A story about privilege .... and how position can bring entitlement or lack of it.

Kathy Kaplan

Yesterday at 07:47 · Melbourne · 

A story about privilege

A high school teacher lead a simple, powerful exercise to teach his class about privilege and social mobility. He started by giving each student a scrap piece of paper and asked them to crumple it up.

Then he moved the recycling bin to the front of the room.

He said, “The game is simple — you all represent the country’s population. And everyone in the country has a chance to become wealthy and move into the upper class.”

“To move into the upper class, all you must do is throw your wadded-up paper into the bin while sitting in your seat.”

The students in the back of the room immediately piped up, “This is unfair!” They could see the rows of students in front of them had a much better chance.

Everyone took their shots, and — as expected — most of the students in the front made it (but not all) and only a few students in the back of the room made it.

He concluded by saying, “The closer you were to the recycling bin, the better your odds. This is what privilege looks like. Did you notice how the only ones who complained about fairness were in the back of the room?”

"By contrast, people in the front of the room were less likely to be aware of the privilege they were born into. All they can see is 10 feet between them and their goal.”

"Your job — as students who are receiving an education — is to be aware of your privilege. And use this particular privilege called “education” to do your best to achieve great things, all the while advocating for those in the rows behind you.”

Nathan W. Pyle

Wellbeing, health and happiness. The privileged and the not so privileged.

Visualising 150 years of human #wellbeing https://t.co/poUgRULNRO #health #happiness pic.twitter.com/bgjdph5mAp

— World Economic Forum (@wef) December 17, 2015

Charlie Hebdo causes Australians to ponder and comment on free speech and the freedom to offend

From The Monthly and its segment, PoliticOz of 13 January 2015

FREE TO OFFEND?

The Australian this morning is running Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson's argument that French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo "could not be printed in Australia under existing restrictions on free speech". Those restrictions, according to Wilson and the Australian, are contained in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA). According to Wilson and the Australian, it's hypocritical for supporters of section 18C to also support Charlie Hebdo's right to publish satirical cartoons.

But the RDA doesn't say anything about religious discrimination, so what Wilson is really concerned about is that he believes 18C prevents the kind of racial stereotyping of certain ethnic groups that has featured in Charlie Hebdo. The Australian reports that Wilson's view is backed by "media law experts" including Simon Breheny of the Institute of Public Affairs (Wilson's former employer) and Justin Quill, "a media lawyer used by the Australian." But despite the views of Wilson and the IPA, the RDA does currently allow offensive material to be published if the purpose of doing so is genuinely in the public interest, which is to be determined by a court.

The current debate about section 18C was sparked by the Federal Court's 2011 ruling against Andrew Bolt. Since that ruling, Bolt has repeatedly claimed that the court had "banned" him from writing about the issue of fair-skinned Aboriginal people receiving scholarships available only to Indigenous people. But Judge Mordy Bromberg had explicitly held that it was not the issue itself that meant that Bolt's articles contravened the RDA. It was the fact that Bolt's articles "contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language", which meant that the articles did not fall under the exemptions in section 18D.

Last week, Jeff Sparrow argued that "we can defend Charlie Hebdo without endorsing" its racialised stereotypes. Michael Brull has a piece in New Matilda today pointing out the hypocrisy among opponents of 18C, who appear to be arguing for the right to offend others on racial grounds and incite racial tension while being quick to shut down any expression that they perceive is harmful to their own interests. It's difficult to imagine why 18C's opponents want to be able to offend on racial grounds against the public interest, though sociological concepts like "white privilege" may explain a fair bit.

Russell Marks
Politicoz Editor