Yeesh. Fearing for their safety and their ability to lead an unharassed life, a Jewish family has fled a town in Delaware. From Jews On First.com:
The complaint recounts that the raucous crowd applauded the board’s opening prayer and then, when sixth-grader Alexander Dobrich stood up to read a statement, yelled at him: “take your yarmulke off!” His statement, read by Samantha, confided “I feel bad when kids in my class call me Jew boy.”
A state representative spoke in support of prayer and warned board members that “the people” would replace them if they faltered on the issue. Other representatives spoke against separating “god and state.”
A former board member suggested that Mona Dobrich might “disappear” like Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the atheist whose Supreme Court case resulted in ending organized school prayer. O’Hair disappeared in 1995 and her dismembered body was found six years later.
The crowd booed an ACLU speaker and told her to “go back up north.”
In the days after the meeting the community poured venom on the Dobriches. Callers to the local radio station said the family they should convert or leave the area. Someone called them and said the Ku Klux Klan was nearby.
Gosh, why would any Jew decide to move out of a swell town like that?
Jesus’ General contacted the folks at the Stop The ACLU Coalition, who had encouraged harassment of the Dobriches (they even posted the Dobriches’ home address and phone number on their website). The director of Stop The ACLU responded:
Pogrom? I’m not sure I want to call it that. That is not an appropriate term, however, I am pleased that we had an effect in this case.
Bitch PhD worries, justifiably, that blogging something like this is pointless:
…My first thought was, “blog this.” And then I thought, “what for? The only possible reaction is “those people suck,” and it’s one of those atypical weird cases that, if anything, surely demonstrates that the country as a whole doesn’t think that way.”
I think Bitch has a point; but at the same time, I think this case is an interesting illustration of the dynamic between centering and othering. The anti-semitic bigotry which so many Christians in the Indian River School District began not with “Othering” – that is, with singling out Jews for treatment as deviants – but with “Centering” – organizing their town’s institutions to center on the assumption that being Christian is the default.
So, for instance, school vacations are called “Easter Vacation” and “Christmas Vacation,” rather than being called spring and winter breaks. School facilities were used for Bible Club, and Bible Club members were given special privileges (such as skipping to the head of the line in the school cafeteria). School board meetings and graduation ceremonies begin with invited ministers leading a prayer to Jesus.
None of the above acts are implicitly anti-Jewish, and all of them are things that many Christians might well decide to do even if there were no Jews (or any other non-Christians) around to discriminate against. These policies and acts reflect a belief that being Christian is a default state. And some of these policies I approve of; for instance, schools should give Good Friday off, because that’s a reasonable accommodation. Bible Clubs shouldn’t be given favorable treatment compared to other clubs, but I think schools should facilitate them (by letting them use classrooms) just like they should facilitate chess club.
Centering is harmful to minorities not only in material ways, but also because of the message sent that minorities are not part of society. For instance, when Christians are given their holidays off, but classes are scheduled on major Jewish holidays, that obviously gives a material advantage to Christian students. But it also sends a message to the Jewish students that they aren’t full members of society the way Christians are. Centering sends the message that Christians are the default citizen; Jews are some sort of weird exception to the norm.
Othering refers to acts and policies which directly position Jews as deviants. From Jews On First:
Among numerous specific examples in the complaint was what happened at plaintiff Samantha Dobrich’s graduation in 2004 from the district’s high school. She was the only Jewish student in her graduating class. The complaint relates that local pastor, Jerry Fike, in his invocation, followed requests for “our heavenly Father’s” guidance for the graduates with:
I also pray for one specific student, that You be with her and guide her in the path that You have for her. And we ask all these things in Jesus’ name.
Samantha Dobrich was thus “othered” at her own graduation ceremony – and by a pastor who, I have no doubt, is convinced that he acted only out of love and a concern for Samantha’s best interests. But the Dobrich kids also felt less “benevolent” kinds of Othering, such as schoolmates labeling them “Christ Killers.”
What’s important to understand is that Centering and Othering are not opposites or flip sides of a coin. They are manifestations of the same problem, different in degree but not in kind.
