Sorry APA, but as a Feminist Person of Color, I will not March with you for “Science”

APA

The last time I blogged (about 9 months ago), it was also because of my dissatisfaction with the American Psychological Association.  9 months ago, I was extremely unhappy with the APA’s lack of response to the deaths of Philando Castille and Alton Sterling.  I was confused; all I had been taught in my studies was that “psychology cared” about people of color.  If psychology actually cared I wondered, why was psychology refusing to endorse Black Lives Matter?  Why was psychology refusing to publicly acknowledge systemic violence against Black Americans?

I decided I personally did not want to be among the silent.  I felt that silence in the face of such injustice was oppressive.  I along with some other Black students and Black psychologists decided that if APA was unwilling to march for Black Lives, we would take it upon ourselves.  We communicated with APA regarding our desire to do so and were largely met with resistance and confusion.  It seemed as though those higher up in the APA did not understand why we felt the need to organize a Solidarity March for Black Lives.  We received email after email about the “great things” APA was doing for Black individuals.

In my eyes, this is what separates advocacy from activism.  Advocacy involves policy and affects the underprivileged through a trickle-down effect.  Whether or not it even reaches those most in need is questionable at times.  Though it is important and definitely has its uses, the weaknesses of advocacy are rarely addressed.  Activism is built from the ground up; it is grassroots; it actively involves those most affected directly.  Because activism is grassroots, it often highlights how unaware those in positions of power are; it highlights their privilege.  That APA was confused as to why many Black psychologists were unhappy highlights the structural racism present within APA itself.

The organizers of the Solidarity March for Black Lives and I chose not to pay heed to APA’s palliative attempts to dissuade us from moving forward.  We persisted, and I’m so glad that we did.  I cannot do enough justice in describing the March here to the full effect it deserves so I will simply attach a link here for you to see for yourself.  Though it was heartwarming to see the positive feedback we received from psychologists of all colors, genders, sexual orientations, and more, APA still has chosen not to endorse Black Lives Matter to this day.

APA also chose not to endorse the Women’s March on Washington as well.  Though I myself had issues with the lack of intersectionality and lack of accountability when it comes to Whiteness that was evidenced through the Women’s March, I support what it tried to do in theory.  Women’s issues are very important.  Sexual harassment is real, Sexual Assault is real.  The wage gap is real.  Women’s struggles are real. Psychologists have unequivocal evidence to support the statement that being a woman in this country is an experience of oppression.

The lack of a stance the American Psychological Association took with regards to Black lives and women is why I will not march with them for science now.  APA’s official partnership with the March for Science but not Black Lives Matter or the Women’s March delegitimizes the latter movements.  Given the backlash Black Lives matter and feminism receives from wide swaths of the American public, APA’s delegitimization of both cuts deeply.

I feel psychology at its core, is the science of people.  APA though seems to have forgotten that fact – perhaps it never really knew.  I am flabbergasted that psychologists can get behind a movement for science but stay silent in a movement for “people.”  Are we not in the business of science AND people?

One of my previous clinical supervisors oftentimes spoke about how psychology has never realized or even accepted its mission of nobility in advancing human dignity.  This is how I feel now.  Many psychologists will heap praise upon APA for standing up for science but I cannot bring myself to be one of them.  When I hear the APA endorsing the March for Science,  all I feel is the cold shoulder of the APA as it continues to remain silent on Black Lives and women’s rights.

Advertisements

The Academic Lag and the Power of Social Media as a Tool of Social Justice

This new civil rights movement would not have been possible without social media.  I have no doubts about that.  The difference between this civil rights movement and the one that happened in the 60’s is that people all around the country, and the world, can now talk to one another about their struggles.  Any member of any underprivileged group can tell you how important that is; to be surrounded by people who are different from you, disagree with you, and invalidate every one of your struggles is not a pleasant existence.  Social media has helped the underprivileged connect with one another and support one another in a way that did not exist before.  It has helped us self-care in ways that would not have been possible a decade ago.  It has enabled us to stand in solidarity with one another and realize that yes, something is indeed fucked up about this country.  It enabled a revolution.

