Personally, I think that with education comes social responsibility, so that better ducated people know not to publicly express their views. They still have their racist feelings, it’s just that they are more controlled releases than the average yokel, and are usually in the form of passing comments, protests or witty remarks.
What do you think?
Having college degrees certainly doesn’t mean that you are less racist. The most bigoted man that I know is a graduate of Dartmouth and a Northerner transplanted to the South.
But if your education goes beyond the classroom and into cross-cultural experiences, only a fool would remain a bigot.
There is evidence to support that more educated people are less likely to consider themselves racist. This is a Eurobarometer poll from 1997 that asked people how racist they considered themselves on a scale of 1-10 (10 being very racist, 1 not at all)
http://www.karl.aegee.org/euro-lib.nsf/0/333bf3d8578e1ce8c12566210042bb29/$FILE/RACISM_EN.PDF
Of respondents who finished their education before the age of 19, between 35-37% answered four or higher. For those who ended their education after the age of 20, between 21-27% marked themselves as 4 or higher.
Whether they are actually less racist, or just bright enough not to declare themselves racist is a different matter.
They certainly hide it better. And they would probably also be more inclined to consider it a “bad thing”. So I doubt polling would work very well.
You would think so, but then again, a lot of those involved in the Nazi movement in Germany were doctors, college professors, etc.
I don’t education immunizes anyone from racist views, but most of the racists I’ve known were not especially erudite.
Education probably reduces the numbers considerably. But there’s an exception to every rule.
J Philipe Rushton Phd
I dont think it makes any difference at all, after all the Japanese are very well educated as a nation, and they are probably the most racist nation in the world as a whole. Though i do think racism is more overt at the lower end of the social spectrum. Thats on both sides.
It’s a difficult one, it’s very easy to give examples of someone with a very level of education who is clearly racist (example: BNP leader, Nazi scumbag and enemy of British democracy - Nick Griffin, who has a Law degree with Cambridge university), however looking for general trends is more difficult as racist views are not socially acceptable.
That said I’d still say they are less educated as looking at the consituencies of the neo-Nazi parties, such as the BNP the level of education is generally below average.
Maybe my perceptions are skewed because of where I live, but the majority of racists of my acquaintance are both uneducated and stupid.
I live in a rural, depressed (and depressing!) area of Ohio, so I am surrounded by the uneducated. So, I can’t really make any sweeping declarations about racists being ignorant if everyone is ignorant.
The most bigoted person of my acquaintance is my mother-in-law. She’s a horrible person, though I guess I wouldn’t call her stupid. Just nasty.
Julie
It depends, I suppose, on how you define the term “racist.”
To some people, a racist is somebody who treats people differently based on what race they are. This is what I would call the “classic” definition and the one held by the majority of people. I personally strive to treat everybody the same way, regardless of their race, and would therefore consider myself to not be a racist under this definition.
To others people, however, a racist is somebody who refuses to acknowledge racial differences and tries to treat everybody the same way (e.g., “you’re not respecting my black culture, so you must be a racist.”) This is what I would call the “post-modern” or “backlash” definition. After years of insisting that they be treated equally, some minorites now bristle at the thought and want to be treated differently (albeit in a way of their choosing and not as dictated by the majority). Since, as mentioned above, I personally strive to treat everybody the same way, regardless of their race, I might be considered racist under this definition. My willingness to treat somebody as they want to be treated extends only so far, and there are definitely days when I get tired of treating somebody differently just because they feel they deserve special treatment.
Finally, to other people, being a racist means believing that there are, in fact, different “races” and not accepting the “fact” that race is nothing more than a social construct (i.e., to even talk about different races makes you, ipso facto, a racist). I’d almost call this a non-argument, since it really amounts to redefining the terms of an argument instead of actually proposing a solution (claiming that there really is no such thing as a “black” person doesn’t help the thousands of apparently imaginary black people who are discriminated against everyday regardless of their imaginary status), but I know that there are a lot of people who sincerely feel this way and it should not be dismissed out of hand. However, since I feel it is more beneficial to argue that racial differences are insignificant when it comes to determining personality or character, rather than argue that there are so such things as racial differences in the first place, I suppose I would also be considered racist under this definition.
I think education can definitely help people become less racist, at least with reference to the first definition described above. Much of that type of racism is, I believe, the result of upbringing and small sample size (if your parents tell you that blacks are stupid, and the one black you met was, in fact, stupid, you just might be led to believe that all blacks are, in fact, stupid). A decent education can help in many ways. First of all, it can develop critical reasoning skills that allow one to distinguish the fallacy involved in making broad generalizations. Second of all, it exposes one – either directly or through literature – to a much wider sample of humanity than one might experience otherwise. Third of all, hi Opal! (sorry, I’ve been wanting to do that for awhile. I promise it won’t happen again.)
I’m not sure whether a good education can really help with the second definition of racist. Theoretically, I suppose it’s possible to become so knowledgable about every possible culture that you always know exactly how to treat members of every minority you meet, but the problem with that is that some indivduals want special treatment as a member of their minority, whereas others genuinely want to “blend in” with the majority and would rather be treated as if they were a member of that majority. That means you either have to be a mind-reader or else risk offending somebody the first time you meet them until you can determine how they would like to be treated.
As for the third definition of racist, I really have no idea whether education can help or not. Nor, for that matter, whether becoming “less racist” in reference to this definition is actually a worthwhile proposition in the first place. As I mentioned earlier, I think society is better served by acknowledging racial differences and educating people to understand that these differences are literally only “skin deep,” rather than denying the common sense evidence of racial identity all together.
