Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men, to which I last alluded in a post called 12 Angry Seminarians: On Diversity, is among my favorite works tackling prejudice. Brilliant play and film.
Just check out this short scene, which packs a lot of punch on its own merit:
Ed Begley, portraying the incredible (and yes, quite angry) Juror #10 in the above clip (1957) acts commendably here. His character's actions, on the other hand, are nothing short of detestable.
But I think it's worth discussing how easy it is to pin blame on certain people, to label some as bigots and assume that everyone else loves and supports diversity and says and does nothing to perpetuate stereotypes, intolerance, and double-standards. And this is by no means meant to condemn everyone or those who condemn bigotry, but rather to illuminate the complexity of the issue.
When we villify someone on the basis of that person's prejudice, is our judgment ever justified? If so, when, and if not, why not?
If you had been among the jurors in this scene, would you have responded to #10 in the same way? What would you have done or said differently?
If you haven't seen/read 12 Angry Men, click here to see the full film online or here to find the book on Amazon.
One part of our orientation to Drew was a discussion on diversity. Looking around at the theological school's student body, it is clear that the only group of people who could rival our diversity is a jury.
So I'm seeking a co-producer for a new play called 12 Angry Seminarians. Anyone interested?
Our ages range about 40 years. Maybe more.
We are of different races, ethnicities, nationalities, and heritages. We have many students from all over the world, from South Korea to Côte d'Ivoire.
We have different native tongues and in fact speak many more languages between us. A friend from South Korea taught me to say hello - 안녕, "ahn nyeong" (or formally 안녕하세요, "ahn nyeong ha say yo"). I've taught another Korean friend the phrase "study party," words I've taken for granted on a daily basis throughout college. For a friend from the Congo, English is his fifth language. Fifth.
We have students who have lived months or years in a country foreign to their own, and many who are now doing so for the first time. Students bring with them their "temporary resident" experiences of other countries from England to Honduras. We also have representation from all across the United States.
We are of different socioeconomic backgrounds and, despite at least one common expense, find ourselves in varying financial situations.
We are of different sexes, orientations, and gender identities. The school not only encourages gender neutral discussion of humans ("humankind" vs. "mankind") but also of God. But more on the Inclusive Language Policy another time.
We are single, married, separated, divorced, remarried, widowed, and in a range of relationships. Some have spouses in other states or other countries. Some are raising their families in campus apartments.
We are of different abilities, with unique strengths and weaknesses that have only just begun to shape us into a community with complementary parts.
We are of different political persuasions with a range of priorities and ideas in government, voting, and public policy.
We are of different faiths, denominations, and perspectives, sharing in belief and disbelief, curiosity and doubt. Even within our populous Christian contingent, differences can be striking.
This incredible diversity can create for us amazing growth, enlightenment, and interdependence - opportunities just waiting to be seized!
But easier said than seized.
Because diversity asks a lot of us. It asks us to see ourselves differently. It constantly presents us with the realization that there is yet another perspective that we have not considered or another life's worth of experiences that we may never come to understand fully, even if we genuinely try.
When asked to describe themselves, people in a majority infrequently list that dominant trait as part of what identifies them. At the same time, somehow many of our rarities do not earn the value of rarities, and instead they are often pointed out unfavorably by others or are used as the basis of self-deprecating humor.
Our default setting seems to be somewhere between the urge to set ourselves apart and blend in with a safely homogenous group. Sometimes we're willing to follow the social script even when it does not properly - even kindly - define us. It may be easier or safer or less intimidating than (inter-)acting off-book.
But we cannot allow our discussions on promoting diversity and respect to assume their own sort of social script: to become stale, inauthentic, incomprehensive, or roundaboutly offensive. We must be vigilant of this in even our noblest efforts -
That is, don't let something like this happen to you or someone you love:
----
Interested in reading about diverse forms of diversity? Check out Readings for Diversity and Social Justice, Second Edition (2010), edited by Maurianne Adams, et. al., particularly Section 1 on Conceptual Frameworks. Other sections are by topic, such as ableism, sexism, and classism, and include excellent primary and secondary sources in various formats and writing styles.
Ed Begley, portraying the incredible (and yes, quite angry) Juror #10 in the above clip (1957) acts commendably here. His character's actions, on the other hand, are nothing short of detestable.