In the previous civil rights movement, activists from different parts of the country did not have an easy means of communicating with one another.  Information and its flow was severely restricted in those days.  People relied on the news and the radio to stay informed.  This is an especially problematic means of attaining information for oppressed groups.  Major news networks are only interested in telling one narrative: the rich white male narrative.  This bias is evident in everything they both report on and do not report on.  The stories of the oppressed become suppressed.  Major news networks depend on ratings for their livelihood; this means that they are aiming to appeal to the widest audience possible.  The erasure of underprivileged stories is inevitable in these types of power structures.  Thank heaven for social media.

Academia has failed to adapt to this new paradigm of civil rights activism.  Both the dissemination and procurement of knowledge in academia is largely done through peer-reviewed journals and conferences.  This paradigm is woefully outdated and cannot keep up with the frenzied dissemination of knowledge and information of social media.  First, journals only publish a handful of issues a year; somewhere around a dozen seems to be the mode.  Secondly, each issue only contains a limited number of journal articles.  Thirdly, academic writing is structured in such a way that many many pages of extremely dry and stale writing is needed to, in reality, say very little.  Academic writing is also meant to be “objective.”  Emotions are removed as they are unscientific and prone to bias.  I would argue that no substantive knowledge can really be gained about the suffering of underprivileged groups in this manner.  By removing the true nature of the emotions they might feel from journal articles, we are taking away the true nature of their voice and settling for a heavily filtered version of it that is more palatable to privileged eyes.

If academics rely on journal articles as their sole source of knowledge about social justice, they are in fact not taking in that much information; despite how desperately they might want to say otherwise, the fact remains that they are relatively uninformed.  Academics need to utilize social media to listen directly to those from underprivileged groups firsthand, to give them a real voice.  We need to partner with social media activists once the research is done so that they can spread our findings to the masses.  If the masses are completely unaware of our social justice research, what really is the point of doing it in the first place?  The bottom line is that we need to begin to work together; being that us academics are the ones in positions of privilege and power, the brunt of responsibility falls upon us to do so.

I have had the pleasure of getting to know several activists without formal degrees in social justice.  People outside the academic realm.  I can say with 100% confidence that they know much more and are more in touch with the issues than most academics.  There is a big difference between these people and so many academics.  Activists who are heavy users of social media, they are reading about and discussing the issues 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Activism is their life.  It’s not a job nor a career to them; it is every fabric of their being; it is most of what they read about and most of what they care about.  What they read is emotional and written with passion, not the stale writing so common in peer-reviewed journal articles.  They read about human suffering in a manner that no journal article could ever hope to convey.  It was people like this that organized this civil rights revolution; they were the catalysts, not us academics.  They had their finger on the pulse; they knew how others were feeling; and most importantly, they know that now is the time.

To the likely dismay of many in my field, I can say that most of what I have learned about oppression and social justice did not come from the classroom.  I learned it from the internet.  I listened to the stories people were telling over and over again until their narratives were the ones that existed in my subconscious, not the ones from White male America.  This is what psychologists and potential allies need to be doing.  All too often, I hear from allies that they feel overwhelmed and do not know how to become educated on the issues or even where to start.  The answer is incredibly simple: find the right people to follow on social media.

Allies oftentimes feel awkward about asking the underprivileged people in their social circles to teach them to be better allies, and rightfully so.  Your underprivileged friends did not sign up to be your multicultural instructor.  They owe you absolutely nothing.  In fact, you’ve probably contributed to some of their suffering unknowingly; if anything, you owe them something.  Potential allies, do your underprivileged friends a favor and find people who are willing to talk on social media about the issues you want to learn more about. These social media activists are always looking for a bigger audience so you’d be in fact helping them.  Keep in mind though, they are the ones who are really doing you the favor. They are the ones who have accepted the social backlash inherent in openly discussing social justice; they are the ones who have put their mental health on the line; they are the ones who at times even put their personal safety on the line.  They do all of this because they feel that their message is that important; they feel that they have a social responsibility to inform others.  They utilize their platforms to spread their message because they realize that others in their community may not have a platform at all. By listening to them, you’ll know how to be a better ally to your underprivileged friend and individuals from their community.  You’ll benefit too; you’ll become a better psychologist, a better leader, a better teacher, a better doctor, a better police officer…etc.  Most of all though, you’ll become a better person.

