Intellectual Discrimination and Religion

Great Debates
1

In a few discussions I’ve had recently, I’ve begun to think about an interesting idea. About discrimination based upon intellect as a form of ethnic discrimination.

This thread: In which I pit aspects of the African American culture of today touches on the subject.

I’ve been going to meetings of an activist organization here in New York, and one of the major topics has been racism, tokenism, and missionary tendencies. We’ve discussed how very often the activist community comes from an intellectually superior angle, and oftentimes alienates the people, they think they are fighting the revolution for. It makes it difficult for activist organizations that are largely ‘white’ to interface with what we term as “minority” communities. So we discussed what the issues are that cause these problems.

A very interesting one that came up is the division between atheists and theists. The activist community oftentimes denegrates faith based groups as being the “Opiate of the Masses.” The issue being that religion is a major source of community for ‘minority’ communities in America. Hispanics are largely catholic and Black communities are largely Baptist or some other flavor of protestant. So the intellectual denigration of religion by default falls upon these communities and is thus alienating. It makes it hard to believe that the liberal socialist intellectuals care any more about the people they claim to be fighting for when they take on such a tone of haughty superiority right out of the gate.

In white society we hold Academics to be the loftiest pursuit. There are consistant arguments, such as the thread I posted, about why Black Americans are more interested in music and sports than Academia. I think more than anything that this focus on Academia is indemically ‘racist’. I would say it is the Academic community in ‘White America’ that is the largest perpetrator of racism in this day and age.

This is an idea I have mulled over in my head for a few years now, and have been unable to put into words properly. I’ve always wondered why a lot of the problems I see ‘white’ people have interfacing with ‘minorities’ don’t apply to me in the same way. I realized the other day that it is that I share something in common, in that I am religious, and do not look down upon religion. This was put into stark relief while sitting in a room that was very culturally diverse, having white christian’s, white activist atheists, hispanic catholic women, black women, someone who is part of the nation of Islam. I made a comment about spirituality and how when one is secure in their spirituality they can see that in the eyes of someone else, and there is a passing nod between the people acknowledging that light they see there, and it transcends boundaries of race and religion. As I looked around the room, the people that most agreed with me were the ‘minorities’ who were religious. The ones that didn’t really respond to my eye contact were the ‘white’ intellectual activists.

When I have racist arguments levelled at me, more often than not, they are levelled by people who did not grow up being discriminated against, and who have either recently discovered racism, or have guilt about racism. I rarely have this sort of thing levelled at me by the black guy who grew up in the ghetto. It’s more often the suburban black/hispanic, or a white person, and they are almost always academics.

It’s this idea that academics have that “The minorities aren’t too stupid to be academic like us.” that is what is racist in my opinion. I would say that a lot of the push of academics at people is what causes the resistance, because as I have experienced much in my life is a tendency of academics to denegrate me in order to try and push me toward a more academic life. I have never been to college, and therefore have gaps in my education, but in other ways I am far more educated than many people I have met with a college degree. I don’t feel a need to go to college, not because I don’t think there is value there, but because I feel that the bureaucratic academic structure would be 75% waste of my time, and 25% valuable skills. I do not feel that my lack of college has held me back socially overall. Academics aren’t for everyone, and academia very often promotes a very narrow ideal of what intelligence is. Personally I don’t hold a talent for statistical analysis as any higher intelligence than the ballistic muscle coordination required for a jump shot.

So while I do not wish to apply blame for one person’s actions on another, I think it is worthwhile for us to discuss this academic tendency, and when we ask questions about why certain people don’t value academics, perhaps we’ll come closer to an answer.

Erek

2

Weeeelllllllll,

I’ve never seen any real evidence of stringent anti-religious tendencies in the academic world, at least not at the level where it would spill over into the community service organizations reaching out from to the Black and Hispanic communities. Visit any university campus, and you’ll find tons of religious organizations, religious fliers plastered all over the place, whatever. I know that trashing the academic world is supposed to be our new national passtime, but can we at least put a little logical thought into this sort of discussion? If all of us academics actually believed actually believed that the recipients of our community outreach programs were too stupid to be helped, then why would be doing the community outreach?