Some people may disagree; they will say these two acts are vastly different, not just in degree but in kind. That’s true if we frame the comparison between calling someone a “Christ Killer” and a prayer at a School Board meeting by saying “was this a hateful act? Was the person acting out of bigotry and a desire to hurt Jews?” Clearly, someone yelling “Christ Killer” is acting out of hate for Jews, but a Paster leading a prayer to Jesus at a school board meeting may be acting with total indifference to how his (or her) act affects Jews.
But I think that framing – asking “what did the Christian mean? Were the Christian’s motives bad?” – is needlessly Christian-centered. We can come to different conclusions if we frame this in a more Jewish-centered way: Instead of fretting about the inner moral state of Christians, let’s ask how does this action harm Jews? While the Othering action (calling Jews Christ-killers) is more extreme and hateful, that’s a difference of degree, not of kind. Both Centering and Othering have the same effect, which is to make Jews feel less like citizens, less like equals, more like freaks.
I think it’s important to understand that Centering leads fairly naturally to Othering. The Christians of the Indian River School District don’t view themselves as anti-Semites aggressively chasing deviant Jews out of their nice Christian town (although that is what many of them in fact are). Many view themselves as victims of aggression; the ACLU, along with one local Jewish family, is attacking their right to live Christian lives. It is because these folks think their entitlement to worship is under attack that many of them have escalated their acts of Othering to such an extreme level.
But where does that sense of entitlement come from? It is only because of Centering that many Christians have confused their right to practice their religion with being entitled to have a Christian Paster open public meetings and ceremonies; only because of Centering that many Christians consider themselves entitled to take time off from class for Bible study, or to proselytize Christianity in the classroom. If society hadn’t taught them that they are the norm and others are deviants from the norm, then they wouldn’t feel so entitled to have every aspect of public life kow-tow to their religious beliefs.
Bitch PhD wrote that “the country as a whole doesn’t think that way.” But I think much of the country does think that way, if we can take “that way” to mean Centering Christians and Othering Jews; it’s just that the Indian River School District takes it to an uncomfortable extreme. The same kind of Centering is going on throughout the country, whether it’s the unwritten but ironclad law that says all serious Presidential candidates must publicly declare their allegiance to Christianity, or the assumption that if someone says “happy holidays” rather than “merry Christmas” that means Christmas is under attack, to “one nation under God” and “in God we trust.”
* * *
Note: Throughout this post I’ve mapped Othering and Centering onto Christians as Center, Jews as Other. But of course, the same basic mechanism operates in many other ways. Men are Centered, women are Othered. Whites are Centered, non-whites Othered. “Masculine” men are Centered, non-“masculine” men are Othered. Slender people are Centered, fat people are Othered. The ablebodied are Centered, the disabled are Othered. Cisgendered are Centered, Transgendered are Othered. And so on.
UPDATE: Also on this topic, I recommend this post at Even the Devils Believe.
(Cross-posted at Creative Destruction, where the moderation is less stringent. And a curtsy to Heron61.)
Pingback: Journal - Blog - Whatever
Pingback: Just Between Strangers
Pingback: Egotistical Whining
Pingback: Interrupting Gelastic Jew
Pingback: Essais
Pingback: FeministBlogosphere
Amp, the ideas you’ve put out here make a lot of sense to me. The idea of Centering is very powerful. I’d add that it’s a fairly insidious and “invisible” to the majority that practices it. Then, when members of the minority complain about this, they’re regarded as strident and asking for special treatment. Then you get the more serious othering–the harrasment, the threats, etc–that are present in this case.
No, the schools should not have Good Friday off. It isn’t a cultural holiday, it’s a religious one. If my pagan son has to take a day off of school and make up the work later to celebrate his holidays, why shouldn’t those who observe Good Friday do the same?
But I think that framing – asking “what did the Christian mean? Were the Christian’s motives bad?” – is needlessly Christian-centered. We can come to different conclusions if we frame this in a more Jewish-centered way
I find this a troubling view–almost a deliberate “aim” of the definition is to find the desired result. As such I think it loses some of its validity. Why Jweish-centerd? Why not Wiccan-centered (maybe equally offensive) or atheist-centered (Jewish rituals equally offensive)?
