Prejudices not all bad

To the Editor:

This is to thank Adam Giuliano for revealing ("Good Prejudice: a clear-cut, permanent oxymoron" [2/20/98, YH]) that we are often too willing to accept prejudice in the name of "doing good." For example, I used to think that it was "good" to give up my seat for an elderly person.

Following Giuliano, I now realize this belief was based on a set of discriminatory and wrong assumptions. It is prejudicial to assume that an elderly person needs a seat any more than I do, and it is similarly prejudicial to assume that he or she wouldn't prefer to stand.

Roles are being typecast not by individual or unique criteria, but by stereotypes. And while we may cast these stereotypes in the warm glow of altruism--they are positive because they involve helping others--their exercise remains predicated upon the hollow foundation of prejudicial thinking. What, after all, is so good about getting something because of what you are, not who you are?

Giuliano would be pleased to know that his piece has inspired me to rid myself of a host of prejudices which I now acknowledge to be hurtful and wrong. I used to think that the French were good vintners; now I only only buy Long Island wines. I used to think that black people were good jazz musicians; now I listen only to white swing bands. I used to think that the Swiss made good watches; now I willingly pay just as much for American name brands. Until we stop steroeotyping people as I used to do, we will never be able to evaluate them for who they are.

Perhaps Giuliano would agree that our notions of good and bad are nothing but a repackaged set of discriminatory '50s assumptions. Such terms force us to make generalizations and thereby fail to take individual realities into account. Whenever we speak of some outdated idea of morality, we show ourselves to be nothing more than prejudiced and discriminatory in our thinking.

--Austin W. Bramwell, DC '00

Back to Opinion...