In the article “ In Defense of Prejudice ” Jonathan Rauch argues that prejudice has been wrongfully condemned in the contemporary society. As seen from the article, prejudice still plays a critical role in the community in encouraging positive criticism an enhancing progress within the community. The author contends that it is hard to define prejudice and the elements that constitute it. Moreover, many well-meaning statements have been construed to mean prejudice when in reality they are only statements of fact. Furthermore, Rauch (19965) argues that the proponents of the fight against all forms of prejudice are anchored on totalism. Under this ideology, a total compliance, a total compliance with the set of belief against prejudice is required. However, both intentional and unintentional deviations from this belief are treated as forms of prejudice. The fight against prejudice is a fight against an error and not a totality of errors. Moreover, the article argues that the fight against prejudice is ironical in itself. While fighting for the rights of the minority, the opponents of prejudice have oppressed the very voice of the minority groups (Rauch, 1995). While this article gives several examples its point of view, the evidence presented is not logically strong to validate the argument that Rauch makes concerning prejudice.
Rauch’s arguments are invalid on several grounds. First, he makes several assumptions that are not entirely true. For instance, he assumes that no legal structures contextualize prejudice or defines what constitutes prejudice. In making the argument that there lacks a justifiable definition of what constitutes prejudice and hence there is a potential misused of the term, and a consequent wrongful condemnation of the term, Rauch (1995) assumes that the definition of the term prejudice is a matter of individual opinion. However, there are legal provisions within which the term prejudice can be defined. Moreover, the courts of law have the mandate to determine what constitutes prejudice. Therefore, the term prejudice has a clear legal demarcation. As such, the assumption that the definition of what constitutes prejudice is purely based on individual judgment is not true (Walton, 2013). Therefore, an argument based on an erroneous assumption cannot be taken to be true.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Secondly, the argument presented in this article assumes that the entire concept of the fight against prejudice is based on the concept pluralism. According to Rauch (1995), pluralism protects the interest of the minority groups. In fighting for the rights of the oppressed in the community, the article argues that the contemporary crusaders of anti-prejudice have denied the very minority groups a voice in the society. Therefore, he assumes that the fight against prejudice is one that encourages people to continue in their chosen way of life. This assumption is not entirely true for several reasons. Firstly, the anti-prejudice campaign does not necessarily encourage the existence of any set of belief, character or action. While protecting the interest of the minority, the anti-prejudice campaign does not encourage them to continue in the beliefs that make them a minority. The campaign only protects them from being victimized by the beliefs that define either their majority or minority status.
Lastly, Rauch (1995) assumes that the anti-prejudice crusade is only about the minority groups. Consequently, it makes the argument that this campaign only affects the minority groups. In reality, the majority groups may in some instances equally face prejudice. As such, the majority groups are equally covered by this crusade. Therefore, it is wrong to argue that the ant prejudice campaign denies the voice of the minority groups based on the assumption that the minority groups are the only beneficiaries of such campaigns.
Some few examples that Rauch provides make the article convincing to some extent. However, the totality of the arguments as well as the assumptions and tenets on which the arguments are based are unconvincing. For instance, Rauch gives the example of the Christian student of the California State University who sued the institution for alleged prejudice based on sexual orientation. Rauch uses this example to demonstrate the vagueness in the definition of prejudice. This example is good in demonstrating the point because it shows that the determination of what constitutes prejudice was in the student’s judgment. From this point of view, the example adequately exemplifies his argument. However, when viewed in the totality of the context in which Rauch premises his argument, the example is inadequate in justifying his perspective. Therefore, the court of law should determine whether the accusation meets the basic threshold for prejudice. As such, the contemporary society has set structures to evaluate any issue that relates to prejudice and hence determine whether any action meets the threshold of prejudice. In totality, the example in itself demonstrates that indeed there are established structures in society that define what constitutes prejudice.
Several opposing views and schools of thought can be used in debunking the arguments that Rauch makes. First, some school of thought argues that purists as described in this article indeed uphold diversity in the community. In adjudicating against any form of prejudice, the purists encourage people to express them in a way that depicts their status, which may be racial, religious, or sexual orientation among other factors that define people as either majority or minority groups (Harris, 2012). Therefore, purists in themselves encourage the expression of statements and behavior that is unique to their groups and their beliefs without being victimized. The argument contradicts the argument presented in this article because the latter argues that purists eliminate any statements that exhaust the views of one group other the other. However, the contradictory school of thought explains that purists encourage such expression as long it does not invalidate or disadvantage the other groups.
Secondly, this article argues that the legal framework has provided a leeway through which different groups whether majority or minority can be wrongfully accused and prosecuted. Among other examples, the article cites the first amendment as well as the possibility of activists and prosecutors to unfairly interpret the law in a way that victimizes any statement or action they may not like as prejudice. However, a different school of thought holds the view that the law provides a framework for anyone to argue why he or she thinks a particular statement or action constitutes prejudice. However, it is incumbent on the judges to decide objectively and based on the law. As such, the law does not provide room for the abuse of the fight against prejudice (Harris, 2012).
Overall, the arguments adopted by Rauch to support his perspective are weak and lack merit. They are based on several biased assumptions that cannot be substantiated. Moreover, Rauch gives weak examples in demonstrating the concept of prejudice, and this makes the article lack influence even to the audience. Lastly, the many opposing views and the strength of the arguments behind such views especially on diversity and wrongful accusations invalidate Rauch arguments largely.
References
Harris, M. (2012). Striking at prejudice. Patterns of Prejudice, 6 (4), 14-15.
Walton, D. (2013). On a razor's edge: evaluating arguments from expert opinion. Argument & Computation, 5 (2-3), 139-159.
Rauch, J. (1995) “In Defense of Prejudice,” Harper’s Magazine, 290(1740), 1995, pp. 37-46.
