Jonathan Rauch’s article “In Defense of Prejudice” explores the criticism surrounding “hate speech” and how it relates to prejudgment. According to Rauch, prejudice involves forming judgments or conclusions about a situation or individual without fully grasping their true nature.
Francis L. Lawrence, the President of Rutgers University, is under pressure to resign because of his remarks suggesting that black individuals possess lower inherent intelligence compared to other races. These comments have caused a stir and resulted in calls from both editorialists and protesters for him to step down. Ralph Reed, the Executive Director of the Christian Coalition, addressed concerns raised by religious rights activists about conflicting perspectives with Christian principles during a press conference.
A student at California State University is taking legal action against a psychology professor, claiming sexual harassment and seeking $2.5 million in damages (Rauch n.d.). The student asserts that the professor showed evident favoritism towards females during a lecture, an act that breached campus rules and left him feeling violated and trapped. In order to address racism and sexism, numerous institutions including universities, workplaces, and newsrooms have implemented protocols. Supporters argue that true equity and the protection of marginalized communities can only be achieved when society eradicates racism and other forms of discrimination.
In his article, Rauch expresses skepticism about the possibility of completely eliminating all forms of segregation against individuals, despite hopeful expectations. He also asserts that freedom of expression encompasses racist expressions. Moreover, some people perceive homosexuality as an illness and consider homosexuals to pose a threat to children. This phenomenon, which is widely feared, remains inexplicable.
Like the influenza virus, anti-Semitism, or hostility towards Jews, has proven to be challenging to eradicate. Unfortunately, when pursuing diverse viewpoints (known as pluralism), racism, sexism, and communism often accompany them. Therefore, our objective should not only be eliminating all forms of prejudice but also embracing our differences. Merely attempting to eliminate prejudice is insignificant. For instance, during a classroom discussion at the University of Michigan, a student was reported for violating the school’s policy against victimizing individuals based on their sexual orientation after expressing their belief that homosexuality could be cured through therapy. It is crucial to acknowledge that many Americans who do not identify as hateful still consider homosexuality a disease.
The distinction between a prejudiced belief and a controversial belief is quite slight. For instance, the statement “God does not approve of homosexuality” is factual, whereas the statement “All American criminals are black” is biased. It can be challenging to discern between a prejudiced statement and a factual one. Pluralism aims not to eliminate prejudice entirely but to make it socially productive by pitting prejudice against prejudice and truth against truth, subjecting both to public critique. Ultimately, only true knowledge remains. While it is commonly believed that science opposes prejudice and promotes open-mindedness, the unpleasant truth is that scientists themselves are biased. As David L. Hull argues, this situation actually strengthens science, as scholars hold varied biases. Additionally, scientists are individuals who passionately invest in and defend their ideas.
Some individuals who reject the celebrated concept of science argue that in a system free from judgment, individuals should also refrain from passing judgment. A knowledgeable governing body operates without bias and avoids any attempt to eliminate it. Charles Sanders, an American philosopher, suggests that when reaching consensus becomes challenging, the toiling route is exterminating all those who dissent on the idea. Priests, mass opinion, dictators, and similar figures in most societies are believed to be mistaken and have been ousted to suppress opposing voices. This method has long been employed to uphold doctrines.
According to the concept of “intellectual pluralism,” instead of resorting to violence, we should criticize and learn from the mistakes of others. This approach, as Karl Popper highlighted, allows us to test and discard our hypotheses without sacrificing lives. Intellectual pluralism not only promotes inclusivity for minority groups in society, but also safeguards their rights. Taking a firm stance against a policy should not undermine the importance and seriousness of fighting against prejudice. Prejudices may never be completely eradicated, and if someone speaks out against them, they may be labeled as discriminatory. In order to eliminate prejudiced language, it is necessary to confront prejudice itself. UCLA Professor Mari Matsuda shares similar opinions. As a response to criticism, newspapers have compiled lists of banned words that should not be used in their publications.
Purists have discovered that avoiding judgmental words does not actually help, as new ones will simply be found to replace them. A Stanford Professor argues that even having just one racist individual in a community is enough to create an atmosphere of discomfort and unsafety. Many universities have implemented codes to address discriminatory speech, with some even punishing those who target specific individuals. The battle against racism extends beyond the mere eradication of racial slurs within educational institutions. In criminal law, crimes committed with bias are treated with greater severity. Similarly, courts have implemented restrictions on discriminatory language within the workplace. The aim of purists is to eliminate prejudice in order to protect marginalized communities. However, it is important to note that the task of completely eradicating and criticizing prejudice is incredibly challenging.
