From Sally Lehrman: Listening to the discussion about the biological non-reality of race (led by Harvard School of Public Health professor Ichiro Kawachi), I wonder if the idea may be all too easy. If we can just wipe away race, won’t racial bias fall away with it? If we realize that race isn’t a biological fact, won’t the social hierarchies based on race finally disappear?
Well no, as our speakers (at the IJJ fellows conference) on health disparities so clearly showed. But I wonder — do we journalists sometimes wipe away both race and racism in the hope that they will go away? Do we avoid using terms like “segregation” or “bias” or “privilege” in favor of more comfortable terms –“disparities,” for instance? Do we talk about individual acts of prejudice or hostility, instead of the social and cultural institutions that help make racism a reality every day? When we cover health, crime, housing and finance, how often do we point out or even look for inequities based on race? How often do we assume that a white, black, Asian-American, Latino or Native American person’s experience of an event or institution are all just the same? How often do we assume that a white person’s experience of the world is the norm?
Normally, journalists pride themselves on telling truth wherever they see it. But when it comes to covering race, how much do we end up covering up?
Clips
- Lehrman’s series racial and ethnic health issues: Race and Healthcare — Genes aren’t the whole story when it comes to explaining disparity in illness among different ethnic groups.
- Report from Harvard School of Public Health symposium on health care inequities.
