identity and a socially enforced and imposed racial identity.

My favorite example of how this type of thinking can lead to some severe misunderstandings between people of different backgrounds is from the Dear Abby advice column. A few years back a person wrote in who had asked an acquaintance of Asian background where his family was from. His acquaintance answered that this was a rude question and he would not reply. The bewildered White asked Abby why it was rude, since he thought it was a sign of respect to wonder where people were from, and he certainly would not mind anyone asking HIM about where his family was from. Abby asked her readers to write to say whether it was rude to ask about a person’s ethnic background. She reported that she got a large response, that most non-Whites thought it was a sign of disrespect, and Whites thought it was flattering:

Dear Abby,

I am 100 percent American and because I am of Asian ancestry I am often asked “What are you?”

It’s not the personal nature of this question that bothers me, it’s the question itself. This query

seems to question my very humanity. “What am I? Why I am a person like everyone else!”


Dear Abby,

Why do people resent being asked what they are? The Irish are so proud of being Irish,they tell you before you even ask. Tip O’Neill has never tried to hide his Irish ancestry.

Signed, JIMMY

In this exchange, Jimmy cannot understand why Asians are not as happy to be asked about their ethnicity as he is, because he understands his ethnicity and theirs to be separate but equal. Everyone has to come from somewhere—his family from Ireland, another’s family from Asia—each has a history and each should be proud of it. But the reason he cannot understand the perspective of the Asian American is that all ethnicities are not equal; all are not symbolic, costless, and voluntary. When White Americans equate their own symbolic ethnicities with the socially enforced identities of non-White Americans, they obscure the fact that the experiences of Whites and non-Whites have been qualitatively different in the United States and that current identities of individuals partly reflect that unequal history.

In the next section I describe how relations between Black and White students on college campuses reflect some of these asymmetries in the understanding of what a racial or ethnic identity means. While I focus on Black and White students in the following discussion, you should be aware that the myriad other groups in the United States—Mexican Americans, American Indians, Japanese Americans—all have some degree of social and individual influences on their identities, which reflect the group’s social and economic history and present circumstance.


Both Black and White students face the task of developing their race and ethnic identities. Sociologists and psychologists note that at the time people leave home and begin to live independently from their parents, often ages eighteen to twenty-two, they report a heightened sense of racial and ethnic identity as they sort through how much of their beliefs and behaviors are idiosyncratic to their families and how much are shared with other people. It is not until one comes in close contact with many people who are different from oneself that individuals realize the ways in which their backgrounds may influence their individual personality. This involves coming into contact with people who are different in terms of their ethnicity, class, religion, region, and race. For White students, the ethnicity they claim is more often than not a symbolic one—with all of the voluntary, enjoyable, and intermittent characteristics I have described above.

Black students at the university are also developing identities through interactions with others who are different from them. Their identity development is more complicated than that of Whites because of the added element of racial discrimination and racism, along with the “ethnic” developments of finding others who share their background. Thus Black students have the positive attraction of being around other Black students who share some cultural elements, as well as the need to band together with other students in a reactive and oppositional way in the face of racist incidents on campus.

Colleges and universities across the country have been increasing diversity among their student bodies in the last few decades. This has led in many cases to strained relations among students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds. The 1980s and 1990s produced a great number of racial incidents and high racial tensions on campuses. While there were a number of racial incidents that were due to bigotry, unlawful behavior, and violent or vicious attacks, much of what happens among students on campuses involves a low level of tension and awkwardness in social interactions.

Many Black students experience racism personally for the first time on campus. The upper-middle-class students from White suburbs were often isolated enough that their presence was not threatening to racists in their high schools. Also, their class background was know by their residence and this may have prevented attacks being directed at them. Often Black students at the university who begin talking with other students and recognizing racial slights will remember incidents that happened to them earlier that they might not have thought were related to race.

