The independent newspaper of the University of Iowa community since 1868

The Daily Iowan

The independent newspaper of the University of Iowa community since 1868

The Daily Iowan

The independent newspaper of the University of Iowa community since 1868

The Daily Iowan

Letter to the Editor

Letter+to+the+Editor

Understanding discrimination

The Black Lives Matter movement is the most recent manifestation of the many political and social movements that have attempted to address discrimination and the disparities observed in U.S. academic, social, and economic life. In order to understand why this problem has been so stubborn and unresponsive to political initiatives, we need to examine the social and psychological processes that are perceived as “discriminatory.”

First, it is important to understand that the word “discrimination” has two meanings, and both are relevant to understanding racial discrimination. Within the context of our social interactions, the most commonly understood meaning of the noun “discrimination” relates to the unjust or prejudicial treatment of a group of people. However, a more basic and fundamental definition is simply the ability to recognize or distinguish the difference between one thing and another. In this latter case, as it applies to race, this simply involves the recognition of differences among groups and is not necessarily a reason for concern. In our collective thinking, however, the first meaning of this word is confounded with the second and appears responsible for much of the misunderstanding and miscommunication that occurs among racial groups in America today. In many instances, recognizing differences among groups has become synonymous with prejudicial treatment, and prohibitions against understanding these differences has proven to be an impediment to moving beyond them. If we insist every racial group must be equal in all quantitative and qualitative aspects of their identity, then in everything where real differences exist, we will see prejudice and injustice.

Social-scientific organizations have gone as far as officially stating that race does not exist, and academic historians and research anthropologist are required to assume no significant evolution of our species has occurred since we left Africa and the races emerged. Yet the scientific evidence clearly indicates that evolutionary pressures have differentially and dramatically shaped many aspects of the human population over this time period. This fact has not stopped the American Sociological Association from stating that “race is a social construct” and warning against studying anything related to the biology of race. In educational psychology, the field in which I work, we are often asked to monitor and investigate educational achievement across racial groups. While we are welcome to report on differences in performance, only social and environmental influences for these differences are considered legitimate areas of study. Virtually all top peer-reviewed journals prohibit publication of any research investigating innate factors that might explain and address the variation in learning and achievement across groups. The biological sciences have similarly enforced strict prohibitions against any theory or line of study investigating the behavioral implications of race.

The problem with this state of affairs is that the public is much more aware of how racial differences affect our economic, social, and cultural lives than scientists and politicians understand. When the public is commanded to believe that all observed differences are the product only of socialization, prejudice, or faulty logic, an unhelpful backlash occurs. When accusations of racism follow from any suggesting that social factors might explain only part of the variation between racial groups, many tend to counteract with extreme views on the topic. Attempts to limit open consideration of science provides ample opportunity for myths and half-truths to emerge and increases public suspicion of scientific and social authority, further eroding progress in many areas of societal cooperation. The suppression of free speech in academic publications and on our college campuses has done more to divide us than unite us. In fact, ultimately it damages the political interests it was initially designed to protect. We should strive to celebrate and understand the differences that arise from our diversity. Denying these differences sabotages progress and the chance for peaceful coexistence. While both sides of the ideological spectrum are involved in the suppression of science and free speech, it more fundamentally violates what progressives stand for and has proven to be more counterproductive.

Clarence D. Kreiter

More to Discover