3

Yes, logical thought from the responders to this thread would be nice. I hope some would be forthcoming.

Ok, let’s get something straight, I am not trying to bash the “Academic” community. Addressing it’s issues are not equal to ‘bashing’. What I am trying to discuss here is not so much an academic policy, but the undercurrent superiority inherent amongst the academic CULTURE. Perhaps one reason some people don’t take it seriously is because of the “Ivory Tower” aspect.

Rather than outright dismissal, perhaps you could actually bother to THINK about what I wrote, and give a response. I know that lumping “Academics” into one category is as fruitless as lumping “Blacks” into one category, and if you have an issue with my language, please address that, and we’ll move on. However, if you have a semantic nitpick that you are then going to use to dismiss my entire argument, then why did you even bother posting at all? I am not trying to say all Academics are bigoted racists. What I am trying to say is that there is an undercurrent of superiority that might be the cause of a lot of what gets called racism, because the academic culture in America is predominantly white.

In the end bigotry is bigotry, and it comes from narrow minded tendencies, that no one is immune to, and I am not trying to say if you self-identify as an academic you are automatically a bigot. But what I’d like to address is what aspects of the academic institution in this country might be alienating to non-academic cultures?

So, just because statistical analysis is no more impressive than the ballistic calculations of a jump shot to me, doesn’t mean that the ballistic calculations of a jump shot are more impressive to me than statistical analysis.

I think a lot of people take refuge in the egalitarian nature of science in order to hide their personal bigotry. Certainly science is impartial, but that does not make the individual SCIENTIST impartial.

Also, I specifically made the comment about the tendency to automatically assume that the communities need help because they are “not too stupid to be helped.”, there can still be an undercurrent of superiority, only that person being helped has potential they aren’t fulfilling, as opposed to lacking the potential at all.

Erek

4

Sorry aobut the tone of my previous message; I was in a bad mood at the time. It seems that you’re pursuing two different topics here. The first is the possibility of academic snobbery, and the second is attitudes towards religion. To the first argument let me say one thing. Do academics look down on those without a college education? Perhaps in a few cases they do. But the general attitude among most academics is not one of bigotry, but rather enthusiasm for education, because education is the path to a better life. Improvements in the quality of life in America have come whenever the opportunities for getting a degree have expanded, and on a person-by-person basis a degree improves opportunity immeasurably.

Take the example of athletics. Does it take skill to be a good basketball player? Surely. But there’s a problem with basketball, which is that the number of young people who want to play dawrfs the number who will ever make a living off it, much less turn pro. We want to draw students’ emphasis away from sports and towards academics because if they actually pay attention in classes they’ll get something useful for real life.

5

I hesitate to turn this thread into one about the merits of education. While I understand your point, I’ll bring one alternative example. What about all the people we’ve pushed toward an education who probably shouldn’t waste time in college? My girlfriend constantly complains about her “Earth Science” course that was dumbed down in order that business students could get their science requirement. So the majority of these business students are going to get out of college, and get a job for 25,000 a year as an "administrative assistant", meanwhile being that it's NYU, they'll be likely to be in debt over 100,000 if they didn’t have money from their parents or scholarships. In the meantime my girlfriend who has a science minor is bored in class because the science class isn’t engaging.

From my own experience, I spent a lot of time teaching recent college graduates who were making less money than me, how to do their jobs at a Translations company when I was 22 years old, and fielding the question, “How long did you go to school for this?”, to which I would respond, “I never went to school.” I was tech support for a Desktop Publishing Department, and therefore knew how to use the software better than they did because I’d just spent the last four years working in the field rather than sitting in class. I got my break from internships.

HOWEVER, this thread isn’t about that. This thread is SPECIFICALLY about how an elitist attitude toward religion affects ethnic relations.

I am sorry I wasn’t able to sum it up so concisely before. My lack of formal education has most seriously impacted my writing skills. :wink:

Erek

6

I’ve never seen any atheist activists. All I see is religious whackos camping out at Ten Commandments monuments and outside hospices.

7

I think this may be a case where both sides feel alienated.

Many academics/intellectuals feel that in a country which seemingly increasingly undervalues intelligence, they are a scorned minority in of themselves.

