What the outsiders have to say

Last week, I wrote a column about Holocaust Remembrance Day that, in part, criticized some methods of Holocaust awareness. Genocide awareness is a controversial subject, and I expected that my piece would provoke a variety of responses. To my surprise, most of the feedback I received had nothing to do with memorials and Auschwitz museums. Instead, the most frequent comment was, "Well, I guess you can write things like that because you're Jewish."

It's often stated that criticizing a group is a right denoted by membership. Jews like me get to critique Holocaust awareness, gays get to discuss AIDS and immigrants have the opportunity to ponder immigration policy. Thus, Bill Cosby has the automatic "right" to make controversial comments about low-income black citizens. On the other hand, opining on an issue that predominantly affects some other group is a dicey proposition. It immediately puts one under the suspicion of prejudice.

Even more troubling, people claim that group membership inherently provides expertise that no "outsider" can match. Earlier this year, I attended a discussion forum on acquaintance rape. After multiple women expressed their views about the issue of intoxication and rape, one brave man raised his hand. He said that although he was deeply concerned about acquaintance rape, he felt it unfair to prosecute men if both parties were equally drunk.

I won't debate the merits of this perspective here. Rather, what shocked me was that multiple women immediately denounced his statement -- not because it was wrong or illogical or malicious -- but because it was made by a man. It was impossible, they said, for any man to comprehend the issue of rape in the way that a woman can. No matter how empathetic or smart or sincere the man was, he could never approach an understanding of the unique "women's experience." He was excluded from the discussion by his genitals.

Using group identity as a prerequisite to discussion is incredibly destructive. Topics like Holocaust awareness, black poverty and rape are pressing social issues that benefit from the widest conversation possible. Claiming that social problems should be solved through "in-group" analysis alone is a false modesty that ultimately hurts the people who most need the help.

Even more harmful is the idea that merely being a member of a group makes one an expert on it. Being Jewish does not specially qualify me to discuss the Holocaust, and being black does not make Mr. Cosby an authority on all black people. Claiming that non-members can never achieve the expertise of members is hurtful because it ignores the non-members' talent, effort and empathy by judging them based on their group identity.

Worst of all, these attitudes freeze cross-group dialogue. Dialogue demands that people empathize with experiences other than their own, and this includes discussing issues faced by other groups. Claiming that such empathy is impossible is tantamount to saying that dialogue is hopeless.

For example, as a freshman, I attended a local community forum where I was one of the few white people and one of the few Penn students present. After listening to the various viewpoints for an hour, I raised my hand to make a comment. Before I spoke, the woman next to me said, "I don't think you can ever understand what it's like to be from around here because I'm sure you have far too many prejudices yourself." I was stunned. I admit that I may have prejudices (I think we all do), but I'm willing to learn. If my "situation" is so hopeless, what's the point of trying?

On some level, I understand why these barriers were erected. As Americans, we continue to struggle with racial, gender and religious tension. Experience has taught us that permitting members of one group to comment on another group can lead to incidents of prejudice. Nonetheless, prohibiting outsiders from pondering in-group issues is not the right solution. We can create standards of courteous conduct and thoughtful discourse without establishing membership-based barriers. In fact, these standards are a more effective way to manage dialogue because they apply equally to everybody. Everyone is expected to adhere to the same standards of decency, and people do not get a "free pass" because they are discussing their own group.

I think all of you should feel free to make thoughtful, earnest criticisms of Holocaust remembrance, even if you're not Jewish. And, so long as we remain sincere and respectful, we should be able to discuss whatever we wish. The desire to prevent prejudice is understandable and necessary, but closing discussion to "outsiders" is prejudice itself.

Jennifer Weiss is a senior Linguistics and Theatre Arts major from Los Angeles. War On Error appears on Wednesdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.