Language of Bias and Privilege

The headline read, “Muslim Americans Killed.” They were college students. Why not “Americans,” “students,” or simply “people”? The killer, who confessed and turned himself in, was “alleged killer,” not “Christian American” or “Christian extremist” or “Christian terrorist.” The killer was white, but readers only knew that because his photograph accompanied the article. If he were black, the article surely would have said so. It also didn’t note that he professed to be Christian, but most readers would assume that—and probably not want it mentioned. To say that the killer was Christian would be to view Christians in the same monolithic way that Muslims are too often viewed in the press.

The language we use, or choose not to use, identifies our biases. It preconditions our conclusions. The use of “Muslim” as a modifier situates these killings in the larger context of our notions about Islam and our stereotypes. Some readers will immediately see the homicides as tragic reminders of our society’s often mindless prejudice against Muslims. Other readers, who view all Muslims as evil, will automatically side with the killer. Both are biases.

If being Muslim was a factor in the victims’ murders, then should not the religious affirmation of the killer also be a factor? Imagine the reverse. Would a headline ever read, “Christian Americans Killed”? Certainly not in a domestic newspaper and certainly not without a comparable identification of the killer as some sort of religious fanatic. In the United States media language nearly universally privileges “Christian” and “white” by omission. Villains and victims alike who are not Christian or white are identified by a racial, ethnic, national, or religious adjective. The bias is clear. These modified Americans are second-class citizens at best. Their foreignness is emphasized.

It may be impossible to neutralize our language. The media may find it simply too mundane to report, “Three Students Killed,” and then delve objectively into possible religious bias as the killer’s motivation. Perhaps, as an alternative, we might strive at least for truth in labeling. If we must headline, “Muslim Americans Killed,” then we should in fairness label the killer as a “Christian fanatic.”

The Erosion of Common Ground

A hive of intellectual curiosity and pursuit. That was my impression as I looked up from the new Alexander McCall Smith novel I was sampling in the New Books section of our public library. Before me, spread throughout the spacious, well-appointed library were patrons of all ages, even college students in spite of the fact that the university nearby has several extensive libraries as well. The public library is a citizens’ space: common ground for the common good. Ours is heavily patronized by readers young and old across the economic strata. Yes, a number of homeless individuals take shelter there, reading the day away or using the pubic computers, avoiding the bitter chill of the Indiana winter. Why should they not? They are as entitled to the pursuit of knowledge or the pleasure of a good read as anyone.

Although the Digital Revolution has brought about changes in how we can engage in literate pursuits, those changes—the Internet, ebooks—have provided new options, rather than substitutes for volumes on shelves. I will gladly confess that in the course of writing five or six books since 2000, I have not darkened the door of traditional library to do the research necessary for them. The Internet has provided me with access to libraries, collections, and various media worldwide. But that does not mean that I consider traditional libraries obsolete. Far from it. Public libraries offer both traditional resources and access to digital resources, especially for those who don’t have computer media ready to hand. The emerging Digital Age is enlarging the role of public libraries, not reducing it.

That is not what those heavily invested in the Industrial/Corporate Age would have us believe. Corporate oligarchs are grasping at every possible means to extend the Corporate Age past its sell-by date, which was about the turn of the century. Much of this grasping is taking the form of attacking common ground: public places, spaces, and endeavors whose democratic mission is to foster and support the common good. The graspers are largely conservative, though not exclusively, and focused on elitist privilege, often corporate. The Digital Age is increasingly about individuation and diverse community, not about corporate personhood.

Public libraries, public schools, public—read “democratic”—anything is suspect in the eyes of corporate oligarchy, in which monied elites are focused on controlled parochialism. Gerrymandering electoral districts to ensure that candidates backed by corporate money win offices and become puppet legislators; undermining public confidence in public schools by unfounded criticism, underfunding, and the shunting of public money into corporate pockets through contracts for ever more testing, vouchers, and charter schools; widening the wealth gap between rich and poor through regressive taxes and tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy—all of these are the self-serving actions of those heavily invested in a dying age, the Industrial/Corporate Age.

The Digital Age, sparked by two key Digital Revolution developments, the computer and the Internet, is not an extension of the Industrial/Corporate Age. It is a revolution-worthy new era. Too many people already understand this. Maybe they read newspapers or see the information on Facebook. Maybe they come to the public library. However, they gain their understanding of the radical changes that are marking out a new cultural era, it’s scaring the bejezus out of conservatives hoping to preserve the dying Industrial/Corporate age. But beware. Those who are afraid are always dangerous. Those of us ready to embrace the Digital Age would do well to remember Gandhi’s words: “The enemy is fear. We think it is hate; but, it is fear.”

*This essay is cross-posted on two blogs: Advancing Learning and Democracy (http://advancinglearning.blogspot.com) and Arts in View (http://artsinview.blogspot.com).