Re the Board: What, if anything, is "public" about the incident (am guessing nothing, but is there was a police report filed or something similar)? That's the kind of thing that gets pulled up in a good background check, which would require no issues on breaking confidences, etc.
If nothing, then agree -- check with the injured party first. If she is OK with the disclosure, you have your answer. If she is not, then you have a conundrum, but there's a relatively simple solution. If/when the individual comes on, indicate to the other board members that you will not only not vote for them (assuming you have a vote) or work with them, but resign if he comes on board -- you don't have to get into the details of why, just indicate that the candidate's character makes it impossible to work with them.
That kind of "noisy withdrawal" gets attention, and it also has the benefit of allowing the writer to make it about his/her own view of the character of the candidate. There's no guarantee of result, of course (the board may disregard, and you are out of a position if they overrule you/may not take you seriously if you've done something like this before, for example), and obviously don't do it if you don't want those kind of possibilities, but it keeps your conscience clear and doesn't disclose the specific circumstances where the ex-wife may not want done.
9
It sounds like the parents are trying. Give them a break.
22
So much for learning the lessons of the #MeToo movement;
The commentator doesn’t even think about the woman’s safety or to check in with her before saying anything to the guy who brutally beat her for years.
Obviously, the LW believes the guy has not reformed himself, or the LW would not have written to the Ethicist about it.
The woman knows the guy better than any of us who has written to or for the NYT. She probably knows whether the guy has accomplished what most domestic violence perpetrators have/cannot, and admitted to all of his criminal and abusive behavior, made proper restitution to all of his victims and proven that he remains non-violent and peaceful behavior even when stressed out or angry.
So, Step One: Talk To Her Before Doing Anything.
11
I think the ethicist needed to know more before approving the reporting of her knowledge of a candidate's past.
I hope it is clear to all that reporting spousal abuse of another under these circumstances is defamatory "per se" so whatever the writer says they had better be factually correct or be subject to heavy civil liability. Was this person convicted of this conduct? Was it proved and part of the divorce Judgment? Did he admit the conduct? Will his former spouse confirm the truth of these facts if requested? When one accuses someone of criminal conduct they had better know that they had better be able to prove it.
It has become more and more common to launch into condemnation of folks with less and less evidence. Many people fail to understand that "press" status and "public figure" status provide what seems to be free rein to accuse people of all sorts of misconduct with no legal exposure. Not so. When regular folks like us accuse other regular folks of criminal conduct the libel and slander laws can take quite a bite from the pocketbook of the one who points fingers. Be careful.
11
@Ben It’s interesting that you assume the Executive Director LW2 is a woman. Also interesting that my first (but not only) thought was that the person is a man.
One need not be female to be concerned about domestic violence or to be a trusted confidant of a victim-survivor. Indeed, one need not be female to be a victim of domestic violence either.
9
When, if ever, was the last time the NYTimes had a woman “Ethicist”? And how long was her tenure?
I found myself asking this question as I read Mr. Kwame Anthony Appiah’s analysis of, and advice on, the domestic violence matter (LW 2) and many of the comments in response.
No guarantee that a woman would respond differently, but might be useful to have more than one official NYTimes Ethicist respond to queries.
7
They tried that - it didn't go over well and was eventually abandoned in favor of a single Ethicist.
10
The person offended should talk to her partner’s parents. Just gently explain in a few words. And let it go.
4
Re: the board, I think I would go to the man first, tell him what I know, and ask him to withdraw from the election. It could be that he is trying to deal with his past, trying to become a better person. Only if he insisted on running would I inform the board of his history.
5
Perhaps you forgot to mention that the victim’s and her family’s safety needs come first?
How easy it seems to be, especially for men, to come to conclusions and issue directives without consulting, or even thinking about, the woman — even when those conclusions and directives are likely to impact and maybe even end her life.
13
No. As others have articulated, the woman’s (victim’s) right to safety comes first.
It comes before telling the board, before the director’s comfort, before the needs of the the organization, and most certainly before telling the abuser himself!
The Exec Director believes that the guy “brutally beat” the woman for many years, meaning the ED believes the guy is a repeat violent offender currently free from the prison where he would probably be if he hadn’t so terrorized his ex-wife that she was afraid to press charges or because, as many a NYTimes article has demonstrated, the court system was/is often broken when it comes to providing justice for female victims of sexual and other kinds of physical assault.
The ED telling anyone (since ED can’t know for certain who knows who, or who might overhear what), let alone the abuser/criminal himself, may seriously endanger the ex-wife, whom the ED claims to be a friend. The ED doesn’t say that the victim/friend gave permission to share her information. The ED doesn’t say that the victim/friend feels and believes she is safe from her assailant. The ED doesn’t say that s/he is aware of the criminal having undergone years of in-depth, expert intervention specifically addressing and rehabilitating domestic abusers AND that the guy has demonstrated sustained, long-term, necessary and sufficient change to be trusted not to harm his ex-wife or others, even in the face of being outed and professionally penalized for his violence.
11
A Chinese friend instructed me on the difference between Chinese, Japanese and Korean facial features. Naturally, since we all have a mix of DNA and ancestry, her instruction didn't provide a sure-fire guide to guessing nationality, but it was interesting.
As an artist I look closely at people's features. I once had a professor of anatomy-for-the-portrait artist who examined my face and pronounced that I almost certainly had ancestors from a particular country in Europe. He recognized the shape of my lips and connected it not only to a particular country, but a particular region within that country. He was correct. (Neither my first name, nor my surname would have given even a hint of my grandmothers country of origin.)
Clearly the in-laws are trying to be nice - and seem to be trying to learn about their daughter-or-son-in-laws culture. Otherwise they wouldn't have said that they've learned to distinguish Filipino people from other Asians - that they aren't living the "they all look alike to me" stereotype. From the limited information we're given, it would seem like they're genuinely trying.
32
To judge by most of the comments in the thread so far (131) white people still firmly believe that it's the job of non-white people to adjust to them, period.
Those parents are obviously kindly, well-meaning people who don't have a whites-are-the-default bone in their bodies. The real racist is the Filipina who complains. Right. Got it. Thanks. Master.
22
I can't bear to look it up in Mirriam-Webster. So 'woke' must mean awakened, as in, awakened to one's ignorant, racist and narrow-minded ways. An epiphany; born again awareness. Awakened to social justice. Wow. One moment BLING you wake and and it's all clear - everything you've known for the last fifty years - when you weren't woke but probably asleep - is wrong, you can finally see clearly what you couldn't see before, and it happens to be exactly what residents of big coastal cities claim to see all the time. Problem is, you can't square "woke" with "microaggression." Because if you're not woke, you can't see what you'd see if you were woke, and how can you dispense an aggression - an intent to cause harm - of any kind, even micro, if it's not intended to cause harm?
18
The parents in the first letter do sound a bit ignorant of Filipino-American life and culture. The writer sounds more than just a little nasty.
36
I had two reactions to the first question: 1. Appiah’s response to the letter-writer is a model of how we should talk with people with whom we disagree, if our goal is to change or open their minds. He was courteous and thoughtful, and he assumed that the writer was acting in good faith rather than malice, just as he asks her to assume of her partner’s parents. 2. The letter-writer wonders to what extent she should be involved in her partner’s education of his parents, and I couldn’t help thinking, “Don’t worry—with the attitudes on display in the letter, I doubt you’ll be his partner for long.”
22
Regarding the first question. I have presbyopia and have a hard time recognizing all faces, generally, even relatives. I believe most people recognize the differences better than I do. My advantage, however, is that I look for differences to be able to recognize individuals for a purpose wholly outside any bias.
I can tell you, recognizing people is very different from judging them. Many people, I believe, may be processing recognition while a lot of us see incipient bias. Let parents see faces in their own way, without any preaching and one may discover they get to know others in just the way you would want them. I love people, not faces.
13
I have a couple of thoughts on the domestic violence question. The response from the Ethicist seems woefully inadequate.
First, I agree with the comment already posted that the first thing to do is to consult with the person who provided the information. The information does not belong to the person who submitted the question; it belongs to the victim. Disclosing the information to anyone is tantamount to making it public. Moreover, the abuser is virtually certain to find out that the information was disclosed, which may put the victim in danger.