The voices of the underprivileged have been suppressed for all of human history, but now they finally have a platform to reach the masses and let others know exactly how they have suffered and continue to suffer.  If you want to be a good ally, sit down, shut up, and listen.

The Deafening Silence of the American Psychological Association

Silence is all I hear, and it is beginning to become more than I can bear.

Real social justice is about speaking up because you feel it in your bones. I know how I feel about the American Psychological Association (APA) right now, and I know that someone needs to say something.  Too many peoples’ lives are at stake to not say anything.  I care too damn much to just sit idly by and give my tacit approval to the field of psychology when I feel it is doing harm.

I will open by saying this, despite the APA’s clear explicit stance on being interested in the betterment of the underprivileged, it is no stranger to being on the wrong side of social justice.  At last year’s APA convention in Toronto, news of APA’s complicity in the Bush regime’s torturing of Muslims rocked the beliefs of many in our professional organization.  The cardinal principle of psychology, “Do No Harm,” had been clearly violated by our organization.  This atrocity did not happen in the pre-civil rights era, not in the 70’s, the 80’s, the 90’s, nor 2000’s;  the report came out last year.  I hope this information gives readers some context for what I am about to say next about the APA.

It should be pretty obvious to anyone following current events that we are in the midst of a critical period in our country’s history.  We are in the middle of a new civil rights movement, make no mistake about it.  Minorities, especially Black Americans are fed up with the current status quo that harms them in so many ways.  The country is divided however as White America also simultaneously sees their influence and say in this country slipping for the first time in our nation’s history, and their backlash has become very real.  #AllLivesMatter was created to suppress the #BlackLivesMatter movement, Trump became a presidential nominee, and so much more.  Protests broke out immediately once we learned of the murders of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile. Peoples’ anger over the continued injustice of being a non-white male in this country has reached a tipping point.

The APA, like most large organizations, has decided to remain “neutral” by not endorsing either side of the conflict.  This is completely and utterly unacceptable when Black lives are on the line and the APA in my eyes, however, is far more culpable than the average organization.  The APA actively preaches its social justice inclinations.  We pride ourselves on being on the leading edge of research when it comes to problems of living, of humanity.  Yet now, when a humanitarian crisis has reached a boiling point, when protests and riots are occurring across the country, the APA is completely and utterly silent.  No statement has been made.  There is no activity on APA’s twitter feed regarding the crisis that everyone outside the world of psychology is living and breathing. For an organization that prides itself on advocating for those in need and using our power and privilege to advance the betterment of others, our current silence is absolutely unacceptable.  It is possible that APA may have issued a minor statement somewhere that I have may have missed given that it is such a large organization.  If I missed it though, I guarantee others did too.  Times like these do not call for small statements; they call for big ones.  APA should have made a statement that everyone should have heard by now; it should have been on the news, in the papers…everywhere.  The public should be thinking “woah, psychologists support BLM and believe it that strongly?” Facebook hung a BlackLivesMatter banner outside their corporate office for Pete’s sake.  What has APA, the organization devoted to “advancing psychological science to promote health, education, and human welfare,” done though?  I honestly can’t tell you.  There is no such thing as neutrality in times like these.  APA’s silence on the current BlackLivesMatter movement states very clearly that we think BlackLivesDon’t Matter.

The elitism we psychologists have towards current social movements disgusts me.  We feel that because we are doing the research in our Historically White Colleges and Universities, we are the most well-informed on the current issues.  This elitism leads  psychologists to, by and large, segregate themselves within their own privileged communities.  We may research the multicultural issues, but we publish our findings in journals that are only read by people within our profession.  Most potentially “useful” social justice research never makes it to the public, where it is needed, where the real battles are being waged. This leads me to wonder, why exactly are we researching multicultural issues in the first place and what exactly makes us the “experts?”

To be fair, I have zero doubt that the current social movement will be discussed at APA and the many smaller conferences this summer.  The conversations are happening, but psychologists are only having them within their own privileged circles.  Few are on the ground with the people who have the least amount of privilege, the ones who are most affected by the injustices of living in this country as a non-white male.  Our blindness to our own privilege is a deficit in every aspect of our being as psychologists.  It is impossible to understand and research a social movement if you are not actually a part of it.  If we research social movements from our privileged academic circles, it is highly likely that we will have no impact at all, and if we do, it’ll likely do more harm than good.  Furthermore, by the time APA finally convenes at its yearly convention in early August, critical moments in the social movement will likely have already passed – moments that the APA, using its considerable influence and power in America, could have done something.  We cannot sit idly by and do nothing.  Times like these demand action now.  Lives may very well be lost because of APA’s unthinkable apathy in this critical time.

