We’ve written in the past about the very thin line that separates an acceptable expression of racial or ethnic bias from an unacceptable one — for instance, the tumult over Andy Rooney writing that “today’s baseball stars are all guys named Rodriguez to me.” As we wrote in Freakonomics, evidence from the TV show Weakest Link suggested that bias against women and blacks was considered less acceptable than bias against Latinos and the elderly.
Today’s Wall Street Journal has a good piece about the degree to which anti-Mormon sentiment hobbled Mitt Romney‘s campaign. (“Mr. Romney’s campaign exposed a surprisingly virulent strain of anti-Mormonism that had been largely hidden to the general public,” writes Suzanne Sataline.) It cites an NBC News/Journal poll in which 50 percent of the respondents said they had “reservations” or would be “very uncomfortable” about a Mormon becoming president, while 81 percent would be “enthusiastic” or “comfortable” with an African-American president and 76 percent with a female president.
And in today’s Times, there’s an article about a high school principal named Shimon Waronker, a Hasidic Jew, who took over a troubled middle school in the Bronx whose students are mostly black and Latino. So far, Waronker’s tenure seems to have been pretty successful. Even though the article is inherently about a clash of cultures, I was pretty shocked to read the following:
Some parents at J.H.S. 22 … were suspicious, viewing Mr. Waronker as too much an outsider. In fact, one parent, Angie Vazquez, 37, acknowledged that her upbringing had led her to wonder: “Wow, we’re going to have a Jewish person, what’s going to happen? Are the kids going to have to pay for lunch?”
Hmm. Is Ms. Vazquez’s bias acceptable because she “acknowledged that her upbringing led her to wonder” it? What kind of debate did the reporter (Elisa Gootman) and her editors have about including this quote? If a black principal took over a yeshiva, would a similar quote in reverse from a Jewish parent have made the newspaper?
Based on today’s newspapers, at least, it looks like Hasidic Jews and Mormons probably wouldn’t have done so well on Weakest Link either.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Students at J.H.S. 22 do not have to pay for lunch? I guess that helps with the bullies beating kids up for their lunch money.
What’s so awful about having “reservations” with the prospect of a Mormon president? The idea that the most powerful person in the world might adhere to the laws of imaginary beings or the morals and ethnics of ancient fables, without room for critical thought, ought to be scary for a rational human being.
Such “reservations”, as long as they extend to the prospect a president of any religion, are surely warranted.
I am convinced that a large majority of “unacceptable bias” is really nothing more than political-correctness run amuck. That is, it is “unacceptable” because some hyper-sensitive soul says it is, and not because it really, truly is offensive.
Can we all just agree that there are some seeds of truth in most stereotypes? That doesn’t mean that a stereotype applies to everyone of the particular group, or that it is to the degree that the stereotype implies, but please, am I the only man on earth that, seeing the way certain cars are “tricked out,” can, with almost 100% accuracy, say, “A black person owns that car”?
Why should there be anything at all wrong with, first, simply speaking the truth, and, second, with having some opinion about it?
Likewise, I am sure that there are stereotypes of whites, Asians, and so forth. Stereotyping is a simplification that, while containing some truth, tends to over-weight the negative and less-flattering elements that are observed about a group.
Jews being a bit money-centric? Why, what would ever make us think that, seeing as many of our largest financial institutions were founded by, or are now run by, those of Jewish descent.
Anyone with sense will have the capacity to divide between the stereotype and the larger, grayer truth, but I think we all can grasp–even from the days of scripture–that our Jewish brothers tend to be extra well-informed in such matters, and have a degree of networking with others that may have been ingrained over thousands of years of necessity.
I remember when Reggie White caught such heat for claiming that God gave to each of the races certain “gifts” (if I remember correctly). And yet nothing he said was disagreeable to me–thought the politically-correct crowd went wild.
Do we not discern that, just as blacks are superior athletes, that maybe, just maybe, other races might have “gifts” that through evolution, nuture, history, tradition, or the gift of God, have been given to them?
Of course these are broad generalities, and yet do we not see some truth? Did not Plato recognize that some people fit better here, and others there…some are more fit for leadership…some are more fit for guardianship…some are more fit for production/consumption?
I have this theological theory that all will be well with mankind…if we can simply get beyond our divisions, accept our gifts as they are, and bring them together in accord. But as long as we do not come together, the elements of our well-being are kept separated, and cannot come together for the greater good.
And biases are perhaps intuitive markers–some more worthy than others, I’m afraid–that a wise man might be able to mine for truths about just where we all fit in this grand equation.
I can’t believe they put that quote in the Times.
Alex, that’s the point. It’s blatantly obvious that the reservations about a Mormon President don’t extend to, say, a Protestant President.
I don’t think Ms. Vazquez’s bias *is* acceptable, but I think *reporting* on that kind of bias is absolutely appropriate. Bigotry is not eliminated by a refusal to acknowlege its existence — quite the contrary, we must acknowledge racism in order to combat it.
Alex A. wrote:
What’s so awful about having “reservations” with the prospect of a Mormon president? The idea that the most powerful person in the world might adhere to the laws of imaginary beings or the morals and ethnics of ancient fables, without room for critical thought, ought to be scary for a rational human being.
You’re right – that would be almost as scary as having a president who’s a Bible-thumping, born-again Christian who makes national policy based on his religious beliefs, even to the point of attempting to overturn established law, such as Roe v. Wade…..oh, wait a minute……
I’ll admit that I had a second thought about the prospect of a Mormon on the Republican ticket, towards which I lean.
The thought was, I don’t agree with Mormonism, but that disagreement is orthogonal politics. It is simply unconstitutional to care whether someone is a Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, or Christian.
Which logic, carried further, tends to reject the idea of Huckabee trying to play on his faith for votes.
The US is as much a theocracy as it is a socialist nanny state, and leaders who’d take it off course deserve to be politely ignored.