Black college students across the country experience a sizable number of incidents that are clearly the result of racism. Many of the most blatant ones that occur between students are the result of drinking. Sometimes late night, drunken groups of White students coming home from parties will yell slurs at single Black students on the street. The other types of incidents that happen include being singled out for special treatment by employees, such as being followed when shopping at the campus bookstore, or going to the art museum with your class and the guard stops you and asks for your ID. Others involve impersonal encounters on the street—being called a nigger by a truck driver while crossing the street, or seeing old ladies clutch their pocketbooks and shake in terror as you pass them on the street. For the most part these incidents are not specific to the university environment, they are the types of incidents middle-class Blacks face every day throughout American society, and they have been documented by sociologists.

In such a climate, however, with students experiencing these types of incidents and talking with each other about them, Black students do experience a tensions and a feeling of being singled out. It is unfair that is part of their college experience and not that of White students. Dealing with incidents like this, or the ever-present threat of such incidents, is an ongoing developmental task for Black students that takes energy, attention, and strength of character. It should be clearly understood that this is an asymmetry in the “college experience” for Black and White students. It is one of the unfair aspects of life that results from living in a society with ongoing racial prejudice and discrimination. It is also very understandable that is makes some students angry at the unfairness of it all, even if there is no one to blame specifically. It is also very troubling because, while most Whites do not create these incidents, some do, and it is never clear until you know someone well whether they are the type of person who could do something like this. So one of the reactions of Black students to these incidents is to band together.

In some sense then, as Blauner has argued, you can see Black students coming together on campus as both an “ethnic” pull of wanting to be together to share common experiences and community, and a “:racial ” push of banding together defensively because of perceived rejection and tensions from Whites. In this way the ethnic identities of Black students are in some sense similar to, say, Korean students wanting to be together to share experiences. And it is an ethnicity that is generally much stronger than, say, Italian Americans. But for Koreans who come together there is generally a definition of themselves as “different from” Whites. For Blacks reacting to exclusion, there is a tendency for the coming together to involve both being “different from” but also “opposed to ” Whites.

The anthropologist John Ogbu has documented the tendency of minorities in a variety of societies around the world, who have experienced severe blocked mobility for long periods of time, to develop such oppositional identities. An important component of having such an identity is to describe others of your group who do not join in the group solidarity as devaluing and denying their very core identity. This is why it is not common for successful Asians to be accused by others of “acting White” in the United States, but it is quite common for such a term to be used by Blacks and Latinos. The oppositional component of a Black identity also explains how Black people can question whether others are acting “Black enough”. On campus, it explains some of the intense pressures felt by Black students who do not make their racial identity central and who choose to hang out primarily with non-Blacks. This pressure from the group, which is partly defining itself by not being White, is exacerbated by the fact that race is a physical marker in American society. No one immediately notices the Jewish students sitting together in the dining hall, or the one Jewish student sitting surrounded by non-Jews, or the Texan sitting with the Californians, but everyone notices the Black student who is or is not at the “Black table” in the cafeteria.

An example of the kinds of misunderstandings that can arise because of different understandings of the meanings and implications of symbolic versus oppositional identities concerns questions students ask one another in the dorms about personal appearances and customs. A very common type of interaction in the dorm concerns questions Whites ask Blacks about their hair. Because Whites tend to know little about Blacks, and Blacks know a lot about Whites, there is a general symmetry in the level of curiosity people have about one another. Whites, as the numerical majority, have had little contact with Black culture; Blacks, especially those who are in college, have had to develop bicultural skills—knowledge about the social worlds of both Whites and Blacks. Miscommunication and hurt feelings about White students’ questions about Black students’ hair illustrates this point. One of the things that happens freshman year is that White students are around Black students as they fix their hair. White students are generally quite curious about Black students’ hair—they have basic questions such as how often Blacks wash their hair, how they get it straightened or curled, what products they us on their hair, how they comb it, etc. Whites often wonder to themselves whether they should ask these questions. One thought experiment Whites perform is to ask themselves whether a particular question would upset them. Adopting the “do unto others” rule, they as themselves, “If a Black person was curious about my hair would I get upset?” The answer usually is “No, I would be happy to tell them.” Another example is an Italian American student wondering to himself, “Would I be upset if someone asked me about calamari?” The answer is no, so she asks her Black roommate about collard greens and the roommate explodes with an angry response such as “Do you think all Black people eat watermelon too?” Note that if this Italian American knew her friend was Trinidadian American, and asked about peas and rice, the situation would be more similar and would not necessarily ignite underlying tensions.

