In May 2014, Time.com published an article that would soon become the source of no small amount of social contention (1). In the article, “Dear Privileged-at-Princeton: You. Are. Privileged. And Meritocracy Is a Myth,” author Briana Payton lashes out at classmate Tal Fortgang for an article he wrote a month prior (1). Payton, a freshman studying sociology at Princeton University and the political antithesis of Fortgang, takes issue with her classmates’ definition of the word “privilege” (1). She argues that, because Fortgang is white, society inherently affords him “privilege” (Payton 1). Payton’s main flaw is her tone — her condescending, demeaning, and arrogant rhetoric distracts from her content and diminishes her credibility. Conversely, …show more content…
When Payton says, “Is that clear? You. Are. Privileged. It is OK to admit that,” her use of rhetorical questions, punctuation, and capitalization make her intentions abundantly clear (3). Payton’s statement exudes anger and resentment towards Fortgang. In the question, it is clear that Payton does not want an answer but rather, is attempting to scold Fortgang. Moreover, her use of punctuation speaks volumes; periods after each word are the equivalent of Payton raising her voice, out of frustration, to drive home a point. Even her emphasis of the word, “OK” is a sarcastic way of suggesting that Fortgang knows, and is afraid to admit, that he is privileged …show more content…
Payton’s reference to Fortgang’s, “comments…about welfare” and the Zimmerman verdict are unrelated, unwarranted, and ad hominem at best (3). What do either of these things have to do with checking privilege? The simple answer is, not very much. It seems fallacious for Payton to skirt Fortgang’s claims by responding with these types of personal attacks. No level of academia, barring elementary school, would consider this form of refutation to be respectful. It seems that Payton used this attack as a safety valve: if the reader didn’t agree with her analysis, maybe she could still dissuade the reader from agreeing with
“I repeatedly forgot each of the realizations on this list until I wrote it down. For me, white privilege has turned out to be an elusive and fugitive subject. The pressure to avoid it is great, for in facing it I must give up the myth of meritocracy. If these things are true, this is not such a free country; one’s life is not what one makes it; many doors open for certain people through no virtues of their own.”
He simply looks at them as wrong. It 's okay to disagree with something, but there should be an argument to back it up. "Furthermore, I condemn them for casting the equal protection clause, indeed the very idea of a meritocracy, as a myth, and for declaring that we are all governed by invisible forces (some would call them “stigmas” or “societal norms”), that our nation runs on racist and sexist conspiracies." He disagrees with people who think that white privilege influences who controls the power, but doesn 't say why, almost like he 's expecting everyone to agree with his perspective as common sense. Conversely, McIntosh 's uses an argument to legitimize her perspective to her readers. She lists 46 advantages that she can perceive, that were given to her by white privilege. Reasons like number 41, "I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.", number 44, "I can easily find academic courses and institutions that give attention only to people of my race." are advantages that lead her to the conclusion that "The pressure to avoid it (white privilege) is great, for in facing it I must give up the myth of meritocracy. If these things are true, this is not such a free country; one 's life is not what one makes it; many doors open for certain people through no virtues of their own.". The conclusion that meritocracy, the idea that those who put in hard work rise to power, is a myth, because of the discrepancy between opportunities offered to people based off of their race, sex, etc. is a logical
In her 16 January 2016 The Washington Post editorial, “What is White Privilege?”, Christine Emba asserts white privilege is a societal advantage inherent in people who are white, irrespective of their “wealth, gender, or other factors.” According to Emba, white privilege makes life smoother and is an entity that is hidden or unknown until the privilege is taken away. Although racism is still a rampant issue in society today, white privilege is a concept created by the progressive left in order to brand whites as a scapegoat for issues and adversities that non-whites face. This concept of privilege ultimately causes further dissension between whites and non-whites.