This undercurrent of superiority you describe is not limited solely to academics. One feels it coming in waves from people trying to convert you to their religion, for example. One feels it coming from those who live in a “better” neighborhood, or those who drive a certain kind of car, or those whose son is the star quarterback in highschool, or who vote a certain way, or hell, even have a pure bred dog when all you have is a mutt. Smug superiority is the province of those whose slumber is that of the righteous-- who rest assured that theirs is the right, and only, way.

Yours is the popular view. Academics/intellectuals are not popular people in this country. They are seen as cold, out-of-touch, and snobbish. Generally, “smart” people are portrayed in television shows and movies as socially inept freaks who need a street-wise friend to pry their noses from a book and show them what’s “really” important. Else, they’re mad scientists, either goofy and forgetful, or evil and intent on using their deadly brains to cook up a plan to destroy the earth.

The shadowy “Liberal Academia” is the favorite whipping boy of conservative talk-show hosts, who seem to blame them for everything from healthcare costs to the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Some academics/intellectuals see what they stand for as under constant attack-- like with the push for Creation “Science” to be taught in schools, the removal of books from school libraries for idealogical objections, and what some see as the “dumbing down” of our cirriculum and media. When they fight back, they’re sometimes labled as anti-God, anti-family, and even anti-American.

8

I’d just like to say that “My view” isn’t in any way anti-academic. One of my best friends has a PhD from Oxford in Physics, and another of my best friends is a street hustler graffiti artist. Earlier today I hung out with my friend who is a minister, and I get along great with my girlfriend’s mother who is a professor of urban geography at Arizona State. I don’t have a problem with academics, I just have an issue with the superiority.

I probably should have put the word “Race” in the subject header, but I wanted to avoid that. Look where it got me. I was hoping for a lively debate on the subject. C’est la vie. :wink:

As for activists, I guess my experience is with the liberal activist community, and that’s what I was referring to, so I suppose I should have said that. Generally it’s anarchists and socialists around these parts.

Erek

9

Regarding the religion aspect I got nothing to add, but I think the attitude that some seem to have, that you only achieve anything of worth if you have formal academic qualifications, or that you you cannot be called intelligent or knowledgeable if you don’t have that degree, is a dangerously erroneous one to have. I saw evidence of this attitude in that BBQ Pit thread which you (mswas) linked to in your OP.

  • Sarah Woodruff, who has an Eng Lit. degree and a Law degree, and knows people without High School diplomas who are much smarter and wiser than she is.
10

Any instance in which you dismiss someone out of hand is bigotry and it will piss the someone off.

A classmate of mine was dying to turn 18 so he could join Greenpeace. He went to one meeting: he had to leave in a hurry when the people there heard he wanted to study Chemistry. Thanks Og he’d gone with friends and was able to leave with all his body parts and no stitches; some of his friends were still being called names for bringing in “the enemy” over one year later. Some Peace :frowning:

The first step to any dialogue is the recognition that the other person knows something you don’t. I can do chemical mechanisms in my sleep, but that doesn’t mean I’m able to fix a broken dishwasher or to write a contract in a form that’s acceptable to Spanish law.

11

You speak of “the superiority” as if it’s automatic.

Considering that my husband teaches sociology at our local university, I know quite a few academics. Some are snobs, yes-- but the frequency is no greater than in that of non-academics who are equally snobby about their cars, clubs, neighborhoods, professions, etc.

I’d also hesitantly point out that mentioning that you have academic friends does not negate what some may see as a negative viewpoint. In the past, I have seen people preface racist remarks by saying, “Some of my best friends are black, but . . .”

All I’m saying is that I think you may have an overall negative view of academics because of bad experiences with a few snotty people.

Let’s put it this way: when i go to a resturant, and I see children running wild, disrupting other diners, I’m tempted to think that children today are less disciplined than those of the past, and that generally, kids are less well behaved. However, I neglect to note the five other families in the resturant who have well-behaved, quiet children. We remember what “sticks out”-- what generates an emotional response. You may not necessarily think of the fifty professors who do not have a superiority complex, but two or three who do.

