creating a governing structure

[Kenneth Allen Hyde]

On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Valentina Pagliai wrote:

> I share the same feelings with Chris here. I too feel like I belong to more
> than one category and this division makes me feel like I have to decide if
> I am more into one or another. I realize that the intention in reserving
> special places for some "categories" of people was well meaning, but I
> still feel unconfortable with it.

I have to say that I disagree with both Chris and Valentina, although not
for the reasons that may be expected.  In fact, some of the reasons that
were given as arguments against the Advisory Committee structure seem to
me to be equal valid as arguments for the structure.

First, let's look at the objection that it forces people to articially
categorize themselves.  I have to say that I don't see how this is the
case.  The existence of a person within the heirarchy of the organization
who is dedicated to looking after certain topics and bringing certain
problems to the attention of the larger group doesn't seem like a bad
thing to me.  Nor does the existence of a Advisory Council member for Gay
and Lesbian concerns seem to imply that all members of the organization
must decide whether being lgb is their primary identity and thenceforth
support and deal with only the appropriate AC member.  As a gay male who
is a graduate student, I appreciate that there would be different people
who were specifically looking after different interest areas which concern
me.

Secondly, consider the idea of "discrimination."  There are two sorts of
discrimination (not that I need to tell a group of linguists this, I'm
sure): the neutral sort (type-I) simply means something like "recognizing
differences between two things," while the second sort (type-II) is
political and has the added meaning of "...and using those differences as
the basis for acting against someone's good."  While I'll admit that the
AC structure does involve discrimination, I would argue that it is only
the former sort.  It recognizes that there are differences among members.
However, far from using those differences as the basis for acting against
the good of a group, the proposed AC structure seems designed to promote
the good and the interests of certain member groups which have
historically suffered from institutionalized type-II discrimination.

And I have to say that "we're all well-intentioned and not prejudiced"
seems to me to be a somewhat ostrich-like statement (in the sense of
hiding one's head in the sand).  Yes, we are probably all
well-intentioned, but I seriously doubt that we are all free from
prejudice or type-II discrimination.  We are all products of societies
that teach an amazingly varied range of subtle and not-so-subtle
prejudices, many of which seem so "natural" to us that we don't even
recognize them.  Speaking for myself, I'm as open-minded as the next
person, but that doesn't mean that I don't have any deeply seated,
unconscious behaviors and attitudes that might perpetuate type-II
discrimination.  Whenever I recognize such an attitude, I do everything
that I can to eliminate it in myself, but I'm not perfect.  Further, I
know from personal experience that charges of prejudice can arise in
situations where no such prejudice exists, simply out of miscommunication
or cultural misunderstanding.  To say that this is not going to happen and
that we therefore have no need to address these kinds of problems ahead of
time seems like folly.

I think it's great that the organizers of GALA have had the forethought to
create positions which will be specifically charged with watching out for
the interests various groups.  While I'm sure that many of the other
officers will have their own interests, which will coincide with the
interests of some group, I like the idea that there will always be people
in the organization whose primary function in GALA will be promoting
equity and watching out for a very specific set of interests.  It's
wonderful to say "we are not going to be prejudiced or discrimanatory,"
but what do we do when the prejudice and discrimination happen despite our
best efforts and best intentions?  With the proposed AC structure, there
will be someone in place to whom members can turn who will be in a
position to make an informed analysis and bring up issues with the
executive committee, as well as someone who can propose solutions based,
not on one person's experience, but on a much broader database.

Maybe I sound pessimistic.  But I've found that it never pays in the long
run to over-estimate the perfection of humankind.  And having been in
academic institutions and groups that have had and not had specific
special-interest offices, I can say that the ones that had them were much
nicer places.  And sooner or later, the ones who said "we don't need and
office of women's affaires or an office of lgb affaires" either became
hotbeds of type-II discrimination or ended up creating such an office.

Ken

Kenneth Allen Hyde     |  No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife
Univ. of Delaware      |  between the shoulder blades will seriously
Dept. of Linguistics   |  cramp his style  -- Old Jhereg proverb
kenny at Udel.Edu         |  A mind is a terrible toy to waste! -- Me

//www.ling.udel.edu/hyde/prof/ken.html