Opposites Confuse

Observing the news and everyday choices, I find a series of opposite reactions that seem confusing. In one case, Americans have an overwhelming sense of safety, while being constantly on guard against a multitude of possible dangers. In another, they praise diversity while at the same time seem averse to the idea.

The first thought comes as a result of a news item on a proposed law banning texting while crossing the street in New York. As the USA Today reports, “The law would be simple enough, the bill states: ‘No pedestrian shall cross a roadway at any point while using any portable electronic device.’ ” Police could issue tickets charging from $25 to $50 for a first offense – “unless you can prove it was an emergency.”

Here is the contradiction. Americans were constantly reminded that texting and driving can be very dangerous. Now they must be told that texting while walking across the street is dangerous. Apparently “look both ways” is just for kids. We are too busy for that! States feel they must add the threat of a fine to get people to comply. The same applies to the 10% who still do not wear seatbelts on a regular basis. As a driver or pedestrian, Americans act as if they are indestructible.

Now shift the scene to the grocery store, and some of the same people go to the opposite extreme. Advertisers and food packaging attract customers by boasting that their products have none of the ingredients that have, usually erroneously, been tagged as scary or dangerous. Walking down the aisles we read of foods that contain no artificial ingredients, are gluten-free and contain no GMOs. They have no high fructose corn syrup but do contain sea salt and are locally sourced or organic. These scare tactics must be working because they spread with new fears being invented by influencers, celebrity chefs and marketing departments.

How can we be so casual about truly dangerous behavior while being so hyper-vigilant about details that make little or no difference?

The second example came to light from a CBS This Morning report. “West Point says the class of 2019 is its most diverse ever, both by race and by gender,” including 34 African American women, the most ever to graduate. That is very nice, but look closely at the comments of a couple of the representative cadets.

"We don't want everybody in the Army to look like me," says First Captain David Bindon.  He believes that working with people who don't look like him “brings different perspectives” leading to better solutions. (That, of course, assumes that diversity of gender and skin color is always a reliable indicator of diversity of thought and experience.) 

Immediately following came the opinion of another cadet that “it really helps if you can look up to a leader who looks like you who comes from the same background as you." Everyone nodded in agreement.

Which is it? Does the army, and everywhere else, need diversity for different perspectives or do we need diversity so that those who identify a certain way can feel more comfortable? Do we need role models who look like us or role models who show that hard work and perseverance pay off?

The news media often celebrate firsts by race and gender to achieve certain milestones and positions. Those firsts had no mentors or role models that looked like them, yet they made a difference. Are we teaching our children that they are not capable of doing the same? Especially as society recognizes so many more ways to identify, that seems like a negative, defeatist message.

Instead of pulling everyone together to share perspectives and come up with better solutions, is the current emphasis on diversity actually highlighting and emphasizing differences, acting as a subtle divisive force?

Opposite reactions to similar situations can be very confusing, and it can’t be sorted out without some critical thinking.