Second, while I agree that partner abuse is vile and that there need to be consequences, I also believe that a level of certainty that it occurred is required before those consequences are imposed. Reporting partner abuse to the police will initiate an investigation; reporting partner abuse in the context here will not. Full disclosure would require that source(s) be revealed; in other words it would require that the bases for the conclusion that the abuse occurred also be disclosed so that the other board members can reach their own conclusions. I would find it difficult to keep the information confidential, but I would also be uneasy about disclosing it.
12
May I suggest to the Executive Director, Professor Appiah, and to readers who think it’s likely the man who for many years beat up his spouse would get over his anger issues — actually to all readers, that they take the time to peruse domestic violence expert Lundy Bancroft’s excellent book Why Does He Do That.
Bancroft ( http://lundybancroft.com/ ), among other things, effectively dispels the myth that abusive men (and women one might add) just struggle to contain their anger, as some Times reader comments contend. Says Bancroft, “YOUR ABUSIVE PARTNER DOESN’T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HIS ANGER; HE HAS A PROBLEM WITH YOUR ANGER. One of the basic human rights he takes away from you is the right to be angry with him. No matter how badly he treats you, he believes that your voice shouldn’t rise and your blood shouldn’t boil. The privilege of rage is reserved for him alone. When your anger does jump out of you—as will happen to any abused woman from time to time—he is likely to try to jam it back down your throat as quickly as he can. Then he uses your anger against you to prove what an irrational person you are. Abuse can make you feel straitjacketed. You may develop physical or emotional reactions to swallowing your anger, such as depression, nightmares, emotional numbing, or eating and sleeping problems, which your partner may use as an excuse to belittle you further or make you feel crazy.” - Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men
19
@Another1 That book was incredibly eye-opening and dispels many myths our society has about domestic abusers (for example, they do NOT beat their partners because they are insecure, which many of us have come to believe, but because they are entitled.) I heartily second your recommendation and I wish it was required reading in every sociology class.
10
May I also suggest that, just as The New York Times includes contact information for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline with articles addressing suicide, so too should the NYTimes include contact information for the National Domestic Violence Hotline (http://www.thehotline.org/ and tel: 18007997233 ) when articles address domestic violence?
Doing so would be a tremendous service to readers, their families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers; and it might even nudge Times writers to do a bit more careful research before submitting an article.
30
I’m dumbfounded that neither Mr. Appiah nor the Executive Director (ED) thought to discuss the matter with the domestic violence survivor herself first.
Your friend is the victim of a serious violent crime (actually, numerous violent crimes), whether or not she reported them to police. The criminal is not in jail and is free to find your friend, his victim, and may have access to her/their children. Your revealing what she shared with you, whether or not she directly asked you to keep it secret, may put her at risk of a series of costly & stressful defamation lawsuits by an angry, retaliatory assailant or, worse, put her and/or her children’s lives and limbs at risk.
She knows this criminal man and what he’s capable of much better than you do. He controlled and violated her for years. The most ethical thing to do is to give control back to her by letting her decide what about her experience, if anything, you share with others, when and how. Otherwise you’ll be violating her as well, and be denying her the important opportunity to plan in advance for her & her family’s safety as your revelation may very well trigger raging revenge, immediate or postponed, by a man already proven to have poor impulse control and a penchant for violence.
At very least, consult with National Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-7233 (TDD 1-800-787-3224) before proceeding.
41
If I never again hear or read the word “micro-aggression”, I would feel the world is a better place.
89
@Just Curious +1
7
@Just Curious Why, because you don't think such things exist or should matter? Because you don't think people, esp white people, should have to worry about perpetuating stereotypes, revealing their bias or their ignorance, or causing others harm? Because it's easier to blame others for being oversensitive than examining the limits of your own cultural knowledge and competency?
15
@SLK agreed. this may be the whitest NYT comment section to date. someone once asked me if I had a certain illness as a child from growing up in a third world country. I was born and raised in Ohio. would y'all prefer that I call this racism instead of a microaggression and eliminate any nuance?
2
The NYTimes’ “Ethicist” says, “Keeping a secret can be wrong when the result would be to risk serious harm to others. That consideration may not apply here; more to the point, you don’t suggest the information was passed on in confidence...”
The executive director does not suggest the information was NOT passed on in confidence. One might (ought?) reasonably infer that the director wouldn’t have written in with such an ethical dilemma if s/he/they knew for sure that the friend, who is a victim-witness to violent crime and what amounts to torture, didn’t care if the information were shared with other who have a direct link to the criminal.
In my and most thoughtful people’s view, information about trauma suffered by another person should always be considered to be shared in confidence unless and until the victim-witness overtly says otherwise. This is particularly so when (a) the criminal is still at large or otherwise able to access the victim, (b) when those you wish to share with aren’t law enforcement or the victim’s healthcare providers, (c) sharing the information would more likely put the victim or those close to her in harm’s way than it would to your intended audience, (d) the foreseeable possible harm to the victim or her family would likely be more severe than that which withholding the information might cause your audience, and (e) you’re not a legally mandated-reporter with a reasonable suspicion that a specific third party’s life/limb is in imminent danger
6
Here is a place the executive director and The Ethicist should have started:
http://www.thehotline.org/2015/06/11/someone-i-know-is-being-abused-shou...
— with readily-available guidance from experts on responding to domestic violence and related situations.
4
Errrggh. Like many commenters, I don't like the LW#1's tone or attitude much - she comes off as obnoxious. Yet I do feel there should be a way to explain to those committing such "microaggressions" - and yes I think the term is overused, if not outright ridiculous in some cases - that constantly pointing to the fact that someone is of a different race or ethnicity from you, or a race you're unfamiliar with, causes, at the very least, discomfort in a new friend or acquaintance - let alone a new family member. The famous "They all look alike to me" comment REALLY should not be uttered, at least in the company of those who "all look alike" to you. Yes, it's mainly a matter of familiarity and it's a well-known phenomenon, and it doesn't mean you're a racist if all (fill in the blank) look alike to you. But loudly pointing to differences is not a good way to get along with people, regardless of good intentions, or simple naivete or unawareness (un-"woke"ness). If there's a way for the partner to get this across gently to his parents, that would be good. Surely they can understand that it just makes people self-conscious. Maybe just, "Mum, please try not to talk about how she's Filipina, it just makes her feel funny, 'cus it's like you keep saying she's not like us" would get the idea across without too much pain or awkwardness.
31
@DW Except that -- part of being 'woke' is evidently absolutely acknowledging the 'otherness' of the non-white person. Apparently, if you simply try to meet her on the personal level, you are egregiously ignoring the very thing - being Filipina - that most defines her and her experience. I think it's this dual requirement of 'microaggressions' that is frustrating -- the word acknowledges there is no hateful intent, but almost anything you do or say, or don't do or say, can be called out as offensive by the other party.
9
@dobes - There are still thousands of things you can talk about with a person, without having to repeatedly return to how they differ from you, in terms of appearance, race, ethnicity etc. How exactly would talking about something other than race "acknowledge the 'otherness' of the non-white person"?
All of the complaining about the word "woke" in here is very tiresome. People who expect non-white folks to overlook their ignorant comments about race deserve a gentle wakeup call. The parents are trying to connect with their offspring's partner, but they're doing so in a ham-handed way. Badgering them about this would be counterproductive, but encouraging them to think whatever they're saying is fine would make lead to awkwardness. Redirecting the conversation when the parents start sounding ignorant sounds like a good way to strike a balance.
18
@Blue Jay They are not complaining about the serious race issue. They are complaining about stupid words like woke and micro-aggression.
29
VERY IMPORTANT SAFETY concern re whether to tell board of directors (or anyone) about domestic violence perpetrate against a third party:
Both the Executive Director & the philosophy professor/advisor neglect to consider the safety implications for the victim if the E.D. tells anyone, let alone an entire board that may then reject the perpetrator. The life and limb of the family friend/ex-wife and that of her children and other family come first, as should promoting her sense of agency — something that was undoubtedly assaulted along with her body.
By relaying information about the violence, particularly in a way that you believe would (rightly) deny this abusive (criminal) man something he covets, you may trigger violent rage & retaliation. This is a risk you are taking for yourself after careful consideration; but it is not your right to take that risk for your friend, who is not the one choosing to tell and, by your description, doesn’t even know you will be disclosing her information.
As one who knows numbers of domestic violence survivors, I’m frankly shocked that neither the E.D. nor the ethicist philosopher thought to FIRST CONSULT WITH THE VICTIM-SURVIVOR & get her permission to tell. Without so doing, your good intentions may result in further disempowering your friend & putting her in danger.