But then, that’s just me…
Barry
I’m a supporter of the “Clockwork Orange” theory. I suspect there are quite a few people who initially harbor racist tendencies, but because they are educated they also know that expressing those tendencies in the wrong company is often counterproductive.
I suspect that at a young age, some of them learn to walk, talk, and quack as much like open-minded people as possible. I also suspect that fairly often this behavior leads to an epiphany of sorts, and they may actually eschew their racist sentiments.
As an example I offer two fairly well educated southern US Senators, Trent Lott and Robert Byrd. Both have catered to racist organizations in the past–hell, Robert Byrd was a member of the Klan.
Trent Lott has gone through several cycles of making raciallistic statements and then modifying his public position in response to public criticism. Most recently he swallowed his jackboot for his remarks in favor of Sen. Strom Thurmond’s opposition to the civil rights movement–and paid a comparatively modest price for it. Cracker, quacker… cracker.
Robert Byrd, on the other hand, actively opposed the civil rights movement as a Representative and as a Senator. But something else was going on at the same time–he was going to law school in his spare time. Sometime after 1964 Byrd began to progressively moderate his public comments on race relations until today he’s probably still no angel, but I haven’t seen Byrd make any egregious comments in my adult lifetime (however, I could be wrong). To the contrary, he has expressed regret for his past actions on more than one occasion. His record as I know it seems to indicate that he’s left his racist past almost completely behind him. Cracker, quacker, quack.
What’s the difference between the two? I don’t really know for sure.
Oops. Let me complete that last sentence:
I don’t really know for sure, but I find it encouraging that there are examples of people realigning themselves from their original racist positions.
I would be interested in a study showing IAT scores correleated with education. For those who don’t know, IAT is the implicit association test which is supposedly impossible to fake although subject to a fair bit of controversy. It measures your reaction time when associating black/white people with good/bad concepts and extrapolates from that.
Define racist, the term is abused so much there is no concrete definition anymore. I’ve had friends who just pointed out the flaws of ghetto black or arab culture who are labeled racists for it.
Yes, that would be a good example of my second definition of racist, as described in my previous post.
Barry
Then again, you can do those things in a racist way. There’s no end to the little wrinkles in the subject.
Studs Terkel spoke at my school last year, and (when asked about a ‘favorite’ story), he talked about CP Ellis, a former KKK member who became a staunch civil rights supporter, and head of a very mixed-race union, I think. Even without reading the story in question, it was pretty powerful.
QUOTE]*Originally posted by godzillatemple *
**Yes, that would be a good example of my second definition of racist, as described in my previous post.
Barry **
[/QUOTE]
It depends on what “flaws” are being pointed out and whether or not those flaws are blanket statements. Are you being racist if you say that if Blacks focused more on education and not sports as a means to achievement, they would be better off…are you are racist? Is this different than saying all ‘blacks’ are gifted at playing B-ball? Are you ignoring the historical record that most immigrants used sports as a means to “bootstraping”, but because of the ‘rules of the game’ African Americans weren’t allowed the same steps?
“You” don’t get to decide what is racist or not, the person you’re engaging does…and yes sometimes they may over-react and other times it may be YOU. The question, is are you honest within yourself, to realize which is which?
The problem with your statement at least in the States is that “Black” is a subjective term. If my Great, Great, Great Grandmother was black, but I ‘look’ white can I call myself black? should i call myself black? In the states i can, i have the choice. However if the genes went the other way, i would have no choice, but to be black. The system is set up that way.
If Vanessa Williams is Black, then Welsey Snipes is what…Black, with a little more Black? Are they interchangible…are all ‘black people’ to be painted with one label…even if they are culturally different?
Now I am saying that all people are interchangeble? That Wesley Snipes and Sean Connery aren’t different? No, that would be insane, you CAN see the difference…but the very problem of discrimination is based not on the character of the “blacks” but on their being “black”, something that is in the eye of the beholder.
Since you’re sure that these “imaginary blacks” exist…describe them, what exactly makes a person black?
I’m sorry, but the term “black” was created out of ignorance and has no basis in logic or modern society. Is it convenient? Sure, but hardly accurate in describing millions of people…even if the people labeled black, suffer in the real world.
There are so many aspects of “education” that would account for the differences in the studies that chiefgnome cited. First off, those who seek education might be less likely to be racist in the first place. The process of becoming educated is, for the most part a liberalizing experience. Part of that liberalization is real - you’ll probably get a chance to actually talk to people of other races and make decisions for yourself. You’ll get to read books about the history of other races (that are often written with a socially concious slant) so that they become less of an enigma. Part of the experience is, as the OP said, just socialization. You probably won’t make too many friends saying, “So teacher, what was that President’s name who freed the niggers?”
Oh, horse puckey! Why should someone else’s opinion of what constitutes racism be any more valid than my own? Anyone can decide that they think a given statement/belief/whatever is racist, of course… and this means precisely squat in determining whether said statement/belief/whatever actually is racist. In much the same way, anyone could decide, for some reason, that I am a Nazi thug and label me as such, which would reveal more about their thought processes than about whether I actually am a Nazi thug or not.
In actuality, I would argue that, if anything, my opinion of whether any particular statement of mine is racist or not is perhaps more meaningful, in that I actually know my perspective, whereas the person I’m speaking with must arbitrarily assign a motivation to me without being in full possession of the evidence. Is it possible to be ignorant of one’s own biases? Yes, of course. But it’s rather easier to spot one’s own biases than to accurately judge those of another.