Racial and Sexual Prejudice
A middle-aged black man with clear signs of mental illness walked into my subway car in downtown Chicago. After talking to himself for a while, he noticed me and started laughing. He repeated the same sentence that amused him so for the next 20 minutes of my awkward ride: "You're going to Chinatown!".
What was interesting to me is that this person, who was impaired in mental faculties, was still capable of making 'judgment in advance' (the meaning of praejudicium, the Latin root of "prejudice") based on race. This tells me two facts about racial prejudice. First, it is easy: even a mentally impaired person can do it. Second, it is so deeply rooted in our culture that in this case it endures when other pieces of our mind are gone.
As an Asian man living in the Western society, I have experienced racial prejudice in a number of instances. Often the signal is subtle, as in one time at a Starbucks in Berlin where the cashier was excessively hospitable to a Caucasian tourist right before me and then put on a stone cold expression as I stepped next and remained minimally accommodating. Sometimes it is more in-your-face: one time at a Tim Hortons in Rochester NY, an inebriated white woman came to my table and shouted "You look all the same!" with her male companions.
One cannot discuss racial prejudice without gender, since the interaction between race and gender is extremely strong. A powerful example is online dating: a digital medium that allows one to reveal his/her taste toward groups of people from a distance (thus, presumably, with true honesty). Consider the following tables in a famous study by OkCupid based on the messaging data of a million users:
 |
 |
The power of association
Where does prejudice come from? The society produces prejudice using the same force that underlies advertising: a repeated, deliberate association with something positive or negative to re-wire our brain. It is well known that human brains are very quick at learning new associations. Consider a neuron that fires when you see a family member but does not fire when you see the Eiffel tower. Once you see a picture of her with the Eiffel tower, it fires when you see the Eiffel tower alone (Ison et al., 2015). A crucial point, however, is that these associations do not have to be "real" at all. There is no intrinsic connection between the family member and the Eiffel tower that warrants the association (she may not even have been in France, after all), but the brain does not care upon receiving the joint input. The association cannot be undone.
With this in mind, it is not hard to realize that virtually everything in our culture systematically reinforces certain sentiments toward certain groups of people. Almost without exception, Hollywood movies feature physically attractive white men as main protagonists with great virtues such as strength and character. So we learn to associate them with 'Captain America' and 'the sexy and rich vigilante'.
 |
 |
On the other hand, Asian men are often portrayed as unattractive, if harmless, side characters. In Men in Black 3, a movie about a special task force that deals with aliens, a Chinese restaurant that serves unpalatable food like the blobfish below turns out to be a den of nasty aliens disguised as (Asian) humans. I am not Chinese, but I was angry after watching the movie. I have learned to associate a Chinese/Asian person with a blobfish.
 |
 |
I once saw an argument that there is no unfairness because white men are not culturally spared from negative associations either, using Homer Simpson in The Simpsons as an example. The argument goes: Homer is a stereotypical middle class American man characterized as fat, lazy, and dim, so the fact that, for instance, Apu is a stereotypical Indian man living in the states who is comically characterized should not be offensive. This argument is shallow for at least two reasons. First, Homer is flawed but also has redeeming virtues: for one, he is portrayed as a loving dad and husband. The character flaws of Homer seem to carry a degree of warmth and are accepted more easily. This flattering caricature is not the case with the nasty Chinese-looking alien in Men in Black 3. Second, the default image of a white man seems to be much more strongly associated with unarguably attractive and successful cultural icons such as Iron Man and Steve Jobs than with Homer Simpson. For these reasons, as much as I love The Simpsons, it should not be used as a leverage.
Now, if it is indeed the case that the privileged reinforces racial/sexual associations advantageous to themselves, either consciously or unconsciously, then it seems reasonable to intervene. One widely adopted approach is try to establish new associations that counter the established ones. This underlies many of today's liberal movements, for instance the recent feminist movement in films that feature overwhelmingly powerful female protagonists who demand, and obtain, crushing victory over their male counterparts.
 |
 |
There is temptation (and social pressure) to simply say that such liberal movements are on the side of justice; that the fact that they should always be promoted is beyond questioning. But nothing is beyond questioning, and the real issues are far too complex to close with such simple conclusions.
The paradox of countering prejudice with prejudice
Recall the fundamental problem with associations: they may not have anything to do with ground truth, since the brain blindly creates an association upon receiving a joint input. If we think that this aspect itself is problematic and dangerous, then why is it acceptable to counter existing associations by creating some other associations? Fighting prejudice by creating different prejudice does not solve the problem of prejudice. It does promote divisiveness.