Your goal is righteous, noble, & supportive of your friend (and protective of the board); but it’s her decision whether this goal is worth compromising her safety.
13
One way to help this, and really something that might help the movement in general, would be to use proper English to describe it. Someone is "awake" or perhaps "woken". This word "woke" is used by an important movement that I personally support, but it's choosing to handicap itself in its poor use of language. An important lesson in any endeavour is that people will generally find fewer supporters when they sound dumb and uneducated (our current President being one of a few notable exceptions). If you want the family to listen to you, use proper language to make your points.
21
@Cristobal as we all know, linguists have verified that language never evolves or adapts. I doff my cap to you, good sir. Verily.
9
There may also be other ways of alerting the board to the abusive man’s unfitness for board membership without disclosing the domestic violence or referring, even indirectly, to your friend (whose safety is more worthy of your protection than the honor of the board). What else do you or others know about him? Does he have any kind of official criminal record?
If your organization requires criminal background checks of potential board members, which arguably every organization should, police reports and/or criminal restraining orders (CPO) and probably civil domestic violence restraining orders (DVRO) would be exposed, unless he somehow had the record expunged.
Revelation of the DV by this means may still lead to his blaming your friend for the resulting exclusion from the board of directors — and so she should be alerted in advance of what you are doing so she can safety plan — but at least she and you would be saved any defamation lawsuits and perhaps the likelihood of him blaming and taking revenge on her (or you) would be lessened.
3
The Name Withheld Filipino-American has it all down pat. "Microaggressions," the catch word of the day, meaning actually the way the person allegedly "microaggressed" makes himself or herself out to be superior to the supposed boors who are "microaggressing."
The Ethicist talks social science. I use experience. I am married to a Filipino. When I first saw her, I knew she was Filipino, not Japanese, Chinese, or Korean. If I see people who I think are Filipino in the village where we live, I often ask if they are Filipino, which invariably they are, and we then have nice chats. My wife sometimes meets people who ask if she is Chinese or Korean. One can bet that she doesn't write the Ethicist about "microaggressions."
We are not told the gender of the writer and the partner. They might both be males, in which case we have the partner's parents, white Midwest suburbanites, perfectly comfortable that their son's partner is male and Filipino-American. Yet the writer conjures up "microaggressions," apparently to strike a blow not only against the supposed outrages of his partner's parents but on behalf of other "minority populations." The only thing missing is the protest rally replete with bull horn, signs, chants and obstruction of traffic. That comes next. Name Withheld Filipino-American right out of the Al Sharpton playbook. We can congratulate ourselves that we saw him early on honing his skills in the July 22 Ethicist column.
26
@Donald Nawi I like how you created and ran with the narrative that his parents are proud supporters of their gay son. Talk about speculation.
6
@Donald Nawi
Given the use of "Filipino-American", I'd guess that Mx. Withheld is a man, especially after referring tot he sister as a Filipina. I suppose it's possible that "Filipino-American" would still be used for a woman, but I would expect the "-a" to be used in the singular. Not sure of the finer nuances of the masculine and feminine adjectives.
2
@Dave plenty of women use Filipino or either for convenience so it's not something we can be sure of.
We all have our innate prejudices that we have to sublimate first, then work on eradicating. For instance as soon as someone uses the term "microaggression" I assume that they are part of the professionally offended class, and often just stop listening. As it happens, I do the same with the term "snowflake." (And to the term "woke" but that is on the headline writer and not the letter writer.)
But a person who has a terribly cliched vocabulary is quite capable of making a relevant point, well thought out and well argued, even of the vocabulary is suspect. So I sublimate the reaction and listen.
The key to dealing with good-hearted people who are not racist, but are awkward, is to recognize their good hearts. Gentle correction is OK, but should be viewed as a work in progress. And a good sense of humor and a thicker skin never hurt anyone.
30
@Cathy - Agree overall. But sometimes such folks are really quite ... persistent in talking about race all the time - or become difficult to deal with because they just won't let it go. "Gentle correction" is definitely the way to start, but sometimes such people won't drop it, or understand why anyone objects to their race-fixation.
7
Nonprofit executive director: Consult your organization's attorney for advice regarding this situation. If there's no legal documentation of this man's behavior toward his ex-wife then you could be held liable for defamation if you were to tell others what you've been told about him. If your organization doesn't have an attorney on staff or on retainer, find one pronto!
15
I also think that Professor Appiah and the NYT should correct/amend the article to reflect the fact that by sharing the information about domestic violence (and years-long violence at that), the executive director very well may be further endangering their friend, who’s already suffered another person taking control of her life and welfare. This is particularly so if the sharing happens without first getting the ok from victim or at the very least giving her plenty of advanced warning of what, when, how, and to whom you will be disclosing the information.
For Professor Appiah and the Times not to immediately and properly amend/correct the advice given would be to participate in the all-too real risk of endangering the very lives of not just this executive director’s friend, but also countless other victim-witness survivors whose friends, family, and acquaintances may read and take up Appiah’s careless advice.
5
To the nonprofit executive director: many board bylaws specify that a nominating committee will create a slate of board members. Bylaws also often state a basic set of board member criteria: some months of membership, a past history of community service, the ability to be bonded on financial matters, the ability to adhere to board decision-making processes, attendance requirements, and no criminal convictions, for example. Even if your board bylaws do not currently state this, one could argue that the board’s fiduciary duties require some review of member background. Obviously all criteria should be tailored to avoid any discriminatory bias, but no organization should be required to install a board member whose involvrment will detract from the attention to the mission of the organization.
6
Here's to the responses to LW1. Mr. Appiah and the bulk of the responding readers seem to have a well balanced view of the situation. Recognizing that many Times readers live in a region that is different from other regions in the country, I appreciate the dominante stated approach of moderation and positivity rather than further divisiveness.
16
Ok, I need some help to understand how egregious this situation really is
I’ve been called a liberal, a communist, and a socialist, but maybe I’m out of my depth here since I’m a 59 year old white male of northern European descent
First, what does “more woke” mean?
Second, is this really all that terrible? Are these possible just nice, average, generally polite people who are out of their depth on ethnicity and diversity? Is their world mostly just white people like themselves? Is that a bad thing, after all it’s the world they were given by their parents. Does this rise to the level of the term aggression? And I’m sorry, but tacking on the modifier “micro” doesn’t diminish the meaning of aggression. How often does each of us say something out of place or that we wish would have come out differently.
If this is the standard you set, most of the population is going to disappoint or possible even offend you. Maybe a reset is in order.
91
I strongly encourage you to educate your partner's parents about how racist they are. I promise you that it will create harmony between you and them, as well as your partner. And if it fails, you should certainly insist that your partner shun his parents as reprobate bigots. It will bring you closer together for sure.
No, really.
(Are those snickers I'm hearing from the audience?)
43
These comments cannot be called "microaggressions." There's no aggression involved. "Ham-handed comments," OK, but there's no aggression here! I find this couple's warped perception disturbing.
60
@Ginger
How about "microoffenses"? To me, "aggression" involves intent on the part of the aggressor; "offense" doesn't.
2
LW#1 - I don't know what "woke" really means but I do know what "polite" means and your partner should do a better job in advising his parents to be polite and refrain from spouting off with every racialized thought that pops into their heads. On the other hand, it can be instructive to get an unfiltered look at the attitudes your partner grew up with so you can decide whether you want to stay with him. The apple does not fall far from the tree.
LW#2 - Tough situation. You can easily make a misstep here causing the nonprofit and possibly you to be sued by this guy. Consult with the nonprofit's attorney about your options.
3
@Lynn in DC
Radicalized thought? The two examples mentioned don't seem radical so much as ignorant (in a neutral sense) from having had limited exposure.
3
Perhaps make an unspoken deal with your partner's parents. In exchange for them letting you be who you are, let them be who they are. What's not to like beyond perpetual, mutual irritation at family get-togethers that would be exponentially worse if you tried to change each other?
Remember that venerable saying of a minor prophet, "Friends are God's way of saying 'I'm really sorry about the family I gave you'."
16
I once spoke up about serious misconduct by a coworker. Having spent 3 years subsequently entangled in a legal and professional morass defending myself against defamation charges, I urge LW 2 to speak up ONLY if he has access to documented proof of the abuse.
29
Okay, I’m showing my age and uncoolness, but what exactly is “woke”? Awareness? Sensitivity? The use of that term alone kind of makes me unsympathetic to Letter #1, since it implies a kind of superiority that only the “hip” trying to educate the “ignorant” would use, although I get the frustration behind the question.