I mean, come on.
One obvious problem with this argument is that it doesn’t parse to those pesky reverse situatins we all like to pretend are nonexistent (what about when the majority is Jewish? Do we still use the “Jewish-centered” norm as acceptable?). So then you get side tracked in the debate of which viewpoint you should use for that particular argument, and you lose track of the real issue: People ignoring the law, and acting in an intentionally nasty manner.
So IMO the real problem is that it seems to work around motives, and thus prevents us from making a generalized moral argument which might well benefit EVERYONE. Like “no religion in the school system” for example. Or “Don’t act with bad motives towars other people”.
Motives are important. They are almost all we have to define culpability, and determine whether someone is misguided or intentionally evil.
This seems reasonable at first blush — treat all clubs equally and don’t discriminate against religious clubs. The problem is getting all of those pesky constitutional rights lined up. But then, less than two years ago, a teacher sued to protect her free-exercise-of-religion right to be allowed to run the bible club. (Before that, the rule was that the school building could be used, but teachers couldn’t run them.)
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/09/032956P.pdf
Of course, teachers ran the after school chess club and drama club. What was there to exclude Ms. Wigg from running the after school religion club except invidious discrimination based on the religious content of the club. Of course, when framed that way, Ms. Wigg has a first amendment right to participate.
Now, as a result of this decision, Ms. Wiggs are popping up in every district — teaching fourth grade until 3 PM, and bible studies from 3:00-4:00. In the same building, in the same room, to 27 out of the same 30 kids, with Shlomo, Mohammed, and Arjun stepping out early. Ms. Wigg then says, “I am not your teacher now. I am your religious leader. Please close your science books and open your bible to page 43.” And the kids have no idea what the difference is.
I know your point was “I don’t want to be extreme about excluding Christianity,” but your example has missed the developments of the last 24 months. There is now a concerted strategy by churches to recruit teachers to run bible studies in their schools, just like those teachers run the chess and drama clubs.
So, for instance, school vacations are called “Easter Vacation” and “Christmas Vacation,” rather than being called spring and winter breaks.
Given that those vacations are scheduled specifically to fall on Easter and Christmas, it makes sense to call them what they are. If I was in Israel, I wouldn’t be surprised, or offended, to find that the mid-winter and spring school vacation periods were named after Jewish festivals. When I was a graduate student at a medical school, we got all the Jewish religious holidays off and no one tried to mask why. Didn’t bother me a bit.
School facilities were used for Bible Club,
As they should be, as long as other clubs get equal opportunity to use the school facilities.
and Bible Club members were given special privileges (such as skipping to the head of the line in the school cafeteria).
O.K. – now we’re getting freaky. What’s THAT all about?
School board meetings and graduation ceremonies begin with invited ministers leading a prayer to Jesus.
Leading off with a prayer – cool. Leading off with a Christian-specific prayer when people of other religions are involved – not cool. I run into this in Scouts, where we have specific guidelines and examples of prayers to use when you have multiple religions present.
It’s one thing for the school to reflect the majority culture. It’s quite another for it to try to degrinate the minority culture. Naming “Christmas Vacation” for what it is is not derogatory. Publicly praying for the conversion of a Jewish kid to Christianity at her own graduation IS derogatory, and quite a different thing.
While the Othering action (calling Jews Christ-killers) is more extreme and hateful, that’s a difference of degree, not of kind.
I disagree. It’s a difference in kind. Recognizing that Christianity is the majority culture is quite different from seeking to convert or destroy Judaism. One does not follow from the other.
No, the schools should not have Good Friday off. It isn’t a cultural holiday, it’s a religious one. If my pagan son has to take a day off of school and make up the work later to celebrate his holidays, why shouldn’t those who observe Good Friday do the same?