The APA has not only turned its back on the disadvantaged public though, it has also turned its back on its racial minority members through its inexcusable current silence. Believe it or not, the APA was once much more an organization of privileged individuals than it is now.

Screen Shot 2016-07-10 at 4.43.12 PMAs you can see, psychology has been making a massive attempt to make its workforce more diverse in the past decade – to a moderate degree of success I might add. Unfortunately, psychology has made the exact same mistake other organizations have made when attempting to implement affirmative action policies.  APA, Universities, corporations, and all other entities who attempt to make their bodies more diverse almost always fail to provide their new minority members with the supports they need.

  • APA doesn’t seem to realize that many of their new Black members might be severely impacted by the deaths of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile.
  • APA doesn’t realize that the brothers and sisters of their Black members may literally be dying in the streets.
  • Most importantly, the APA doesn’t realize that their Black members may be the next Alton Sterling or Philando Castile.

This is absolutely inexcusable.  Minority individuals in primarily White institutions already have it rough enough as it is.   For an organization supposedly committed to advocacy and social justice to turn its back on its Black members right now though… I don’t know and will never know what that feels like because I am not Black.  All I know is that thinking about the pain and betrayal they must be feeling right now brings tears to my eyes.

Last but not least, I want to talk about a topic privileged psychologists love to discuss: the chronic underutilization of mental health services by racial and ethnic minorities.  The reasons given seem to be as numerous as the number of people who give them.  They range from lack of awareness, to stigma, to cultural differences, to language differences, to lack of resources, and more.  What psychologists who do this research largely fail to realize is that they are trying to get minorities to conform to a traditionally white form of healing. Minorities rightfully distrust White culture and no amount of psychoeducation will undo that.

I want to leave you with this question:

Why should Black Americans trust the field of psychology when the APA is completely silent during this critical time in Black history?

 

 

Mind the Mindfulness Gap

Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you’ve probably at least heard of the term “mindfulness” by now.  Mindfulness in a nutshell consists of paying attention to the present on purpose without judgment.   There is a plethora of scientific evidence suggesting mindfulness reduces stress, increases focus, increases cognitive flexibility, and decreases emotional lability.  These benefits are quite desirable in a number of settings and has resulted in mindfulness’ proliferation mental health settings, school settings, and corporate settings.  America seems to view mindfulness as the panacea to the stressors of contemporary living.  What is shocking however is that despite its proliferation, very few are aware of mindfulness’ origins and the social justice implications of its practice.

The origins of contemporary mindfulness are extremely problematic so perhaps America’s lack of attention to it should not be a surprise.  America has a practice of rewriting history to serve its own needs and mindfulness is perhaps the most prominent and contemporary example of this heinous exercise.  “Modern mindfulness” began with Jon Kabat-Zinn’s Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction treatment in the 1990’s.  Zinn was not the originator of Mindfulness’ principles however; he drew much of modern mindfulness from Buddhism.  Zinn believed however that a rebranding of Buddhist principles was necessary for Western adoption.  Thus, the religious and spiritual components of Buddhism were removed to form what we consider “mindfulness” today.

This rebranding of Buddhist principles into mindfulness is nothing less than cultural appropriation.  Western society has decided to take a minority practice and strip it of all of its context and significance.  Buddhism comes from a minority community; let us not forget that.  It was not created for White people.  The Buddhism community, in their seemingly infinite compassion and wisdom, appear open to sharing their practices with the outside world, but was their permission ever sought?  No.  Instead, the religious and spiritual roots of Buddhism were removed as one removes a pussy infectious wart.  Buddhism had to be “purified” so that it would appeal to the Western World.  The lack of attention to this gross disrespect in Western Society is astounding.