People of a certain age and time will be difficult to change. My parents were of such a generation. If you can’t gently tell them how their words affect you, all you can do is grin and bear it, because they ain’t gonna change. Limit your time with them, if need be.
Attitude and demeanor toward your partner’s parents may help to enlighten them as well. If you come across as a holier-than-thou smart aleck lecturing about “microaggressions” (ugh — that’s right up there with “woke” in cringeworthiness), I guarantee they will tune you out, and unfortunately that’s how you’re coming across in your letter. A little patience and understanding will go a long way here.
59
@MDB, I think the headline writer used "woke" rather than LW1, just to be fair. Other than that, I agree with you.
9
The thing about microaggressions is that they are just--micro.
Suppose that your partner's parents don't want to have every visit with their child turning into an ongoing lecture on their subconscious racism as representatives of the dominant culture.
What will you do? Force your partner to choose between you and the parents?
If they say something that's out and out racist, fine, address that. But when it comes to the micro stuff, can't you just leave it alone for the short time they are there to see their child?
70
When we visit my husband's family in an remote area of the West Indies, people stare at me openly. They don't often see people of other races up close, and they are curious. While it's not the most pleasant sensation, I don't feel there's any bad intent behind it. Your partner's parents were speaking openly, from their personal experience, which perhaps doesn't include lots of daily contact with minority groups. They didn't aim to be unkind--indeed, they were naively transparent in their remarks. If we're looking to take offense, we'll have no trouble finding it. But taking people to task for what sounded like innocent, if awkward, remarks goes far towards ensuring no one ever talks about race.
78
Back in the mid-seventies, I was part of a small musical ensemble that went on a three-week tour to Poland - which was still behind the Iron Curtain back then -
We drove around the country, playing in all sorts of venues - concert halls, outdoor theaters (it was July), churches, municipal buildings, etc ---
We also drove deep into rural areas and performed at places such as orphanages and small village meeting houses and town halls --
It was at a couple of those venues that I had one of the most wonderful and eye-opening experiences of my life --
Among our group, we had about five or six black musicians - plus our vocal soloist was also black --
As we stepped off the bus at the orphanage, or in front of the town hall - we were greeted by local people and children -- who were shouting and excited and overwhelmed - just like when people see a celebrity --
I realized there were people here - not only children - but adults in their forties, fifties and sixties -- who had never seen a black (or non-white) person in their entire lives -- ever--
They were surrounded like celebrities - people enchanted and hoping for the opportunity to speak with them -- young children asking for autographs --
It was absolutely marvelous --
The rest of us stood off to the side while waiting for this wave to subside - after which time we were also warmly greeted --
This happened at about four or five of our stops -
It seems like those Polish people were already "woke" back then...
13
As a white expat who has lived for more than three decades in Asia, I've experienced the same things, in reverse, often. If you're a white boy in the minority, you just get used to it. If you're in the US and nonwhite, it's microaggressions. Oh boy!
78
As a white American, I too have experienced the same things when traveling and living overseas. The difference, however, is that I was not at HOME. If I tired of the treatment, I could get on a plane and come home. But minorities are already at HOME. Where are they supposed to go to get some relief?
11
I agree w/much of what you say, but think it’s important to recognize that white peoples of European descent have a lengthy history of colonization & forced domination of other racial-ethnic peoples. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe the same can said the other way ‘round.
Generally speaking, white people aren’t reminded of decades or centuries of oppression when they encounter some mild stereotyping by folks from other backgrounds — except, of course, if their own ethnic group has been/is routinely discriminated against or oppressed *at the hands of other white people* (for example, Jewish white folks, Roma white folks).
Intergenerational transmission of trauma’s a hard thing to get through, both as the one who carries it & as one encountering it in others. One key is for white folks to endeavor to be sensitive to & aware & honoring of the impact of received trauma & of the communal experiences & memories that adhere to it. Another is for those of we who carry this kind of trauma, like folks w/other traumas, to do our best to discern the here-&-now from back then, to remember that while a white person’s reminding us of the real horrors their ancestors (even recent ancestors) did, they themselves are individual souls who aren’t the original perpetrators &, if like the parents described, probably come in kindness & may seem awkward or even a tad stereotyping precisely because they *are* aware of their people’s history & are, in good faith, trying to be different
3
@Sapienly you are wrong. Every culture/region has a lengthy history of forced domination. You should read up on the centuries of wars waged between Asian cultures. Similar wars, enslavement, etc. were conducted by different groups throughout Africa, the Middle East and every other Continent. We are living in a culture were white men dominated for a long period of time, but that does not mean other groups were not dominating in other parts of the world.
1
Please stay away from the term "Woke". It is the most overused word in the current vernacular besides "mindful".
61
@Marti Mart ugh, HATE mindful!
3
Instead of attempting to make your partner’s parents more ‘woke’ — jeez, what an absurd term — maybe you should be more understanding instead of ascribing ignorance and malevolence to simple unfamiliarity.
And with your apparent sensitivity to so-called microagressions and by negatively noting the whiteness of your partner’s parents hometown, consider that it is perhaps you that has issues with them and not they with you.
88
Oh you should most definitely try and change your partner's parents-good grief no! Get over yourself and this microaggression obsession. They are older, white people from the mid west, what do you expect them to be like? A younger, hipper, biracial, vegan, Rasta couple from Brooklyn? My mother referred to all Asians as Orientals up until her death because that is what they were called for over 70 years of her life. Did I try and change her? Why bother. Love them.
74
@CC
"Why bother. Love them."
How wonderful and simply moving -- thank you...
29
This letter helps explain how Donald Trump won. In the New York Times, the Northeast and California are woke, but the Midwest is always filled with stupid, racist losers. If you want to tell a story where people don’t know how to behave, the Times always sets it in the Midwest or South. The virtuous people are always in New York, Los Angeles or precious San Francisco. And yet, people in other parts of the country can see the racism on New York and California as plain as day.
66
Regarding LW1 -
It's refreshing to read Mr. Appiah's 360-degree view of the issue - with the understanding that a "microagression" can often be subjective --
For instance - here, in cosmopolitan New York City - with it's melting-pot community and progressively-educated population - upon meeting a person with a Caribbean accent - most white people here jump to the assumption that the person is Jamaican -
My Wife - who is from one of the Caribbean islands - can instantly hear the subtle differences in the accents - and knows if he person is from Antigua, Trinidad, Barbados, St. Kits - or even Jamaica -
Having learned this myself from her over the years - it's now a running joke when I meet a person from the Caribbean that all white people in NY City assume everyone from the Caribbean is Jamaican -
Are you guilty of that -? Would you consider that to be a "MIcroagression" --? - Or are you just being friendly and trying to make conversation ? --
Regarding LW2
In this day of employers checking the social media and public records of applicants and prospective hires - it would seem perfectly logical to have the board run a simple Google and social-media search on the member who intends to run for a seat -
If there are any public records regarding police reports and criminal procedures against the man for domestic violence - it will be easily discoverable --
The LW could suggest that - going forward - the board run this type of search on all prospective members...
13
Wife abuser : protect yourself, and your organization. State what you know, and your extreme discomfort at any possible association with this man. Do it firmly, and SOON.
5
I would suggest that the first case introduce her partner's parents to the idea of magical racism.
This is a type of behavior that is instantaneously subject to re-definition depending on the mood of the aggrieved subject of the magical racism. Carefully explain that anything they say or even think is subject to being interpreted in the most bizarre fashion as equivalent to cross-burning or holocaust-rejection. Explain that any attempt to clarify the seeming random nature of the offenses will be met with the claim that they are 'doubling-down' on their micro-aggressions.
Finally tell them - with a note of superiority - that they will never get it and that they will never be able to live a magical-racism free life.
52
@SteveRR
Thanks for speaking the truth to the "woke"
11
For the Filipina-American wife to the American partner, unhappy with his parents, I would suggest that the place to begin is by asking questions instead of imposing your politics. Perhaps there was a family ancestor or friend who was in the Bataan death march, or who fought in the Pacific and liberated the Philippines from the lovely Japanese occupation. Perhaps there are more places where you might connect with them, instead of want to change them. It is so much easier to have more emotionally-laden conversations with people whom you know intimately -- their histories, values, upbringings, favorite books, fears -- than those you don't. People whom you know, and who also respect you, also tend to listen more carefully.