Furthermore, in your OP, you make some very broad statements, such as being able to tell who is religious and who is not by the light in their eyes. You can see how some might be offended by remarks like that if it’s turned into a statement such as, “I can tell which blacks are criminals by the look in their eyes.”

Is it possible that people didn’t meet your eyes because they’re shy? Is it possible they had something weighing heavily on their minds and were preoccupied? Is it possible they’re near-sighted and couldn’t tell that you were trying to make eye contact?

12

So now I have to know…am I one of your snobby academic friends? :wink:

13

Much more eloquently put than my attempt was going to be.

I’ll use an example from my own life. I don’t have children. I don’t want children. When some people realize I don’t have children they feel sorry for me. When I say that I don’t want children they say I’ll change my mind someday. Further protests by me are met with condescending “Sure, sure” and pats on the hand.

Which means what? Well, it means that I tend to avoid conversations about children because I don’t want to be patronized. I tend to avoid children even more. I tend to be frustrated more easily when the topic comes up because of these experiences. In short, I am more adamant and more set in my ways because I simply don’t like the people who have been so smug in the past.

Any idea of “If they only knew what they were missing” is pretty much guaranteed to piss people off. You could see it on these boards when a certain poster went ballistic because people didn’t want to watch his favorite movie twenty times before being allowed to dislike it. You see it in religious discussions when someone says, “Someday, you’ll open your heart to the lord and he’ll find you!” or “Someday, you’ll wake up and realize the whole religion thing is a bowl of warm spit!” You find it in political debates: “Just wait until it happens to you!”

If you think about it, though, you can’t promote something without the assumption that the something is a Good Thing. If education is a good thing, non-education can’t be a good thing, too. They can both be neutral, but not both preferable.

About the other part of the OP, are there statistics about the relative religiousness of academics?

14

No absolutely not. It doesn’t work like that. The light that I am talking about mitigates shyness. It’s an attraction thing. I’m sorry if it offends you, but perhaps looking into the idea that there might be something you are not experiencing is a possibility. I’m not going to pretend to not have had a certain experience because it might offend people who cannot relate. That doesn’t mean that I judge the people with whom I do not have this experience as anything other than someone with whom I have not had this experience. I’ve had it with plenty of academics, even academics who claim atheism. It’s basically when someone is not hiding their soul deep underneath all those layers. Even if just for a moment. Shyness by definition is the hiding of the soul beneath layers, so anyone who is being shy is in fact NOT exhibiting this behavior. Everyone is capable. There are plenty of times where I am being shy and I avoid these kinds of gazes. Sometimes I feel bad because I sever a possible connection due to my shyness.

Again, you’re using this as a sounding board to express insecurity about people attacking academics. This is not what I am doing. I am trying to discuss a subtle and nuanced undercurrent that might lead to the overall seperation of groups within society. I am not singling out any single person to defend themselves as an academic.

Also, you are assuming that I don’t identify with academia at all. That’s flat out wrong. You’re making a lot of assumptions about me that just are inaccurate. I am not opposed to academia at all. I also seriously disagree with your comparison to racism. Because I can assume an “academic” hat, whereas I cannot suddenly be “black” because I am hanging out with my black friends. I said I have some gaps in my knowledge because of a lack of college, that doesn’t mean that I am uneducated. I consider myself to be highly educated in fact.

It’s like prioritizing intellect or emotion. This was discussed by Monstro in the BBQ pit thread I mentioned. Academics emphasize intellect. I am talking specifically about the root causes that might cause the alienation between the two sides. The specific example of the activists was used because it is a bunch of intellectuals thinking they are going to save the world, and save all the poor oppressed masses, and then can’t relate to the minority communities because they have tossed out “Religion” as a viable part of a person’s life.

So if you feel like you can guide this discussion down a better path, that will bear more fruit, by all means. But please don’t turn it into some kind of love-fest where I have to profess my respect for academia, and massage some egoes, because I’m not trying to bash Academia, I am trying to shed some light on threads in society that I see.
Maeglin: Most definitely you are the Grand Dragon of Academia, I am singling you out most of all.

Erek

15

:rolleyes:

16

I wish all you people defending academia would actually be academic about this discussion so we could actually discuss it.