Because you’re a minority. And when you’re a minority, there are certain practical consequences. In this case, it makes little sense to schedule school on a day like Good Friday or Christmas; you end up spending a lot of money to keep school in session when few kids or teachers will be there. Nor does it make sense to schedule a holiday for kids on a pagan/Jewish/Moslem/etc. holiday if there are very few of them around and it would extend the school year and expenses for the benefit of a very few people.
Now, if the school screws your kid over by not giving him extra time to catch up with the work he missed for a religious observance, I think you have a legitimate complaint. I’d apply the same for Jewish or Moslem kids, etc., as well.
Now, as a result of this decision, Ms. Wiggs are popping up in every district — teaching fourth grade until 3 PM, and bible studies from 3:00-4:00. In the same building, in the same room, to 27 out of the same 30 kids, with Shlomo, Mohammed, and Arjun stepping out early. Ms. Wigg then says, “I am not your teacher now. I am your religious leader. Please close your science books and open your bible to page 43.” And the kids have no idea what the difference is.
Richard, I think your last statement grossly underestimates the intelligence of schoolkids. They know, to the second, when the school day ends, and they know the difference between science and religion. Especially when Shlomo, Mohammed, and Arjun get to take off and they have to sit in school an extra 45 minutes. “How come they get to leave?” I can almost hear the screaming from here. Shit, you’ll get Christian kids converting to Judaism.
BTW; Shlomo and Mohammed I understand. Which religion does Arjun represent? Hinduism?
Arjun, the warrior-prince of the Mahabharata, and Maya were the most popular names given to baby boys and girls respectively by Indians in the United States. The name Arjun was given to 247 boys in 2004, ranking it 741 in the list of 1,000 most popular baby names in the US, compiled by the Department of Social Security Administration.
RonF — I think you underestimate the desires of elementary school children to please their teachers, and overestimate the abilities of teachers to distinguish between whether it is a history or religion book they are teaching from.
Are you saying that when the teacher tells you at the end of bible class to talk to three friends, and try to get them to join next time, the third grader can distinguish the from “homework”?
With all due respect, “I mean, come on” is the sort of thing people say when they have an instinctive disagreement with a statement but no compelling arguments to back it up.
To answer your question, I think that considering matters from a Wiccan-centered or atheist-centered viewpoint often makes sense. In this case, however, since the people chased out of town were Jews, I think considering events through Jewish-centered lenses makes sense.
Do you really think it’s unreasonable to consider a situation through Jewish lenses in a case in which obvious and over-the-top antisemitism has literally forced Jews to sell their home and move out of town? If this isn’t a valid situation for saying that a Jewish-centered perspective matters, what on earth would be a valid situation, in your view?
In the hypothetical reverse situation you suggest – a town where Christians (or any non-Jews) were being made to feel like outsiders by the Jewish majority – I’d certainly argue that it’s necessary to ask what the situation looks like from a Christian-centered perspective. It’s virtually always a mistake to look at situations exclusively from the view of the dominate groups.
(You seem to believe I said or implied that the Centering/Othering analysis can only be applied to Jews. If so, that’s a catastrophic misreading of my post.)
What you’re doing is changing the question from “how are people being hurt, and how can we mitigate the damage” to “let’s figure out who is misguided and who is intentionally evil.” But doing that takes discussion of a lot of real harm done to Jews, much of which might not be intentional, off the table. For instance, when the minister decided to single out the Jewish girl for special attention in his prayer, it’s possible he wasn’t being malicious. But that he didn’t mean to do harm doesn’t magically make the harm he did less important or damaging.
(Of course, it’s also true he broke the law – or, rather, the school did by inviting him to say a prayer at graduation. But it’s easy to imagine situations in which he could have said pretty much the same thing but in a legal context; that wouldn’t make what he said all right).
If you’re focused on the question of culpability, then motives are important. But why should I focus on that question? I think the question of reducing systematic harm to Jews [*]- which can’t be addressed if we refuse to look at situations through Jewish-centered lenses – is much more important. I’m more concerned with preventing and mitigating harm than with identifying the guilty.
[*] I say “Jews” because the particular example discussed in this post was regarding harm to Jews. Obviously, other examples would involve harms to other groups, but the same general principle would apply.
Well, Amp beat me to it. But let me post this anyway.