For once this is something I agree with. In Fortgang’s essay he states that the word privilege is used in a way to discriminate or judge him based on the fact he is a white male. He claims to have been asked several times to “check your privilege”, a phrase Fortgang declares, “that threatens to strike down opinions without regard for their merits, but rather solely on the basis of the person that voiced them”. (Fortgang, p. 376) I translate that to mean you are implanting yourself into a debate that does not concern you and that you should acknowledge it and apologize. Which as he proclaims teeters on the very aspect of reverse racism. The fact that the ones aiming the question asked it without first finding out if it really did relate to him in any way and second for just assuming because he is a white male attending a pricy college he cannot possibly relate. But did one stop and think maybe he attends the college because he worked hard, got good grades, received a scholarship and struggles to pay the rest of his tuition, instead of assuming it is because he has rich parents. The word privilege in today’s culture is used more to judge someone than to state a fact. Maybe the phrase should be changed from “check your privilege” to “check your
This power keeps the behavior of the oppressed well within the set guidelines of the oppressor (Freire, 2000, pg. 47). Critical Race Theory outlines this system of oppression as it relates to white and non-white races. By using the critical race theory coupled with the system of oppression described by Freire (2000), I propose that within the system of oppression, the oppressor must keep its own members in line with the prescribed guidelines by reinforcing the social norms from birth. Freire (2000) suggest that the interest of the oppressors lie in “changing the consciousness of the oppressed not the system” (pg.34). Identifying as white, therefore, starts at birth when members of the white class work to reinforce social norms that began with our founding fathers at Plymouth Rock. This long history of white privilege was taught to me and I continue to teach it to my children. As an educator of white affluent high school students, I believe we provide college and career counseling based on this white privilege system of oppression as well. Here, I journey even closer to unraveling the myth of white privilege as I encounter the intersection of an affluent white student choosing a career after high
Temporary inequality exists as a means of “improving” a subordinate to the level of a dominant. After the period of inequality is over, the two view each other as equals. The other form of inequality, permanent inequality, exists solely because of an ascription of inferiority to a subordinate that is inherent and unchangeable. Unlike temporary inequality, there is no possibility of improvement for the subordinate; they are, in the eyes of the dominant, inferior and impossible to “fix.” The dominants, who view themselves naturally superior to the subordinates, begin to take advantage of the subordinates. “Out of the total range of human possibilities, the activities most highly valued in any particular culture will tend to be enclosed within the domain of the dominant group; less valued functions are relegated to the subordinates” (Rothenberg, 112). Moreover, the subordinates, who by this point are under the total control of the dominant group, may begin to internalize the value of the dominants. “[Subordinates’] incapacities are ascribed to innate defects or deficiencies of mind or body…More importantly, subordinates themselves can come to find it difficult to believe in their own ability” (112). This theory of domination and subordination are clearly mirrored in race relations in the United States. Whites, who are the dominant group, make all of the fallacious errors involved in race-based thinking; they are prone to, like Miller describes, hoarding superior roles in society and practicing systematic cruelty towards the subordinates due to their sincere belief that the subordinates are inherently incapable of rising to the level of the dominant. This internalized belief on the part of the dominants, that the subordinates
By illuminating the many forms that white privilege takes, Peggy McIntosh urges readers to exercise a sociological imagination. She asks us to consider how our individual life experiences are connected to and situated within large-scale patterns and trends in society. She includes a “white privileges” checklist which includes answering yes or no to statements. For example, can Chad Aiken confidently say “I can be pulled over by a police cruiser and not have to worry about it being about my race”, or “I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the “person in charge”, I will be facing a person of my race”. White people are generally free from this systemic bias, suspicion and low expectations that racialized people must endure everyday because it is built into our culture.
...less knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools, and blank checks” (page 79). McIntosh’s ranges of examples are no doubt impressive, ranging privileges from education, political affairs, hygiene, the job industry, and mainly public life. Her list of examples makes it easy for her readers to relate no matter how diverse the audience. While, many would disagree with this essay McIntosh anticipates this by making the contrast among earned and acquired power vs. conferred privilege. Contrary, to anyone’s beliefs everyone has an unbiased and equal shot at earned power. However, conferred privilege is available to certain groups: particularly the white race. America is founded on a system of earned power, where we fight for what we believe in, particularly freedom and equality. However, this is simply a mirage we want to believe in.