This reshaping of Buddhist principles into Mindfulness also reinforces the “yellow peril” narrative harming Asian Americans in Western society.  Western society has been afraid of Asian Americans for a long time.  We are seen as perpetual foreigners and invaders, even if we are citizens.  We are exoticized and fetishized.  We are deprived of our humanity.  We are seen as outside of American and Western culture.  Mindfulness reinforces that narrative.  The Asian roots of Mindfulness had to be purged for Western society’s adoption.  That which is our history, had to be excreted.  White people need to be more accepting of the humanity of Asian Americans and the contributions Asian Americans have made.  Mindfulness does not help that cause and instead reinforces colonialism.  It reinforces the notion that White people can take whatever they want from our culture and not suffer any sort of consequences.  This is something personally I can not abide.

Let us also not forget that millions will be made from the “mindfulness revolution.”  Now that White Western society has appropriated all of the cultural capital surrounding Buddhism by relabelling it mindfulness, White western society has also put themselves into a position where they will make all of the profits.  Who will make the money to give talks and trainings on mindfulness now?  Who will get paid to give mindfulness interventions?  Who will benefit financially from the mindfulness books?  White society.  If psychologists really cared and respected Buddhism, they would incorporate the Buddhist community in some of these benefits.  Let us not forget that though the Dalai Lama gave his blessing to mindfulness, his people are a persecuted people in need.  Instead of benefitting the communities in need that developed this practice, all of the resource gains to be had from mindfulness go now to rich White men.

There are also issues with Mindfulness’ panacea-like usage in Western society.  While being able to alleviate people’s stress and emotional reactivity is nice, it really is only a band-aid.  When mindfulness is used in impoverished schools for example, it may reduce student problematic behaviors, but it doesn’t get to the real issues.  It doesn’t address systemic racism, it doesn’t address the lack of resources given to majority minority schools, it doesn’t address the very essence of impoverished living.  What mindfulness does in its current form is coerce underprivileged individuals to conform to a White-male dominated society.

Mindfulness cannot and should not be ever used as a substitute for real social justice.  For underprivileged communities, we need to think about their real stressors, understand the contexts in which they live, and use our privilege to fight to remove those barriers.  Mindfulness in its current form is used as a substitute for real social justice.  It enables us to not have to think about the context and realities of our privilege.  Mindfulness without social justice, if one really thinks about it, is just another form of oppression.  It is a tool used by those with power towards those without power to help those without power “fall into line.”  Sounds pretty Big-Brotheresque wouldn’t you say?

Mindfulness helps one be at peace, but at times anger is an important tool for those from underprivileged communities.  Research tells us that perceptions of injustice are pretty close to feelings of anger.  If we remove peoples’ anger without addressing the injustice they face, we may feel we are benefitting those communities, but all we are really doing is benefitting ourselves.

What we really need to be doing is redrawing the line; that is what social justice is really about.  Mindfulness doesn’t have to be a tool of oppression, it can be used for good.  Conversations about its cultural roots need to begin at the very minimum.  Additionally, when mindfulness is used in underprivileged communities, it needs to be in conjunction with advocacy and activist efforts to remove some of the systemic barriers facing those communities.

I believe in potential of Buddhism principles/mindfulness to better humanity;  I really do.  Some major changes will be needed however.  Whether or not psychology steps up to that task, I do not know.  I at least will attempt to do my part.

“Feeling the Bern:” Minorities are Not

The focus of Bernie Sanders’ campaign is unequivocally economic inequality.  On his website he notes that “there is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of one percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.”  Bernie is choosing to be in the vanguard and take a stand against corporate greed and the 1%.  This is especially notable given the recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision by SCOTUS that deemed corporate spending on political campaigns to be a form of protected speech under the First Amendment.  Bernie Sanders knows that the 1% have the power in this country and will do everything in their power to stop his ascension but he’s going to try anyways.  Good for him.  We need more people like Bernie in this country.

Bernie Sanders is the only presidential candidate to not have a Super PAC, i.e. a political committee that gives anonymous and unlimited financial contributions to candidates.  Bernie believes that corporations have too much of a say in the contemporary political process.  That he has actively refused to have a Super PAC is a testament to this belief.  He believes that a campaign should win because of its strength on the issues, not the strength of its pocketbook.  For this strategy to be successful, Bernie must energize the disenfranchised middle and lower classes. He has been somewhat successful in this regard and support for him is as high as it has ever been.