Like the debate in Dear Abby. These innocent questions are likely to lead to resentment. The issue of stereotypes about Black Americans and the assumption that all Blacks are alike and have the same stereotypical cultural traits has more power to hurt or offend a Black person than vice versa. The innocent questions about Black hair also bring up a number of asymmetries between the Black and White experience. Because Blacks tend to have more knowledge about Whites than vice versa, there is not an even exchange going on, the Black freshman is likely to have fewer basic questions about his White roommate than his White roommate has about him. Because of the differences historically in the group experiences of Blacks and Whites there are some connotations to Black hair that don’t exist about White hair. (For instance, is straightening your hair a form of assimilation, do some people distinguish between women having “good hair” and “bad hair” in terms of beauty, and how is that related to looking “White”?) Finally, even a Black freshman who cheerfully disregards or is unaware that there are these asymmetries will soon slam into another asymmetry if she willingly answers every innocent question asked of her. In a situation where Blacks make up only 10 percent of the student body, if every non-Black needs to be educated about hair, she will have to explain it to nine other students. As one Black student explained to me, after you’ve been asked a couple of times about something so personal you begin to feel like you are an attraction in a zoo, that you are the university for the education of the White students.


Our society asks a lot of young people. We ask young people to do something that no one else does as successfully on such a wide scale—that is to live together with people from very different backgrounds, to respect one another, to appreciate one another, and to enjoy and learn from one another. The successes that occur every day in this endeavor are many, and they are too often overlooked. However, the problems and tensions are also real, and they will not vanish on their own. We tend to see pluralism working in the United States in much the same way some people expect capitalism to work. If you put together people with various interests and abilities and resources, the “invisible hand” of capitalism is supposed to make all the parts work together in an economy for the common good.

There is much to be said for such a model—the invisible hand of the market can solve complicated problems of production and distribution better than any “visible hand” of a state plan. However, we have learned that unequal power relations among the actors in the capitalist marketplace, as well as “externalities” that the market cannot account for, such as long-term pollution, or collusion between corporations, or the exploitation of child labor, means that state regulation is often needed. Pluralism and the relations between groups are very similar. There is a lot to be said for the idea that bringing people who belong to different ethnic or racial groups together in institutions with no interference will have good consequences. Students from different backgrounds will make friends if they share a dorm room or corridor, and there is no need for the institution to do any more than provide the locale. But like capitalism, the invisible hand of pluralism does not do well when power relations and externalities are ignored. When you bring together individuals from groups that are differentially valued in the wider society and provide no guidance there will be problems. In these cases the “invisible hand” of pluralist relations does not work, and tensions and disagreements can arise without any particular individual or group of individuals being “to blame”. On college campuses in the 1990s some of the tensions between students are of this sort. They arise from honest misunderstandings, lack of a common background, and very different experiences of what race and ethnicity mean to the individual.

The implications of symbolic ethnicities for thinking about race relations are subtle but consequential. If your understanding of your own ethnicity and its relationship to society and politics is one of individual choice, it becomes harder to understand the need for programs like affirmative action, which recognize the ongoing need for group struggle and group recognition, in order to bring about social change. It also is hard for a White college student to understand the need that minority students feel to band together against discrimination. It also is easy, on the individual level, to expect everyone else to be able to turn their ethnicity on and off at will, the way you are able to, without understanding that ongoing discrimination and societal attention to minority status makes that impossible for individuals from minority groups to do. The paradox of symbolic ethnicity is that it depends upon the ultimate goal of a pluralist society, and at the same time makes it more difficult to achieve that ultimate goal. It is dependent upon the concept that all ethnicities mean the same thing, that enjoying the traditions one’s heritage is an option available to a group or an individual, but that such a heritage should not have social costs associated with it.