I couldn’t agree more. But I could agree with more.
As a proud member of the Center (typically), I know that I’m well-motivated. And the purity of my heart, combined with my belief that only intentional harms are blameworthy, shields me from all blame. So how come people keep bitching at me?
Of course, I’m not perfect. My greatest fault is ignorance.* That’s part of the joy of living at the Center: you get to live with general ignorance about how the Others live. Michael Jordan and I may have both grown up watching the Brady Bunch, but whereas I concluded that everybody lived like the Brady’s, I doubt His Airness made the same mistake.
So out of ignorance, not malice, I make mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes hurt people. Sometimes they hurt people who’ve been hurt many times before by ignorant people like me. Sometimes, out of frustration, these people call me a clueless inconsiderate motherfucker.
I don’t think such statements are appropriate or helpful (or entirely accurate). But they are often understandable. And if I must ask forgiveness for my ignorant blunders, I must also be prepared to be understanding of someone acting out of a constant frustration born of Otherhood.
I suspect the great majority of Delaware folk act with good hearts, if sometimes weak social skills. I hope that thought comforts the Jewish family. But I apparently not all actions were taken with a good heart. (It is always interesting to observe how many toes people are willing to step on to follow a man who said, “Do unto others your would have them do unto you.”) I am not surprised to learn that people prefer to live where they encounter fewer injuries, whether the injuries are intentionally given or not.
*Admittedly, identifying my greatest fault has generated some controversy. People on the web have been extremely generous with suggestions.
Hmm.
Amp, I think I might disagree. Let me try to explain this better… The whole centered/other concept seems appealing in theory. And I certainly understand what you’re getting at. (I’m a huge advocate of separating church and state, and, FWIW, Jewish. I am fully aware of what you mean)
But I think that it is possible (though difficult) to define a limit on acceptable action which is general. Which is to say: I do not subscribe to the concept that one should define inappropriate action by asking only those offended but rather attempt to define it as objectively as possible. That’s why I tend to focus on the objective analyses (are they breaking the law? Can we write a good law? Is this fair?) instead of the subjective ones (are these particular people hurt/disadvantaged/etc).
From my perspective the objective arguments are much more powerful and compelling. This is appalling and improper because it is illegal. It would be illegal if ANYONE did it in ANY area, based on ANY religion. The social aspects of why it is appalling (people really are pretty horrible) don’t matter to me as much–partly because I’m jaded, and partly because I think the overall scheme is more important.
Anyway, I’m off for the weekend, I think.
How is “fair” a more objective measure than “disadvantage?”
Richard asked:
“Are you saying that when the teacher tells you at the end of bible class to talk to three friends, and try to get them to join next time, the third grader can distinguish the from “homework”?”
Yes, I am. I base this on my years of working with 3rd graders in the Cub Scouts. They know what homework is, and what “see if you can get your friends to join our group” is.
Thanks for the reference on Arjun. Hey, I made a pretty good guess, eh? I’ve known a number of Indians/Hindus, but I’d never heard of anyone named “Arjun” before.
Well, Ron’s personal experience means that all third graders act like he says they do.
I can’t get over that pastor’s patronizing, invasive, insulting prayer at graduation. The implicatin there is that the student is deluded and that everyone knows better than her, that they’re just trying to help her for her own good. How creepy must that have been for a teenage girl?
Because you’re a minority. And when you’re a minority, there are certain practical consequences.
In other words, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Little Pagan Johnny can’t ever win the attendance award because he’s pagan. Only Christian kids can win that award, because their religious holidays fall on the school calendar. Little Pagan Johnny and Little Muslim Mary have to be absent from school on their holidays.
Your practical consequences look like privilege to some of us. I wind up working or being on call on all the Christian holidays, because the rest of my team is Christian. But if I want to take off *my* holidays, it’s a vacation day and really big hassle, because that’s a normal workday and it requires finding other people to cover what I am doing. They don’t have to take vacation days to celebrate their religious holidays. You seem to think it’s perfectly ok, because they are a majority. I think it means I’m getting the short end of the stick. Taking my holidays is difficult to impossible, and I’m providing work/coverage on their holidays. I’m not suggesting any of this is an attempt to discriminate because I am pagan…it’s a result of privilege. And I think that is worthy of thinking about.
