In an effort to expand their minds, some people may be narrowing their perspectives.
Today, there is a strong movement that has been attempting to bring an end to the generalizations of people, communities and organizations. Specifically, UCLA has become a place where ethnicities, religions and overall unique differences have become a major part of identity, and respect is expected for all intersectional identities a person has. Jerry Kang, UCLA’s first vice chancellor for equity, diversity and inclusion, spoke to this as such.
Yet, UCLA faces similar hypocrisy within parts of this movement. Some members of the student government, as well as a number of students and organizations, constantly call for respect, transparency and an end to generalization, but some of their main leaders are often going against these values, creating an atmosphere of disrespect.
For example, this past summer, Daily Bruin Opinion columnist Zoey Freedman wrote a column regarding the need for governmental subsidization of feminine hygiene products. As a result, plenty of generalizing, hateful comments were posted, stereotyping all women as overly hormonal and needy, and also defining all liberals as constantly feeling as if the government and society “owes” them. Both of these generalizations that were continuously mentioned in the comments completely lost the purpose of the column, which is to address the high costs of regularly needed feminine hygiene products that most males do not have to invest in.
Freedman’s column was quickly reduced from a policy discussion to her gender and the allegedly petty problems that often come with womanhood. But while some would argue that Freedman’s experience might seem like she was attacked only by outsiders, this is untrue. Many of the comments came from UCLA students, and prove that we have a problem right here at UCLA. In fact, even our student representatives, at a school that prides itself on its inclusivity, fall into this trap. Therefore, many students still need to accept that every individual comes with his or her complexities.
An example of a UCLA student struggling with impulsive generalizations occurred last month.
Daily Bruin Opinion columnist Aram Ghoogasian wrote a column calling for a reform in Greek life at UCLA that would ban the single-sex division within it in an attempt to start to bring an end to sexual assault, and many members of Greek life were appalled in response.
Heather Rosen, president of the Undergraduate Students Association Council and a member of the Gamma Phi Beta sorority, followed up Ghoogasian’s article with a Facebook status expressing her disapproval.
In short, Rosen expresses a huge disappointment in the “demonizing” of all fraternities and sororities, while personally acknowledging that change is still possible and necessary, and must be conducted from within the organizations affiliated.
The status raised a lot of awareness to the controversy of this article. Many past candidates and alumni of USAC participated, particularly those affiliated with the slate LET’S ACT! at UCLA.
Devin Murphy, last year’s elected USAC president who resigned during his term and a member of LET’S ACT!, quickly jumped to generalize.
“Please tell me more about how you support racism, sexism, and homophobia,” Murphy commented.
These accusations are horrific and Murphy quickly attached them to Rosen because she supported Greek life and not because she as an individual had expressed any sort of homophobia, racism or sexism.
It is important to recognize the faults in organizations and some of their immoral supporters. There are racists, homophobes and sexists in Greek life, but to label an individual as any of those because of his or her membership and support of these organizations is illogical.
It is easy to hear a name of an organization and list its intense flaws. What’s difficult is to not subject every member within it as possessing these flaws. Every organization is known for its mission and those supporting the organization may not identify with every aspect of the mission but choose to support the organization for its take on a specific issue.
Generalizing is easy. What’s difficult is to challenge yourself to change the language you use, counter the impulses that hit you and redirect the thoughts that immediately come when you judge others.
As a Jewish student, I don’t want to be defined so limitedly. My opinions are diverse, unique and defined by a broad array of personal experiences and challenges. I try to not let the small parts of me define who I am or what I believe in. Whether I lean more toward J Street or more toward the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which are political organizations affiliated with the State of Israel, doesn’t mean I blindly agree with every platform that the organizations stand for, and the same goes for whichever political party I align myself with. I am entitled to my individuality and my own opinions.
Generalizing comes easy, but creates a hostile environment. Even some of those who call for an end to generalization struggle to stick to their word, but the attempt to delegitimize the simplistic judgment of others could be monumental if executed universally.
Zoey was criticized for demanding that government be uninvolved in women’s underpants…by involving itself in women’s underpants through tampon handouts. Criticism toward her was not based on misogyny, or generalization, or anything other than an outraged reaction to a puzzling claim.