Can you blame them?
14
My Irish DNA seems able to recognize Saxon and Viking faces but I think that's out of sheer ancestral terror. I try not to project my ancient fears on the modern innocents of today.
43
@Patricia This response made me snort!
7
@Patricia
Your absolutely priceless comment caused me to spit coffee out on my screen in a loud guffaw. Thanks for the morning chuckle!
5
Oh god, please don't legitimize the "woke" expression any further.
53
One piece of advice to make white people more "woke" and tolerant of racial differences and then another to be intolerant of someone who has a criminal past. There is no mention as to whether the abuser faved consequences for his actions, paid a debt to society for it, or if he has since received psychiatric treatment to address his hostility. From the description it appears that all the board member knows is that he beat his wife. Seems like a form of prosecution on the basis of little information. For that reason, the board member should keep their mouth shut and not inflict punishment on someone on the basis of what might only be a part of the story.
I wonder if the writer of the "woke" letter doesn't have his/her own prejudices against "white suburbia of the Midwest." We Midwesterners aren't all ignorant racists waiting for a chance to drop microaggressions. Now and then, I may have been clumsy in an attempt to connect with someone outside my experience, but at least I'm trying. Doesn't sound like the LW is doing the same.
94
@Liz You mean the white people might have been micro-aggressed. Terrible.
2
@Liz Amen! Just what I wanted to say too (having been born in the Midwest).
6
Send an anonymous letter to the wife abuser telling him that if he runs for a board seat his past will be made public.
3
@todji No. This risks serious danger to the abused wife because all we know at this point clearly reveals that she spoke out, is the source of the information, and clearly she will suffer the consequences.
LW2 must talk with the wife first and follow her directions exactly about any potential revealing of the information she revealed to you.
The abuser should not be allowed a seat on the board, but this is secondary to the absolute necessary of not causing harm to the abused woman.
3
Ah, they're are from white, midwestern suburbia. Where apparently one would expect the citizens to be totally unwoke.
You traffic in stereotypes and have the brass ones to complain that you've been "micro" aggressed.
72
I am just gonna say it: LW #1 just sounds annoying. This isn’t a class, you don’t have to write an academic paper on being “woke”, and “unpacking microagressions” from the “dominant” culture.
We get it. We all need to do better. So does LW #1 with being a little more understanding to these parents who obviously are trying to make a big effort. So it’s clumsy. Who cares? Be happy they are trying. Rather than looking for more microagressions so you can correct their behavior, how about asking them about their life and trying to get to know them better?
Btw, I am white. I lived in a non-white culture for a year where in a few million people there were about 50 foreigners. Even among the people who knew us, they constantly confused us — even brunettes with blondes, and white people with Hispanics. I found it endearing, and also it made me feel better about my ineptitude about keeping their faces straight. It’s just whatever you are used to. It’s human nature.
103
Re: Your partner’s parents....
Don’t wast your time, nerves, and energy attempting to “convert” people like that...
If you choose to do so, make sure your relationship with your partner is worth it...
My guess is they’ll eventually talk-the-talk, but only to placate their son. You’ll always be a foreigner in their mind.
I’m so sorry you’re having to deal with this. Life’s too short! And so is love....
5
no, it was not remotely obvious that the parents were “just trying to connect”, not one bit of information in the summary of the situation to indicate that, to suggest it. assumpion, assumption - projection, projection.
2
LW 1: be as offended as you need to be. What is the ethical dilemma?
15
Excellent answer to the first question. I, myself, have become more aware and sensitive through gentle education and conversation with people different from myself. I try to tell others that banging people over the head with corrections is only makes people dig in their heels more. When it is your or your partner's parents, this is more important because likely you will have (and want to have) those people in your life.
10
More woke (I had to google woke), microaggressions; LW1 has made me grateful and then some for my son's partner who is not what I expected but that's life. LW2 - I'm concerned about repercussions to the ex-wife. If the ED was not told this is confidence , I feel she should get a heads up and if told in confidence that needs to be honored while still raising some sort of alert. How are prospective Board Members vetted? credit checks, background checks, criminal checks? Maybe this would be the time to formalize the process. There needs to be some way to support what the ED was told if he/she is going to bring this to the Board.
3
Regarding the board-member who may have beat his wife. The writer was not there. What he has heard may be absolutely true, or it may not be. Or, it may be nuanced. There may have been two guilty parties. We don't know.
If there are public records, they are fair game. If not, then leave this.
Stay out of others homes, lest you give license to enter yours.
4
Your non-profit board may trust you, but have something on hand that verifies the claim, if you can. Even one board member being unsure of a story you bring forth can put you in peril. Without some verifiable proof, such information could be considered slanderous hearsay being presented by someone an alternate agenda. Our POTUS declares even hard evidence against him "fake news" and a substantial portion of our citizenry believe him. In this light, all abusers are empowered to deny and trivialize their behavior. This potential candidate may have found a new way and changed his life or he may just be emboldened by what he sees someone even more powerful and prestigious getting away with. If you believe it is the latter, I hope you take a stand, but also have evidence to defend your judgement, if at all possible.
2
To LW1 - Here is a hint: don't use the words 'woke' and 'microaggression' when talking to your partner's parents. I think they might find it a bit 'aggressive' themselves, to say nothing of demeaning. Were their remarks meant to be hurtful? Or could they be considered to be awkward social faux paus that were probably due to their anxiety about meeting your family?
If they were to use your words the way you did in this letter, do you think that they might consider your language to be 'microaggressions'?
I have a bit of experience with this. My DIL is a different color and culture, and is a 1st generation immigrant as well. I live in a large city in Canada and have always had a lot of exposure to different cultures, but not at the 'family' level. I am embarrassed to say that upon meeting her many relatives, I couldn't remember their unfamiliar names or faces, I found out later that they didn't remember mine either. Despite the fact that I thought I was not a 'racist' I had to think that some of my first thoughts were stereotypical labelling for some of her family.
My DIL and I have a wonderful relationship. I truly think of her as my daughter, and as her mother died young, I think she has some of those feelings for me too.
If you and your partner have a long-term relationship, I think you need to try harder to understand and appreciate their good points. They might be your children's grandparents.
A little empathy and gentleness goes a long way in building bridges.
40
I rather think it’s time for LWI to acknowledge that they are trying, forgive them for the rather clumsy manner in which the trying has manifested, and move on. They don’t seem evil. After all, they raised a son who is “woke.” And a son that he presumably loves.
19
Love the “you’re not conducting a new student orientation” line. Just yesterday I was told by an Asian doctor that my sisters and I all look alike. I had to smile because we look very different from each other, but I certainly didn’t hold it against him. He was being friendly.
9
at the end of your response to HOW CAN I MAKE MY PARTNER'S PARENTS MORE WOKE, you said “Here we’ve got a middle-aged Midwestern couple trying to find common ground with a young person from the East Coast ...”
on what, exactly, do you base that assertion? There was not one thing in Name Withheld's summary of the situation in question to suggest that.
@J T GILLICK
LW1 does explicitly mention that s/he and partner live in the Northeast.
4
It seems fairly obvious (to myself and the ethicist and most commenters...) that the mother making a point to claim that she can “tell Filipinos apart” in particular is her ham-handed way of showing reverence, a way of reaching out and being like, “I like your people!” Just because it’s clumsy, or even shows their limited experience with people of Asian-descent (and their age!), doesn’t make it sinister.
When my boyfriend (who is Jewish) met my wacky-but-sincere uncle for the first time, my uncle made a point to say that he had “worked for Jews” his entire career and that he “has much respect for them.” We shared a good laugh about it afterward because my boyfriend recognized that while this was a gross generalization (and earned an eye-roll from us), the intent was not malice but respect, however awkwardly expressed. LW#1 needs to wake up to the difference between aggression and ignorance. It is, after all, offensive to simply assume the worst of others who are different from us.
9
@J T GILLICK
Complaining about other people's un-woke-ness is no doubt fine and dandy. Letter Writer #1's sloppy characterization of white people from the Midwest who live in the suburbs as racists is not, nor is the writer's assumption that these poor folk are in need of the condescending assistance of someone from the Big City.
4
This is a matter of simply being too easily offended and sensitive. The parents remarks clearly contained no malice, to insinuate so is unfair.
Enjoy your time with them and get over the small things regardless of how much you feel the need to be offended by self-perceived slights.
18
And of course be very careful about sharing what you 'know' and what is/has been proved as fact.