Ron, the majority of *Christians* I know don’t go to church or observe Good Friday in any meaningful way, so why are the schools off that day?
Broche, I’d say that if you have to work to cover the Christians’ religious holiday but don’t get comp time (i.e., time off not counted against your vacation) for when you want to take yours, you’ve got a legitimate discrimination complaint. You might want to talk to HR. If that doesn’t work, I wonder what the local EEOC office has to say.
I’m curious as to how your company forces you to work without compensation on the Christian holidays. Are they aware of your religion?
Ron, comp time? What, are you kidding? I’m on salary and average 60-70 hours a week. I’m on call 24 x 7. There is no such thing as comp time or overtime in most corporations for people classified like I am, and that has *jack* to do with religion.
Yes, my company is aware of my religion, and it makes sense from their perspective, and mine too, for me to be the staff member who works on a Christian holidy, or provides coverage.
But you, Ron, have missed the point, which is that in your world it makes sense for everyone to live according to the Christian holiday calendar and if that causes a problem for the rest of us, you seem to think that’s the price we have to be willing to pay to live in a culture which “allows” us not to be Christian. Where I sit, government calendars (and the school calendar is that) should be religion-blind.
I really think talk about ‘centering’ based on religion and holidays is really pushing it. Unless we’re going to abolish holidays and weekends all together, where they fall will end up benefiting someone. Something has to be the default. No matter where they fall someone will be complaining.
Sure, a company could move the Christmas holiday to mid-feburary, but most of its employees would still want Christmas off and it would just be creating problems for itself. It makes sense to place the holidays at a time that best serves the efficient running of the organization.
This argument also stinks of religious privilege. I’m sure centering disadvantages the disabled, women or non-whites. But people don’t get to choose to be any of those things and have a disadvantage inflicted upon them. If you think your god wants you not to work on a certain day then perhaps you should blame Him, I personally think your ‘disadvantage’ is self-inflicted and can’t see why it’s the fault of the rest of us. And why are religious identities more important than others? I’m sure lots of football fans would have liked a holiday recently, lots of gay people would like time off for pride celebrations, and so on.
I’m sure lots of football fans would have liked a holiday recently, lots of gay people would like time off for pride celebrations, and so on.
Even speaking as an atheist who questions the sacred space given to religion in the public square, I think this comment is very unfair. At the very least, you have to acknowledge that in this culture, most people believe that religion should be given more consideration than football fan-ness.
Besides, if it’s your intent to regard religion as a personal choice with no more relevance than affinity for a sports team, then why should those who choose to be Christian be given any more rights than anyone else?
Religion is priveleged in this society. If you want to lessen that, work to lessen that. But just saying that people who aren’t Christian don’t deserve religious privelege, but people who *are* Christian *do* deserve religious privelege (which is the result of what you’re arguing) just entrenches the majority religion in ways that will eventually create a lot more religious privelege – for the majority.
You think atheists will be more tolerated in a society that centers Christians at the expense of *Jews*?
I completely acknowledge that in this culture most people believe that religion should be given more consideration than being a football fan. But so what? That not only doesn’t effect my point it’s also the whole reason I’m making it: people are wrong to think that and religion shouldn’t get more consideration than other identifications.
“…why should those who choose to be Christian be given any more rights than anyone else?”
My answer’s above. I don’t think Christians are entitled to any more rights than anyone else. I don’t think anyone has a ‘right’ to their prefered holiday placement, whether they’re Christians, Jews or football fans, it’s ridiculous to discuss the issue in those terms. I do think – given that holidays have to be placed somewhere – utilitarian and efficiency considerations mean that having a holiday at times when most people are going to want to be absent (like Christmas) is preferable to ones at times when they’re not (like mid-feburary).