Bernie’s surge of support has however been limited to the White demographic.  This should not come as entirely surprising.  Bernie comes from a state that is 94% White.  “White people appeal” is something Bernie Sanders is intimately familiar with and has garnered his entire political career.  To win a presidential election however, Bernie must learn to appeal to minority voters – and initial results are not promising.  In the crucial third primary state of South California, a state where the majority of democratic voters are Black, Bernie only has the support of 11% of the Black Americans.  Clinton on the other hand is polling at  86% with Black South Carolinians. If Sanders doesn’t do something to change his appeal to minority voters, there is no way he will win the democratic nomination.

The most popular explanation given for Sanders’ lack of support among nonwhite democratic voters is that minorities are unfamiliar with him and his stance on the issues.  The logic is that since Bernie’s primary goal is to remedy income inequality, and because minorities in this country are much worse off financially than Whites, Sanders should be able to easily win over minority voters.  Since he has not, they must not know who he is.

DEMOS_NetWorth_ChartThere are multiple things that are wrong with this explanation.  First and foremost, it may not actually be true.  Black democrats watched the debates at a rate higher than every other demographic group.  Another thing I find troubling about the explanation is it is grounded in Whiteness and victim blaming.  It suggests that minorities are not aware enough to even know what is in their own best interest but Whites are.

I will offer another explanation.  I believe that even when minorities are hearing Bernie’s message, they still are not “feeling it.” Bernie Sanders mentions the billionaire class and the injustices they perpetuate through their excesses almost every time he opens his mouth.  He speaks of this group as though they are an amorphous amalgamation of all that is evil with capitalism in this country.  The only problem is that they are not amorphous and they are not faceless.  In Forbes list of the 400 richest people in the US, there is one Black woman (Oprah in case it wasn’t obvious), 3 LGB individuals, 4 First Nations individuals, 6 Asian Americans, and 34 women. The rest?  The other 353?  You guessed it, White men.

Bernie Sanders, despite his focus on income inequality, continually misses out on two factors that contribute to his passion pit: race and gender. Bernie Sanders talks about income inequality in a colorblind and gender-blind manner.  This may explain why he is able to appeal to Whites but not minorities.  Research suggests that minorities understand and recognize colorblindness but White Americans do not.  We know that colorblindness perpetuates racial inequality; the only way to overcome racial differences is to talk about race.  If Bernie does talk about how race affects income, the hierarchical and racialized nature of income inequality will not change under his leadership.

In a future where Bernie Sanders is president and makes good on his promises, the economic situation of minorities would likely improve. In Bernie’s current world, the colorblindness and systemic racism present in our economic structure do not change and minorities remain at the bottom of the pyramid.  They are better off, but they are still worse off than White America.  This would be particularly true for women of color.

Screen Shot 2015-11-17 at 6.03.09 PM

I’ve had it stated to me by other minorities that  Bernie will do something to improve minority economic welfare once he is in office but that this future plan is not something he can talk about right now if he wants to win the nomination.  In their eyes, the damage this plan would have on the working class white bloc would be too great at this stage.  This is something I refuse to abide.  Minorities have been screwed over too many times by politicians for us to put blind faith in another.  It is something we cannot and should not be asked to do.

Bernie has given some hints that he is aware of these issues as he mentions them briefly on his website.  He needs to be more vocal to earn my support though.  He needs to bring it from the background to the foreground.  Make it part of your plan for the next debate Bernie.  Make sure everyone knows that you will not keep quiet about it anymore.  If your platform truly is one of the issues, make sure everyone knows that this is one of the big ones.  If you don’t change, I and all minorities have the right to assume our economic welfare is not something you actually care about.

Reforming the legal system is a great first step Bernie, but racial justice is much more than that.  I need to hear you talk about racial income gap Bernie.  I need to hear your plan.  Then and only then will I transition from “liking the Bern” to”feeling the Bern.”

 

 

Deconstructing “the Donald’s” Hit Job on Bernie Sanders

We need a strong leader- and fast!

A post shared by President Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) on

Donald Trump’s recent attack ad on Bernie Sanders has struck an emotional cord for me. There are so many things wrong with it that I need to deconstruct it piece by piece.  I intend this post to be both cathartic for me and any potential readers.