Were his actions reported to the authorities? was a restraining order taken out against him? his actions detailed in a divorce?
If so, mention those provable facts when bringing up the subject. Those facts along with his other history and qualifications should be considered. (And I agree that being an abuser should hold greater weight than all other qualifications.)
You open yourself up to charges of slander if you state that he is an abuser and are unable to back the statement up with facts.
. . . .However - - - if you phrase it as "My belief is . . ." you leave yourself a lot of wiggle room.
2
When I first met my Japanese in-laws they quizzed me on whether I could tell the Japanese apart from the Chinese, apart from Koreans, apart from...and so on. It's a thing. I explained that Europeans also have detectable differences between peoples, an idea they simply did not believe. Because, you know, white people all look alike.
And then they marveled at the very notion of a white man being able to successfully employ chopsticks, and seriously inquired if my blue eyes actually gave me the capacity for sight -- "Can you really see out of those things?" Really.
Microaggression! I immediately harangued by wife into giving them a lecture. Or, realized that they're just guileless old people acting like anyone else when confronted with the new and unusual. They were doing their best to make inroads, and the open/honest discourse was welcome.
67
Thank you, Professor Appiah, for addressing a question of political correctness with both sensitivity AND sense. That is so typical of your subtlety. I might also ask the letter writer to examine his own preconceived ideas about these white midwesterners, and to hone his radar to detect shared humanity rather than sussing out grievances.
5
LW1 should consider unpacking her own preconceived prejudices and biases, as she seems to a projected her assumptions of racism onto these white parents by assuming all of their comments must be cloaking racism and bigotry. The anecdote about the father suggesting the LW's sister looked more like another Filipina is not racist - my brother is always told he looks more like my best friend than he does me. Are we really at the point that such a benign comment is considered a microaggression? One could only see that as a racist microaggression by intentionally ascribing sinister motives to the comments, instead of giving the speaker the benefit of the doubt.
My recommendation to LW1, and everyone, is to first always ascribe benign and innocent motives to comments, and place the burden of proof on proving them as sinister. By always assuming the worst motives of everyone, you only worsen the malignant divisiveness that is permeating our national conversation.
34
It is simply impossible to "get" someone to have the opinion, feelings, etc. that you want them to by debate, argument, or the horrific "education." The only "convincer" is either your behavior or their experience. Trying to convince only makes people more obstinate...but demonstrating the behavior you want to encourage (like kindness, for instance, or self-confidence) can be a game-changer, from my experience.
10
@Woke: the word “microaggressions” is actually quite aggressive, so I hope your boyfriend’s parents didn’t hear that. It implies an intent to wound, so if that was not there it could be quite offensive.
With regard to differences between peoples, they certainly exist on an averaged basis, so it is not offensive to make that observation. Of course, even if they could make the distinction on a general basis, they will still often be wrong. Then again, the more familiar they are with people from a country, the more likely they will guess correctly (and it is guessing).
What is at issue is if they make the specific judgment based on the general observation, especially if the general observation is wrong and/or derogatory (in which case this is a real problem). However, you didn’t mention that this was the case.
Overall you may want to check whether you yourself need to be a bit more tolerant of others’ perspectives, especially if you wish for your relationship to have a future.
11
"Aggression" connotes attitude or intent. Putting your foot in your mouth is a blunder. Calling it an agression, micro- or otherwise, suggests malice versus gaffe.
61
Yes but the aggression is judged by the listener, not the speaker. You need to understand the stilted PC thinking at work on college campuses and elsewhere these days. The speakers intentions ah e nothing to do with whether it's a micro aggression.
7
People who bring up ethnic issues at a first meeting are showing their discomfort with being around a person of color, so it makes them say foolish things that don't ever need to be said, insensitive behavior bordering on racial profiling. Why not ask about their culture, art, music and customs? Not so difficult to do. If you open a can of worms, you can't close it. And the reporter's comments are quite useless, in the end.
3
I liked your response to the Filipino American. I suspect a lot of Americans just aren’t aware of identity and racial issues like urban progressives. It’s very easy to stick your foot in your mouth if anything to do with race is brought up.
Another broader question not addressed is when is the son triangulating? The Writer’s relationship with the parents is brand new and the son should naturally facilitate. But his role can become very tricky if the parents and the writer look to him to reconcile any and all hurt feelings.
In the late 60s I was a priest assigned to a very poor parish in the City. Most of our parishioners were people of color. Like most neighboring parishes we had youth basketball teams. The teams played other parishes in the region. One Sunday I accompanied our parish team to another local parish, where everyone, like myself, was Caucasian. Our parish team of young teen agers was composed completely of young men of African American heritage. The stands were jammed with people who looked liked myself. As the team gathered, immediately prior to the game, one of the young men earnestly asked me, “Father, how can you tell the difference between the white people in the stands? They all look alike”. Knowing what the people in the stands were thinking, I knew I had learned another life’s lesson from an innocent observation.
35
"Other race effect," cited by Appiah, is a real phenomenon, well supported by social psychological and other research. It is regrettable that this concept is not more widely known.
That, of course, does not justify overt or covert racism. LW1's partner's parents may well be truly racist or they may be, at least in part, awkward and uninformed about others different from themselves. Educating them is a good thing. Condescendingly referring to them as from the Midwest and visiting the more diverse and open northeast is stereotyping in itself. As mentioned in your comment, you could imagine what many of the Caucasian fans were thinking. Many lived in probably the most diverse city in the US. There is racism in the northeast--sometimes just more hidden, sometimes in-your-face.
That said, NYC has a "live and let live" vibe other areas of the country may not have. I loved that attitude growing up in the city and feel joy in it when I return for visits. We have lived in several different states and live now in a Mid-Atlantic state. My county and neighborhood have become diverse racially, religiously and age-wise. Senior apartments were recently built and, while some residents in the 55-60ish range work, there are many folks who are in their 80s and possibly 90s. Walking the dog on their side of the street has resulted in many nice conversations, not to mention friendships for the dogs. This reminds me greatly of NYC even though we live in a suburb of a good-sized city.
4
Maybe there is a distinction between "offensive" and "racist" that could be explained to the mother. You can be racist AND offensive, or you could be offensive without being racist (mocking the disabled, for instance, is offensive but not racist).
Or maybe it's helpful to explain that something is "hurtful" rather than "offensive."
Open communication (rather than lecturing, or worse, cajoling the partner into lecturing) is generally more helpful in changing attitudes.
6
With respect to the "unwoke" parents who struggle to distinguish Filipinos from one another and had the audacity to say it out loud. It's heartwarming the concern that the writer shows for helping them to see their own failures. I am, however, reminded of a saying of a religious figure named Jesus who, when asked a similar question about how best to point out a brother's shortcomings replied: "Take out the plank from your own eye, then you will be able to see better to remove the splinter from your brother's eye."
27
LW1--you might also consider your own microaggressions against your partner's parents. I was raised in the Midwest suburbs and have spent my adult life on the East and West coasts. I frequently encounter a condescending attitude toward the midwest by folks who have spent their entire lives on the coast. They feel they are more cultured, have a better understanding of the world, etc. I find a similar attitude against "suburbia" more generally--as if everyone who lives in the 'burbs are shallow and dull.
Your letter reeks of that condescension. It's true that you might have better handle on cultural diversity and backgrounds due to your life experiences. But your partner's parents likely have better insight and knowledge of a whole host of other issues based on their own life experiences. If you keep an open mind, you might learn from them too.
And don't confuse being "woke" with being open-minded. Liberal progressives can be extremely close-minded too, in that they disdain anyone who doesn't think exactly like them.
45
LW1: Appiah is right on both counts. The son is the best person to handle this. Don't take it personally, don't assume they're racist, and don't make this about you.
LW2: If you're confident the information is correct, you should let the board know. Some of them may feel it is reasonable to ask how you know this so you should be prepared to answer that question.
5
To the first letter-writer: Let your partner or his parents know when something they say offends you, but don't go into visits with them looking for opportunities to correct them, either. Give his parents a chance to win you over, and they will likely make fewer awkward remarks.
If they ask you why something offends you, that is when they'll be most receptive to your advice about what not to say.
I hope your partner's parents will grow more conscious of how they come across, without growing too self-conscious around you.
3
@Blue Jay "I hope your partner's parents will grow more conscious of how they come across, without growing too self-conscious around you. "
Not likely. More likely that they will pull back and disengage from their son. And I can't blame them for doing so, either. The LW is as judgmental as the parents, if not more so. No one has time for that.