An implicit justification is that the deliberately constructed "new norm" (i.e., prejudice), if carefully designed, is a beneficial self-fulfilling prophecy in a long run: it will eventually make itself reality by creating a new generation that are born into it. A girl growing up watching Captain Marvel would find it much less atypical to aspire for a dominating, career-driven female figure. The relentless national advocacy of women in STEM subjects will, eventually, lead to increased female participation and balance the gender inequality in these subjects. I believe in independence and diversity. I completely support freedom to aspire for one's own goals (unless evil) regardless of sex and a balanced gender ratio in technical fields. But the worthiness of goals does not automatically make any means unquestionable.
A new norm is always promoted by a vociferous group with very specific interests, and it seems only natural to apply the same standard against existing prejudice to make sure that it does not become the "new previliged". For instance, prioritizing female participation in STEM fields can imply sacrificing male participants. With explicit instructions by NSF to train female students in national grant programs, professors in computer science today are strongly incentivized to admit a female applicant over a male applicant if they are equally qualified. While this is certainly effective, and might even be necessary, as part of a larger effort to achieve gender equality in these fields, can we say this is fair? A Chinese or Indian male student who has similar aspirations, qualification, and work ethic may be denied of lifetime opportunities to pursue his goals — because of his race, nationality, and gender. The tension between diversity and meritocracy is unavoidable in any admission process, and I do not have a miraculous solution, but the answer seems to be a clear no from the perspective of the student.
I recently watched a live-action adaptation of Aladdin, my favorite classic Disney animation. The movie alters the source material so that Princess Jasmine decides not only to marry the person she chooses but also to become the ruler of Agrabah. She makes her ambition clear from the beginning. She bursts into a new song about not yielding to her oppressive environment, very much like Elsa in Frozen. In contrast, Aladdin remains more or less his same insecure but sincere self. The movie ends with Aladdin giving up his final magical wish — a chance to live the life he has dreamed of — in order to free his friend Genie: while Jasmine ascending on the throne. I could not help but feel a jarring cacophony in the intended message. There is nothing wrong with being ambitious or bold. But true greatness comes from selfless service, not a pursuit of power and ambitions. The latter is often not a sign of strength or wisdom, but of immaturity.
Concluding thoughts
I hate racial and sexual prejudice because race or gender makes absolutely no difference in what makes us human. That is: everyone is on average equally capable of compassion, intellect, imagination, and other capabilities that define us as human regardless of her/his race or gender. If anyone refutes this self-evident fact, I will oppose that person with all my strength. Note that this is very different from claiming that we are exactly the same. It would be foolish to deny that women are capable of nurturing a baby while men are incapable, or that the typical nose height is different across races. Overcoming prejudice does not mean insisting that everyone is the same; it means treating everyone as an equally valuable human being, while accepting and celebrating differences that are not part of what makes us valuable as humans.
We must remember that none of us chose our ethnicities, looks, or genders. And they will be taken away.
Unfortunately, everyone old enough knows that prejudice is one of the most powerful forces that shape the world. Race is often a final determinant in complicated situations. In the 2016 election, white women voted for Trump despite the controversial sexual misconduct allegations, in contrast with other female racial groups who voted against Trump (source). In online dating, being black female puts one in a hopeless position while being white puts one at a decisive advantage. The systematic "half-true" associations that create such prejudice should be intervened. Countering them by promoting a carefully designed new norm may be effective and necessary but, ultimately, it is also a prejudice itself that is advocated only by and for a vocal group with specific interests and should not be an exception to the usual scrutiny to be applied to prejudice.
Of course, the only true solution to prejudice is to simply annihilate it—prejudice against women, prejudice against men, prejudice against black people, prejudice against Asian people, prejudice against white people—and judge everyone truly based on the immanent reality alone. But given how deeply rooted racial and sexual prejudice is everywhere in the world (it is often much worse outside the United States), I do not see how this can be achieved anytime soon. But we can keep reaching for it.
Racial and sexual prejudice is an artificially created concept. Little children who are not yet exposed to the bias-inducing associations ingrained into the fabrics of the society are oblivious to the very concept. It is tragic that they must grow up and acquire this concept, whether they want to or not. I do not know how this can ever be truly uprooted in this world. But I will personally continue to strive to overcome race, nationality, gender, religion, and other aspects that are irrelevant to our value and potential as humans and treat everyone as a dignified person based solely on his or her character.