Too much dogma from people who masquerade as academics.

For those of you STILL confused: Academic please peruse this article.

Then you can realize that I am in NO WAY opposed to:

Academia is a general term for the whole of higher education and research. The word comes from the Greek referring to the greater body of knowledge, its development and transmission across generations. In the 17th century, English and French religious scholars popularized the term to describe certain types of institutions of higher learning. The English adopted the form academy while the French adopted the forms academe and academie.
It makes me sad that people can’t recognize the difference between trying to isolate trends in American Academia, and bashing Academia.

Please, is there anyone out there who is willing to not be ironic about their attachment to academia, and weigh in with a healthy academic detachment so we can actually discuss this subject?

Erek

17

This is an academic discussion I repeat this is an academic discussion. It’s purpose is to add to the overall body of knowledge on a particular subject. Please don’t be alarmed, this is only an academic discussion. Weighing into it will not make your Degree explode, this is only an academic discussion.

This has been a test of the emergency overreaction system. Had this been an actual over-reaction you have been instructed to run in circles screaming.

18

As a person with no formal education to speak of, I think my two cents may be worth a nickel within this thread.

mswas The point of my previous post was to make light of your seemingly contradictory statements using “out of context” pieces of your post plus a :rolleyes: . You have made statements such as: “What I am trying to say is that there is an undercurrent of superiority that might be the cause of a lot of what gets called racism, because the academic culture in America is predominantly white.” And “I am trying to discuss a subtle and nuanced undercurrent that might lead to the overall separation of groups within society. I am not singling out any single person to defend themselves as an academic.” Although you claim to not single anyone out you are painting with a wide enough brush to not need to.

I listen to conservative talk radio and I have heard Rush and others talk about “Ivory tower liberal academics” many times. Our culture is now moving toward the idea that intellectuals are out of touch with real life and we need leadership from down to earth god-fearing folk. I believe this mindset has helped carry GWB to the White House. Your posts do nothing to counter this dangerous trend.

19

Okay, as I see it here is the source of the frustrations you’re having with those who don’t seem to ‘get’ the point of your thread. You’ve stated that you are trying to discuss “the undercurrent superiority inherent amongst the academic CULTURE.”

Personally, it sounds like a great topic for debate. However, you must realize that you’ve made an assertion in regards to this “culture of inherent superiority.” Therefore the first thing you need to do if you wish people to debate this is defend your assertion.

It’s hard to debate the causes and effects of a phenomenon if you haven’t shown that the phenomenon exists in the first place

20

I’d love to, but I’ve having a hard time trying to figure out the thrust of your argument. In particular, this just baffles me:

So, saying that there isn’t any inherent difference between people that would prevent some groups from becoming academics…that’s supposed to be racist?

A Hispanic student just came by my office to drop off his homework. He is, based on my brief experience with him so far, an intelligent, attentive, dedicated student. There is nothing inherent in his race that would prevent him from becoming an academic if he so chose. And if I may be so bold, it is not racist of me to say so. So what am I supposed to make of this comment of yours?

The parts of your post about religion are clearer, but I don’t see the connection you’re trying to draw between religion and race either. As best I can follow, you’re saying that academics have a hard time relating to minorities because academics tend to value academic intelligence over faith. But what does “intelligence vs. faith” have to do with minorities? Last time I checked, there are plenty of non-college educated white people of faith in this country too. Assume for a moment that I accept your contention that academics don’t value faith as much as others. That would seem to cause academics to have a hard time relating to people of faith in general. But how is that supposed to lead to ethnic discrimination?

Saying “Hispanics can’t succeed in academia as well as white people”, that would be ethnic discrimination. Saying “people of faith can’t succeed in academia as well as people without faith”, that would be an unfair statement against people of faith. But saying “Hispanics can succeed in academia as well as white people” is not ethnic discrimination.

The thing is, academia is not an exclusive club. You want in? Come on in! Don’t want in? We’re not going to force you. There are undoubtedly academics who take a superior attitude, and think that everyone should want in. Which is snooty and condescending. But how the holy hell is that racist, if we think everyone can come in should they want to? How is it ethnic discrimination to say “yes, you can do this too”?