Trump’s shtick is that he will not back down or capitulate to anyone. His supporters view him as refreshing in the era of “pussification.”  Yes, conservatives have actually used that word. This term centralizes aggression and dominance within masculinity.  Trump is cleverly using this implicit sexist bias in his attack ad.  He is attacking Bernie’s lack of aggression and therefore, his masculinity. This appeals to his party base as Republicans in general tend to be less tolerant of compromise, see the world in us vs. them terms, and are more willing to use force to gain an advantage. In other words, Republicans look for the toxic masculine shtick in their leaders.  Vile though his methods may be, Donald Trump sure knows how to play to his party base.

Trump has no problems alienating those who do not fall within his party base.   His supporters are 91% White and support deportation of undocumented immigrants, feel that the confederate flag is a symbol of Southern pride, and believe Blacks who struggle are responsible for their own condition.  They are not exactly a group supportive of multiculturalism and diversity.  Trump’s racist comments are not bold; they are exactly what his constituents want to hear.

Bernie Sanders is at least attempting to reach out to the Black community.  He should be applauded for sharing the stage with the Black Lives Matter activists.  His sharing of the mic is a show of solidarity towards Black America by a person in power – historically something almost all of our political leaders have avoided like the plague.  Bernie Sanders showed that yes, he actually to some degree does care about Black lives.  In the era of colorblind racism where racial differences and inequities are denied, this move by Bernie takes courage.  As yesterday’s democratic debates aptly demonstrated, not all progressives are supportive of racial justice reform.  Bernie is taking a risk; by taking a stand and supporting racial justice reform, he may actually alienate some of his White constituency.

Bernie Sanders does know how to defend himself.  Unlike Trump, he defends his beliefs even if they are unpopular with his supporters.  In sharing his mic with the Black Lives Matter activists, he demonstrated that he knows sometimes the most important voice is not his own. This to me is what takes courage and strength and is what I look for in a leader.

Unfortunately and unsurprisingly, the issues with Donald Trump’s attack ad are not limited to toxic masculinity.  In the short clip he also manages to denigrate the Black Lives Matter movement as well.  By juxtaposing BlackLivesMatter activists with ISIS, he not so subtly insinuates that BlackLivesMatter is a serious threat to this country and its values. This is downright offensive.  One group, ISIS, has murdered innocent people.  The other group, Black Lives Matter, is trying to prevent the murder innocents. How could groups with literally opposite goals be similar?

Trump ends the video with his campaign slogan: “Make America Great Again.” Someone needs to tell Donald that this so called American Greatness he keeps referring to would not have been possible without the literal blood, sweat, and tears of Black America.  Millions of Black lives have been lost to create the America we know today.  Despite this, we as a society remain inhumanely indifferent to the struggles of Black America, the struggles we create and perpetuate.  No Donald, Black Lives Matter is not a threat to “America.”  America is a threat to Black lives. Props to Bernie for recognizing this.

Last but not least, the 15 second or so clip also manages to promote Islamophobia. I’m not here to debate the potential danger ISIS poses to this country; I am here to critique the depiction of Muslim individuals in our country.  Donald Trump likes to cherry pick the worst individuals of Islam and use them to represent the entire religion to his constituents.  Unfortunately his supporters don’t know any better.  Are some Muslims terrorists?  Yes, a very small handful are.  Are the vast majority? Overwhelmingly, no.  In fact, in the last 14 years since 9/11, White Americans have killed more innocent people than Muslims or any other group.  Of the 26 terrorist attacks on the US since 9/11, only 6 have been committed by Muslims.

Another issue Islamophobes like to bring up is Sharia law and the human rights atrocities permitted through it.  Specifically, conservatives like to critique Islamic countries for oppressing their women.  Typical platitudes include “Saudi Women aren’t even allowed to drive!” While this is a travesty, one Islamic country’s injustice is not representative of an entire religion. Finally, when your political party is hell-bent on defunding Planned Parenthood, you absolutely do not have the right to critique others for denying women’s rights.

Well, I think that’s about all I have to say on the matter.  I do feel better getting all of that off my chest.  I hope reading this post offered you some relief as well.