As the Asian Americans who wrote to Dear Abby make clear, there are many societal issues and involuntary ascriptions associated with non-White identities. The developments necessary for this to change are not individual but societal in nature. Social mobility and declining racial and ethnic sensitivity are closely associated. The legacy and the present reality of discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity must be overcome before the ideal of a pluralist society, where all heritages are treated equally and are equally available for individuals to choose or discard at will, is realized.

Pharr–Homophobia as Weapon of Sexism

Pharr–Homophobia as Weapon of Sexism

The author utilizes homophobia, heterosexism, and sexism, as variables in this article with the purpose of exploring their interconnection and relationship with one another. She does this by breaking them down into seven specific sub-topics: Homosexuality and the Bible, Homophobia and Heterosexism, Lesbians and Gay Men: A Threat to the Heart of Sexism, Lesbians and Heterosexual Women: A Measure of Social Control, Sexual Identity, The Cost of Homophobia, and The Elimination of Homophobia. Before she begins she defines homophobia for the readers and describes briefly how it has been viewed in the past as well as her own experiences with homophobia.

She begins with the topic of Homosexuality and the bible or what she refers to as “the bible theory.” She points out that the bible is frequently used as a reference point and as validation for the persecution of Gays and Lesbians. She specifically identifies several passages that have been used to justify homophobia. In response to those arguments, she provides current counter-arguments in an effort to make the reader aware there are current scholarly debates on the issue of these citations and condemnations of homosexuality found in original biblical texts. The author then addresses the issue of the link between Homophobia and Heterosexism.

She indicates that “Homophobia is an effective weapon of sexism because it is joined with heterosexism” (3). She states that it assists in creating the belief that, “the world is and must be Heterosexual and its display of power and privilege” (3). It is in this section the author touches on the issue of socialization of Heterosexism as children through adulthood, which establishes and builds the link between sexism and homophobia.

In the next section the author uses the example of Lesbians to illustrate the response of the patriarchal system (see end note #1). Lesbians step out of the traditional role established for wimmin and resist the “sexual and economic dependence upon men.” She goes on to illustrate that homosexuals are perceived as a threat to the established essence of society specifically, family, male dominance and control, and “the very heart of sexism.”

The examination of the premise that homophobia is used to “wield the power over women.” The author suggests this is commonly done through “lesbian baiting.” The author asserts that women may be controlled through their fear of being labeled as a lesbian. This labeling occurs because individuals exhibit behavior outside traditional gender roles. She purports women who believe in and work for women’s rights avoid labeling themselves as feminists for this very reason.

Sexual identity is discussed and the author asserts that the interest in identifying the cause of the development of sexual identity is, “to discover how lesbian and gay identity develops so they will know how to eliminate it” (4). The author states that homophobic people make statements such as “it’s a choice, etc.” She responds by asking that heterosexuals not to talk about their ” sexual identity, including not to act out their sexual activity, but heterosexual social interconnections and heterosexual privilege.

Finally the author examines two interrelated issues: the costs of homophobia and the elimination of homophobia. She breaks the costs down into employment, family, children, the lack of Heterosexual privilege and protection, Safety, Mental Health, Community, and Credibility. The author indicates that homophobia will not be eliminated just through “tolerance, compassion, understanding, acceptance, or benevolence. She states, “these are favors granted to the less fortunate” (4). She states, “the elimination of homophobia requires that homosexual identity be viewed as viable and legitimate and as normal as heterosexual identity. . .It does not require tolerance; it requires an equal footing.” (4)

By: Okey J. Napier

Masculinity as Homophobia

Masculinity as Homophobia–Kimmer