In his essay, “On Being Black and Middle Class” (1988), writer and middle-class black American, Shelby Steele adopts a concerned tone in order to argue that because of the social conflicts that arise pertaining to black heritage and middle class wealth, individuals that fit under both of these statuses are ostracized. Steele proposes that the solution to this ostracization is for people to individualize themselves, and to ‘“move beyond the victim-focused black identity” (611). Steele supports his assertion by using evidence from his own life and incorporating social patterns to his text. To reach his intended audience of middle-class, black people, Steele’s utilizes casual yet, imperative diction.
White Privilege The belief that white privilege never existed or that it is no longer a problem is skewed by the selective use of facts to support this claim. How do we address this problem? We must define the what is to be privileged, acknowledge the problem and identify a means to fix it. "The idea of privilege- that some people benefit from unearned, and largely unacknowledged, advantages, even when those advantages aren't discriminatory. "
Does meritocracy still exist in America? Are many talented people who have worked hard throughout their lives going to get deserving rewards and promotions? Does the word meritocracy invented by Michael Young in 1958 still make sense to all of us? Many people still think that meritocracy exists in America because America is the land of opportunities. However, meritocracy does not really exist in America because many hard working people still do not have adequate benefits for their lives and an uncertain future.
In “Checking My Privilege: Character as the Basis of Privilege”, Tal Fortgang tries to argue that he does not feel he is privileged just because he is a white man. He believes that everything he has now is based on his personal accomplishment and does not have anything to do with his race. Fortgang feels outraged that he is stereotyped because he is attending one of the top universities in the world known as Princeton based on the color of his skin. Nothing is given to him freely without diligent work. He went to dig into his past to see if he really was privilege and somehow he doesn’t know he was. Then he gives us evidence of the hardship that his grandparents and family went through emphasizing if hardship is what privilege is, therefore he is privileged. The only privilege he has is the passed down values such as education and faith that was given from his ancestors. He feels the success that his family has made wasn’t handed to them on a silver spoon and the only privilege that his family has is being able
Wright, R. (2001). The ethics of living Jim Crow: An autobiographical sketch. In P. Rothenberg (Ed.). Race, class, and gender in the United States: An integrated study. (5th ed. pp. 21-30). New York: Worth Publishers.
In his article, The Superiority Complex, Mehta focuses his analysis on Amy Chua and Jed Rubenfeld’s book, The triple package: How three unlikely traits explain the rise and fall of cultural groups in America. Suketu Mehta is the author of Maximum City: Bombay lost and found and a teacher at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism institute at New York University. Mehta compares this book to several others books written in previous years like Passing of the Great Race by Madison (1916) and The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington (2004) and points out the similarity in which it portrays racism but it has been veiled with terms like culture, ethnicity and religion. Mehta discusses the various stages of racism in America; how it has evolved with time becoming a norm and an accepted way of life. Chua and Rubenfeld try to justify their book as non-racial by arguing that it is about ethnicity and even going further by giving the Nigerians and Liberians-Africans as examples of minority excellence but Mehta is quick to discredit them because of their failure to acknowledge that Africans are a...
Money can give people a lot opportunities and privilege. Financially privileged people have no trouble getting materialistic things such as big houses, expensive cars, and jewelry. Being privileged can also provide better scholastic education as well as respect. On the other hand, a lack of money, as a person might guess, limits opportunity and lower a person’s status on the privilege pole. In order for an underprivileged person to have all of those things, they have to work hard to get to get the luxuries of nice houses, cars, and jewelry. As far as education goes, the underprivileged might not go to the best schools but they get an education that will prove to be more valuable in life; they learn to earn respect, appreciate what they have and how to survive with just the necessities and what’s really important in life. So when a person looks at each group and tries to decided with one gets the most out of life, they will see that underprivileged individuals get so much more out of life than a person who came up in affluence and privilege.