PS. I realize that the current post is very pro Bernie Sanders.  In the next post, I will provide an anti-racist critique of him.  Stay tuned.

The Contemporary Argument for Affirmative Action

Affirmative action remains one of the most divisive issues today in contemporary race relations.  SCOTUS is set to rule again this Fall on the legality of affirmative action.  A decision is expected in early 2016 and there is little doubt that affirmative action will be a key issue in the 2016 presidential campaign.  The Supreme Court will hear Abigail Fisher’s appeal to her case against the University of Texas Austin.

Affirmative action has traditionally been framed as an effort to overcome past discrimination against racial minority groups.  This argument is a compelling one.  America’s history of explicit, and at the time, legal discrimination against minority groups is well documented.  We have the obvious examples of slavery and the genocide of Native Americans, but discrimination did not end there.  We also had Jim Crow laws, Japanese internment camps, and more.  Anti-miscegenation laws, laws banning interracial marriage in some states, were only declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS in Loving v. Virgina in 1967!  These racist policies by the US government have deprived racial minorities of invaluable economic and social capital, making it very difficult for them to compete with White Americans who have not faced the same barriers.  Affirmative action, under this traditional argument, helps to level the playing field.

While this is a compelling reason for affirmative action, there are problems if it is the only reason.  It leads to the ever popular “reverse racism” argument.  In this belief system, White individuals become the ones who are the recipients of racism as they face more barriers to college admissions and employment with affirmative action. Under this logic, White men have the most difficult road to success in this country. Therefore, White men who do succeed must be exceptionally qualified.

This believe in reverse racism by White Americans is more prevalent than one might think as well. In a large national sample of Black and White Americans, it was found that a significant amount of White individuals believe that racism is a zero sum game they are now losing.  White participants in the study believed that anti-White bias has surpassed anti-Black bias. Black individuals in the study unsurprisingly did not have similar views.  No shit.

Furthermore, if the only reason for affirmative action is to overcome past racial discrimination, it reinforces the contemporary notion of a colorblind society.  It frames racism as a problem of the past.  It reassures Americans that racism is in fact a meritocracy where everyone gets what they “deserve.”  This blindness makes it very difficult to discuss racial inequality.

The reality is that the world is far from being colorblind. Racism continues to exist in modern society – it looks different and it feels different, but it’s still there.  Colleges and employers continue to favor White individuals and discriminate against people of color.  Discriminatory outcomes still occur today despite our intentions because of implicit bias.  The research tells us that explicit racial bias is largely unrelated to implicit bias.  In fact, meta-analysis examining self-report racial bias and implicit bias show that our implicit racial bias is more predictive of discriminatory behavior than our explicit bias.

What does this all mean though?  It means that many of us have racist beliefs we are not aware of and that these unknown beliefs have more of an impact on our actions.  These implicit racial biases are inherited from American culture. Messages regarding the value/worth of people based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, social class, and more are omnipresent in America. These messages demean the vast majority of people but bypass a certain group: heterosexual White men.  Think about the many stereotypes you have heard over the years for a second.  Can you think of any stereotypes that target heterosexual White men?  If you can, could these stereotypes negatively affect how they are perceived by a college or employer? The answer is most likely no.

This unconscious preferential treatment of heterosexual White men in selection decisions is also supported by research.  In the current color-blind system, we tend to only discriminate based on race when we can get away with it.  For example, when there is a very qualified Black individual for a job, discrimination tends not to occur. Discriminating against a very qualified Black individual can not be attributed to anything other than racism and would be clearly seen as racist. This changes however when a Black individual is only somewhat qualified.  When this occurs, bias happens.  This effect is so strong that Black individuals without a criminal record receive fewer callbacks for interviews than identically qualified White individuals WITH criminal records.

In essence, this means that we already have an unconscious affirmative action in place.  This informal affirmative action benefits White individuals, particularly White men.  Formal affirmative action is needed to balance the implicit biases we inhale from society.  Without formal affirmative action, racial inequalities will undoubtedly become worse.

While rectifying past discrimination against racial minorities is an important reason for having affirmative action, we should not forget that racism continues today.  We may not want to acknowledge its existence, but our indifference only perpetuates injustice.  I sincerely hope SCOTUS makes the right call on this one.