13
It would seem these parents have acquired a "faux daughter in law" who was raised without manners, who feels entitled to lecture her elders in perceived "microaggressions" which seem to translate to "You don't properly kowtow to me". Then she continues to be condescending to them. Way to endear yourselves to the partner's folks, and bring them around to your way of thinking. Not! Ever hear of respect for your elders?
28
Some people can make distinctions that do not depend on facial features. I am face-blind and a professor on a campus 10% of whose students come from China. Looking at students a block away, walking away from me in the depth of winter, I can with near-perfect accuracy tell whether the students are Chinese or not.
I cannot say how I can make the distinction; the awareness is instant and un-analyzable. My guess is that life-long face-blindness has trained me to "see" things that aren't needed by people who can see faces.
10
I have a friend who has face blindness. She identifies people by their hair - which I would find quite impossible. In fact, I have "hair blindness" - I had a boyfriend years ago whom I perceived as blond, though all our friends assured me he had dark brown hair.
3
But should the candidate for the board be told the reason for his rejection? If not, how will he ever realise that his actions have consequences for himself?
6
For the prospective Board member question - By becoming a candidate, the man has placed his character in question. The LW says (s)he is a family friend with the former wife of the candidate and for that reason "knows" that the candidate beat his wife. If the LW actually "knows," as in not just gossip or casual chat, then unless the LW is also the lawyer or doctor for the family friend or the former husband and would be revealing confidential information, why not let others know that the LW opposes the candidacy on the grounds that the candidate is an abuser? If this is knowledge, not just speculation or half-truths, don't you have a community duty to mention it? The LW may even ask the candidate to withdraw. But possibly the candidate felt justified in beating his wife; she "was asking for it" or she "made me do it" are two common reactions.
People will want to know details; people will assess for themselves what weight to give the allegations. The former wife may be upset. The candidate may be upset. I hope the wife filed criminal charges or obtained a protection order - that will document the candidate's character and make it easier to block his quest. But lack of documentation is not the deciding factor in how to proceed.
The LW's own internal set of values and sense of duty will decide the LW on his or her action.
13
Whether or not he felt justified it’s a crime . End of story
5
The candidate may (likely?) not become merely “upset” but violently enraged, and the wife/friend may (likely?) not just become “upset” but panicked, and rightly so — the candidate, who you recall for years physically beat her, might very well come after her. Restraining orders can help, but they are in reality only pieces of paper, not bullet-proof glass, and they expire/may have expired.
Many abusers avoid arrest and prosecution because they’ve sufficiently terrified their victims into avoiding police involvement and court cases that, like rape cases, too often drag victims through the mud and retraumatizaron. If the candidate does have a criminal record that’s not been expunged for some reason, then proper due-diligence by the organization in question should reveal his inappropriateness for the board, and maybe for general membership. Of note, however, is that regardless of how the organization comes to know of his criminality, if he finds out this is the reason he was denied candidacy or membership, he’s likely to blame her. The Executive Director must alert her to what is going on, especially if (s)he is a real friend.
3
LW1 seems overly sensitive and not very self-reflective of her own biases against her parents-in-law. It seems very obvious that they were just trying to connect, albeit in a clumsy way, and there was no malice in anything they said. What's wrong with saying that oh so and so looks more like that person--this certainly could be true. I'm Chinese and I've lived in the US for pretty much all my life--when I go to China, I have a horrible time telling people apart, even when I've just spoken to them. It has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the fact that I didn't grow up seeing Asian faces day in and day out so my brain doesn't process all of the small details. The LW could have acknowledged these things but instead she chose to tell her parents-in-law that they were being offensive when in reality, she seemed quite rude. Understanding other people's culture and where they come from should be everybody's goal--including hers. Maybe instead of judging her parents-in-law, she should try to learn more about how they grew up, and what it's like living out in the Midwest.
171
@thisisme Ahh...the American problem. Everything is viewed with an American lens. Living in Switzerland I hear and see "micro aggressions" every day. This morning I was looking online to purchase a new BBQ grill on a German language website. I found one that had a five stars of David rating at a great price! I could go on about some of the things I hear at work. Phrases that may not be said in the US, used here. But I know these people. They are intelligent, family-people. They are my colleagues and they are just operating within their culture and language. They literally have no context of what my ears hear. You need to just let this stuff go. Point out real racism, and let unfortunate or culturally driven interpretation fall to the wayside.
2
@thisisme - LW1 is an American so exactly why should she be understanding of "other people's culture and where they come from?" By virtue of being American, we have a baseline of commonality. For me, your comment was clunky, offensive, and frankly, if you didn't state you were Chinese, I doubt that 43 individuals would have thought your comment was "ok." What you have written: "Maybe instead of judging her parents-in-law, she should try to learn more about how they grew up, and what it's like living out in the Midwest." Your comment places the blame on the individual, who is not a xenophobic or small minded. It is like saying, you should try to understand Trump supporters and learn more about how they grew up, and what it is like living out in the Midwest.
@thisisme I completely agree. I grew up in Midwestern suburbs, but have spent my adult life in major cities on the East and West Coast. I frequently encounter a lot of condescending comments about the Midwest, suburbia, or Midwest suburbia by people who lived on the coasts their entire lives. This is where the term "coastal elites" comes from, not that people there are actually more elite, just their attitudes. It's true that many people in those areas have less exposure to ethnic and cultural diversity than some coastal cities, but they have exposure and knowledge of many topics that the coastal elites don't. They aren't any more ignorant or dumb or judgmental than the coastal elite are--they just may show it in different ways.
The writer should consider her own microaggressions against her partner's parents. Her letter drips with snootiness and lack of understanding of their culture.
12
LW1 raises some legitimate issues, but I fear that his own attitudes and, yes, biases (as Mr. Appiah pointed out in the look like scenario), may doom the desired success. Writing things like "diverse phenotypes in the region...I spent time unpacking these and many similar statements ...the dominant culture" (at least the utterly inane "more woke" was only apparently from the headline writer) makes it sound as if he is looking too hard for offense on a scale not intended, and using academic-speak to deal with it may only exacerbate the problem by being quite off-putting or being perceived as arrogant.
Perhaps the most effective way of changing attitudes of people who may have had little exposure to Filipinos and other Asians is by continuing positive interactions. Unless the parents are totally clueless, they will come to realize that differences are not what they thought, and that awareness will diminish or end the instances of ill-conceived utterances cited.
Are these people died in the wool racists? Doubtful, it sounds more like they're simply a couple with little prior exposure to the writer's cultural identity who do need to learn better. Patience and positivity (together with assistance from the partner) will hopefully rectify the problem.
106
'dyed'
3
Partners parents : this is the reality of many older, white, suburban or rural people. It's how they grew up, and are used to living: having little to no contact with persons unlike themselves. You basically have three options :
1. Be patient and try to get along, while pointing out problems or even words that are offensive. Enlist your Partners help.
2. Limit contact. Let your partner explain why. Or Not.
3. Break up with your Partner, if you think this will never change, and you will be filled with frustration and regrets, or even resentment.
Best wishes.
22
@Phyliss Dalmatian I didn't interpret that they we not getting along. I sensed acceptance, with some silly remarks.
2
Perhaps it would be better for the board member to go to the candidate and tell him that he needs to withdraw his name or she will be compelled to advise the others about his apparent anger issues. That would serve both interests in a way that don't violate his privacy or their bylaws.
51
The LW is the executive director of the organization, not a board member--so in a very different position and essentially reporting to the board. The executive director is also a family friend of the ex-wife/victim. S/he should not go to the prospective candidate and ask the candidate to withdraw his name--especially because the relationship to the victim is as a close friend. The candidate could make life very difficult for his ex- if he felt her revelations to the executive director, as a friend, interfered with being named to the board and advancing professionally. If the candidate has not addressed his anger issues, he could become a real threat to his ex.
And the executive director should not be perceived as interfering with the board. The candidate, if confronted by the director, could accuse him/her of such.
The executive director should definitely inform current board members about what he/she knows, however. Also, some documentation may be public. Were there police reports and convictions that might show up on a background check? Was there anything else on record that could buttress the executive director's allegations/information?
16
If there’s nothing to document the abuse, the LW would be leaving him/herself open for a defamation claim. The LW would then be in the position of having to prove the abuse really happened, as a defense. Unless the former spouse can be counted on for backup, that’s dangerous.
