So I was watching Jon Steward recently, briefly discussing Kanye West's comments about Jewish people in the entertainment industry, and the resulting backlash. It's not the main focus of the podcast, but it was interesting to listen to that segment (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVTXI-G0g4c).
To summarize, Jon was discussing how Kayne has asserted that Jewish people controlled a disproportionately large amount of the entertainment business, and how while people generally objected to the characterization as anti-semetic, there was an undercurrent among some who noted that Jewish people were overly-represented in those positions relative to general population demographics. Jon was discussing (along with two of his writers, one of which is also Jewish) how that put him in a somewhat uncomfortable position, where he felt like more of an outsider who people felt the need to stand up for, and that didn't seem necessarily appropriate.
The conversation touched on the parallel with the BLM movement, and how some black people, even while benefitting from the attention/protests and feeling like the sentiment may have been well overdue, might also be uncomfortable with the idea that they needed or deserved special protection or sympathy in that context. It was also interesting for Jon, in the sense that there is a demographic disparity, even though he doesn't feel like he or his organizations are responsible for propagating that disparity/advantage. Rather, as his writer alluded to, the disparity somewhat self-propagates, as people of the demographics which are overly represented feel more inclined to gravitate toward that industry, and as a result the demographics in the industry don't normalize to the population norm.
I was personally struck by the parallel to racial disparities in the country in general, and how in that sense we have negative labels like "critical race theory" to describe the implicit harm in such. After all, it's the exact same situation: you have a demographic disparity which is somewhat self-propagating, even if the overwhelming majority of participants are not purposefully propagating it. Moreover, in both cases, it's likely that a small percentage of people are purposefully propagating it, but both groups feel it's manifestly unfair to paint the entire demographic group with that same brush, and that in general, there is equal opportunity for all demographics within the industries.
Yet, it's interesting to me that the societal sentiment for these two different areas seems vastly different, and I think that was bothering Jon a little as well. To wit, if one suggests that Jewish people are over-represented in an industry (entertainment, financial, etc.), even if the sentiment is statistically accurate, you would likely be labeled as racist, anti-semetic, a bigot, etc., and shunned within society. On the other hand, suggesting the exact same thing with respect to (for example) white males in executive business positions would be met with approval, respect, and societal programs designed to directly employ race and gender discrimination to force the demographics toward a preferred alternative distribution (either representative of average societal demographics, or in some cases, explicit other biases, as long as they are not the "bad guys" race/gender; see [demographic]-owned business movements, or [demographic]-specific college scholarships, for example). The disparity in sentiment with respect to the same fundamental issue/situation is discordant and disconcerting, and when you're in the target demographic, it's also uncomfortable.
Now, I don't know if that disparity in opinion is based on whether or not you are in the target demographic, for example (ie: you feel the situation is fine as long as you're advantaged, and wrong if you are not). It might also be based on historical treatment. A more disturbing thought, though, is that it might also be based on media manipulation and subtle propaganda. Sometimes it can be hard to validate that you have an objective viewpoint on an issue, especially when confronted with a direct parallel where you hold a vastly different opinion. I think that one of the most fascinating things about Jon's segment, to me, was observing him coming close to being confronted with that situation, and observing how uncomfortable the participants were with confronting (and potentially needing to reconcile) that reality.
Personally, as an aside, I don't think discrimination is good, even if it's "well intentioned". I think the appropriate way to address demographic disparities in industries is to look at specific situations, and try to ensure that opportunity is equal. I have no issue if an org is hiring close to the demographics of applicants, even if those applicant demographics are not representative of the population in general: that makes sense, given types of jobs, industries, and applicant pools. The right place to address that problem is in the upstream opportunities, not by heavy-handed discrimination to manipulate the demographics downstream. But that's my opinion, and reasonable minds do vary on the topic.
Anyway, I found the discussion and resulting analysis interesting, fwiw.
No comments:
Post a Comment