Really, what’s the alternative? You could abolish holidays, but short of that something has to be the default and someone will always be complaining that their religious sensibilities aren’t being defered to. I suppose we could attempt to lessen the insult to religious minorities by placing holidays at the most inconvienient times possible for everyone, that’d not only be detrimental to the functioning of schools and businesses but it also seems weird to say it’d be better that everyone suffers inconvienience rather than a subset of people.
Ron, comp time? What, are you kidding? I’m on salary and average 60-70 hours a week. I’m on call 24 x 7. There is no such thing as comp time or overtime in most corporations for people classified like I am, and that has *jack* to do with religion.
My situation exactly. But if I work in an extraordinary situation (those 2 AM phone calls that last until 11:00 AM), then I get some comp time.
Yes, my company is aware of my religion, and it makes sense from their perspective, and mine too, for me to be the staff member who works on a Christian holidy, or provides coverage.
I agree that it makes sense. But it then makes sense for them to work on your holidays and cover for you. If they’re not doing that, they are least are not being fair, and at most may be discriminating against you on the basis of your religion, which I should think would be actionable.
But you, Ron, have missed the point, which is that in your world it makes sense for everyone to live according to the Christian holiday calendar and if that causes a problem for the rest of us, you seem to think that’s the price we have to be willing to pay to live in a culture which “allows” us not to be Christian. Where I sit, government calendars (and the school calendar is that) should be religion-blind.
Religion is part of our culture. It’s not possible to pretend it’s not there, and it’s not practical to be religion-neutral. If an overwhelming majority of people in a given area are going to take a day or week off because they are all celebrating a religious holiday, ignoring that will cause economic upheaval in both the private and public sectors. If you’re going to schedule a week break in the middle of the winter, then it will cost the least amount of money if you schedule it for Christmas week.
I hear you, Nik, to a certain extent… but I think that the result of your logic still produces privelege for Christians over other religious groups. And I am really hesitant to extend more privelege to Christians over other religious groups, as I continue to fear that it will deepen the problem of a Christian sense of entitlement rather than lessening the problem of religious entitlement in general.
As far as what to do — I don’t get the sense anyone has proposed that all holidays must be days off or anything like that. I more get the sense that smaller things, like naming conventions — winter break, not Christmas break — can emphasize that the school system recognizes the Christian experience isn’t the only experience in this country.
I think naming conventions are crucial. Especially if you are going to make a ‘majority rules’ holiday scheme.
It often IS really an efficiency thing though. In some very Jewish areas of NYC, you’ll get some of the high holidays off. I used to live in SLC but not as a student; Do Mormons have any holidays which don’t match traditional christianity, and do they give their students time off?
Happy holidays.
LOL, is it a coincidence that you typed SLC instead of NYC? Are you a Sarah Lawrence grad? (I went there for a year and dropped out.)
Do Mormons have any holidays which don’t match traditional christianity, and do they give their students time off?
There’s Pioneer Day, which has quasi-religious overtones and which commemorates the settling of Utah by Mormons. It’s on July 24, though, so it doesn’t interfere with school. No question that it would be a school holiday if it was in the school year, though – it’s a state holiday in Utah.
Other than that, not really. Some Mormons commemorate some dates in the spring that have significance in the history of the religion, but they aren’t holidays in the normal sense.
No, my mom’s raised in NYC and my grandmother was a schoolteacher there for decades so I know about NYC. And I lived in SLC for about a year for the hell of it.
Othering and centering are serious business. Thoughtlessness does not excuse the creation of potentially serious inequality. It can be life threatening. Consider:
Restrooms that are not handicapped acessible. And you have ectopic bladder.
Death threats made to transfolk, lesbians, etc. at college or school.
(See http://www.remember.org/gender for a concentrated dose of reality)
Public humiliation for religious beliefs, etc. This encourages violent behavior, and it is often the result.
There are many other ways othering and centering hurt people, too many to list.
They are wrong, irrespective of their motivation or the clue levels of the implementors.
Pingback: Raven’s Aerie » Blog Archive » Christian Privelege at Work
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Ampersand’s 10 Best Of 2006
Pingback: Othering and Centering (Jewish Family Driven Out Of Town By … | Jewish Recipes