2
Assuming the wannabe board member doesn't get violent with him/her...
3
Would it be allowable for the person who knows a candidate beat his wife to directly confront the abuser: "I have knowledge of your abuse and will be forced to notify the board if you offer yourself as a candidate." Would it be sufficient to say to the board, "I have knowledge of the candidate's personal life in the past that would make him an undesirable, even objectionable, director" without revealing details? In other words, does an ethical obligation to keep the candidate from office demand that the details of the objection be revealed? It is possible that the abuser has received therapy/counseling and is both repentant and reformed. It is likewise possible that the details of the abuse were, at the time, exaggerated. Not likely, perhaps, but possible. Does the abuser's egregious behavior amount to a de facto barrier to future achievement or authority?
12
Ask the beaten wife. Period.
4
@Phyliss Dalmatian,
No. The record is very important and one hopes that law enforcement and the judicial has been involved in the abuse situation. The vast majority of abusers are men abusing wives, significant others, partners, but abuse by women in relationships is a real occurrence. We do not like to admit it.
On the topic of the "they look alike" problem (aka the "other-race effect"), I wonder if part of it is simply our mind being lazy or efficient (depending on your perspective).
For the sake of efficiency (or laziness), we look/remember enough detail to identify the subject again in the situation. The most obvious parameters to notice are gender, size/shape, and colors (skin, clothing, hair). If someone is an outlier with respect to the situation and an obvious parameter, I suspect we don't look too much beyond the obvious. If I saw a 6'-5" woman wearing fluorescent pink among a group of people, I would probably slack a little on noticing facial features. If there were two people that were of similar build, dress, and complexion, I'd probably pay more attention to facial features.
It's also a function of how familiar the identifier is with the identifiee's "peers". Ask a city-dweller who doesn't drive about a car, and you might get general info (size, color, maybe style/number of doors), while a car enthusiast would notice the model. Same thing for other machinery and appliances. Sure, people are different, but the memory might work the same way.
Anyway, just a lay person's theory.
19
Can't say I've ever seen "woke" used like that before. Had to look it up; interesting read.
Sometimes, I get the feeling that people are looking for things to be offended by. I can't speak for the rest of Mr. Withheld's interactions, but from the statement "they casually dropped some microagressions", it seems like he might be one of these people.
One unintended consequence of such an approach is that the "good" people might avoid interactions with anyone but their "own kind", or will be very reserved during such interactions and as a result won't make a meaningful connection, out of fear of saying something wrong and being labeled a racist.
I think Dr. Appiah's response was spot-on.
132
Nice comprehensive response on the "They look alike" problem. Actually, the last four NYTs articles I've read on diversity issues are much-improved. These include two on unconscious bias and one on men's rights. There wasn't an opportunity for comment, so I do it here. As a group, there was less automatic blaming and motivation-questioning of offenders, more trying to get in the other's shoes, more social science, more on the importance of the words and tone to combat prejudice, more recognition these things can be (but not necessarily always) more complicated than they appear. Not perfect. This one could have questioned whether "microaggressions" is a fully helpful word. The one on men's rights started out a bit snarky, but mostly got past it. It let readers decide for themselves which of these men's complaints could be valid, trivial, or just plain wrong, but perhaps it could have posed that frame. The unconscious bias video was terrific, but its framing and who was featured could lead to the impression that it's just one group displaying towards another. Whereas, I suspect it's so pervasive that every iteration of race/gender/etc. may do it as it's just the way that part of our brains work. The one on cops could have added that even though these programs have not yet been tested, they seem pretty well constructed. If we're going to actually solve this problem, and if the NYT really wants to help, this is the direction we/it needs to go. There are still tough issues ahead.
15
Prosopagnosia is the scientific term for face blindness, which is basically struggling to recognize people. It runs the gamuts from total inability (remember O'Henry's story about the man who made his wife wear a special pin) to using other characteristics such as clothing, height, mannerisms as clues to being unable to recognize familial similarities, photos, etc
There is some evidence that it can be inherited, but from what I have read it's still being researched at this time. It can also be related to Alzheimer's, which can take years to be suspected in an individual.
My mother can't easily identify faces, and I have always had a very hard time being able to identify people whom I have met, even if I have spent significant time with them or met them several times already. I can't recognize relatives in photos if they aren't recent, either. My memory gets worse when I am in a stressful situation. I didn't know that such a condition even existed until a few years ago, so didn't realize what I was missing.
So it's possible that this individual's parents - who are no doubt older - are covering up some degree face blindness, because it's extremely socially embarrassing to not recognize someone.
24
I have a similar problem remembering peoples faces, but it’s mostly due to not caring to remember them. The whole microagressions thing has made it difficult to interact without fear of offending someone and now conversations that could have been great are relegated to small talk. What a sad world it has become.
11
The likelihood that _both_ parents suffer from prosapognosia is so infinitesimal as no be nil. That they would _both_ have prosapognosia _only_ for minority faces is patently absurd.
7
To the first letter writer: If you expect your partner to remain in your life for a long time, you will do well to cultivate a positive relationship with his parents. Getting on a preachy soap box and making them feel bad and out-of-place in your area isn't the way to do it. Sure, there may be opportunities to occasionally present an alternative view for their consideration, but if you're constantly browbeating them for being insensitive, you're going to quickly sour that relationship.
Try to focus on the many positive qualities they surely have and find common ground to bond over. Make them feel welcome. Accept they will sometimes say things that are tone-deaf, but you don't need to criticize them every time they do so. If they do something really egregious, or if you're debating something around the dinner table, go ahead and speak up. But don't jump on them for every microaggression.
As someone who has been married for many years, I can attest that having your extended family as allies and friends will come in handy in many situations. There will be times when you NEED them. Don't alienate them for their faults--you have faults too, they're just different ones, and you probably want to be embraced by extended family just the same.
179
I am on the Board of Directors of a local non-profit, and I feel that the Executive Director actually has a duty in this case to reveal this information. It is absolutely necessary to know the character of people nominated to be on non-profit boards. On our board, when a new member is nominated, the nominee is interviewed by at least two people, one of whom cannot previously know the nominee. All Board members are asked for pertinent information *before* interviewing, to spare the embarrassment of interviewing someone we have no intention of nominating. The Executive Director should share this information.
62
@Bill I absolutely agree. An Executive Director owes all the same duties to the organization that board members do and this information must be shared. To look at it another way, what if it is not shared but comes out later, after this individual is on the board, and it becomes known that the Executive Director knew this information but sat on it? Now it is the Executive Director who looks very bad, and for good reason.
There is a wrinkle here though. Unless there are police records, this is likely private information that may have been shared by the victim with an expectation that it would remain confidential. I think the Executive Director's duty of candor and honesty with the organization trumps that, but a conversation probably needs to be had with the victim to ensure that she is comfortable with (or at the very least aware that) the information will be made known to the organization. Of course, the board need not share its reasons for not interviewing the candidate, so the information should not spread beyond the board members, but still, things sometimes leak and I think the victim has a right to know that this information may become more widely known.
44
@Bill
If this person had brutally assaulted a colleague, a neighbour, or a stranger, the Exec Dir would probably not hesitate to share the info. But because he assaulted an intimate partner, the letter writer seems to wonder if maybe the matter should stay private. But no. Now we are in an era when women are real, equal people, and assaulting them, no matter your relationship, is wrong and needs to be reported. The only legitimate question is the accuracy of the charge, but this is a job interview, not a trial. Reputations matter. It's totally legit for a man to have the face the repercussions of his reputation, which can include not getting a certain job.
4
As a former Associate Director and member of the Board of Directors of non-profit organizations, and as a survivor of domestic violence myself, I say that the Executive Director’s first duty is to protect the life of the friend and to respect her dignity and choices.
Unless she is in a witness protection program granting her a new identity (which is unlikely if she’s sharing her past), the real risk of violent retaliation against her is greater and of greater importance than any risk of harm to the reputation or finances of the small non-profit. Remember, domestic violence, also called domestic abuse, is serious crime, and in this case the violent criminal is still on the loose (unless he’s running a campaign from his jail cell, as some politicians actually have done).
The executive director’s wish to alert others to the man’s wrong-doing may feel supportive to his victim but, without consulting her, the ED and we don’t know. We also don’t know the man as well as she does, and therefor should defer to her need to guard herself against any retaliation following public revelation and the turmoil that will likely result.
6