AS STUDENTS, we've always been told to write with our audiences in mind: that is, to recognize whom we are trying to persuade and to target our appeals to that group. But critical readers are also taught to read with their writers' potential biases in mind. While this is a good practice in theory, it poses a major problem for writers themselves: What if a particular audience denies the validity of your message simply because of who you are, paying no attention to the merits of your argument?
This past Sunday morning, in a typical attempt to procrastinate, I came across a column I wrote a few weeks ago that was posted on a message board at the website for the political action committee "Americans for Legal Immigration." Below it, a user had made a disparaging comment -- not one that attacked my point of view, but insulted me directly. In response to another user's question: "Why do so many newspapers have so many reporters that feel so sorry for illegals?" this user shot back: "Look at the author or reporter's name. That should tell you something. They have a huge influence. That's where you find all the sob stories."
This comment, which referenced my name, was obviously meant to call attention to the fact that I am Jewish and therefore am apparently part of some monolithic "They" who have such a huge influence over American politics. Regardless of how I was personally affected by this comment, it has prompted me to think more about how personal information about authors -- things as simple as a name, religion or skin color -- can be used either to undermine or to bolster our credibility with different audiences. While this can sometimes be to our benefit, it can prove equally damaging to our messages.
The author of that message board post was quick to lump me into some vast liberal Jewish conspiracy. He knew before he even read the column that he wouldn't agree with it and immediately looked for justification to discredit my position. The problem is, my beliefs about immigration policy have nothing to do with my religious practices. I happen to know personally many Jews who oppose my stance on U.S. immigration policy themselves. In fact, there are a significant number of politically right-leaning Jews, like Paul Wolfowitz, for example. And trust me -- his last name gives away his religious background as much as mine does.
If people are willing to discredit viewpoints just because of their sources, does this render writers proverbial preachers to the choir? Potentially, but hopefully not. Often, those who oppose our opinions acknowledge their opposition, but can't articulate solid responses to them. Hence, the ad hominem attacks. For example, liberal protestors who are members of the middle and upper classes are frequently dismissed as sign-waving hippies, without real consideration of their messages. I'm clearly not out to convince the George W. Bushes and Condoleeza Rices of the world that my position on immigration policy is the correct one; I have about the same likelihood of succeeding at that as George W. Bush does of voting for Hilary Clinton in the 2008 presidential election. The majority of us are targeting those who do not already hold firm opinions: Whether it's because they are weighing a particular position's pros and cons, they are apathetic towards an issue or they are simply uneducated or misinformed about it, our goal is to bring them into the discourse. This begins by engaging our opposition in discourse in order to ensure an honest, open debate.
However, we fail to achieve a substantive and productive discussion when our opponents resort to ad hominem attacks. Nothing meaningful results from a conversation wherein the final assertion is something along the lines of: "You're only saying that because you're Catholic -- " or black, gay, handicapped, elderly -- the list goes on. But too often do competing camps lump their opposition into a monolith, ignoring factors which shape the individual and instead stereotyping him based on some vague notion of group identity. This is far from what our teachers intended to suggest with the term "critical analysis."
In the end, we're left with silly and embarrassing allegations and without progress. It is doubtful that any writer's worldview has been shaped by any single experience; instead, a combination of factors affect our ultimate perspectives. I believe I speak for the majority when I invite you to disagree with our opinions, to write us letters expressing and defending your own viewpoints. And I promise not to dismiss your opinion because of something as trivial as your last name, so long as you extend that same courtesy to the rest of us.
Todd Rosenbaum's column appears Thursdays in the Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at trosenbaum@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 9 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
