This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Feb. 21, 2011 - We think we know something based on our personal experience. We do, and we don't. Anecdotes, my-best-friend stories, and urban legends can inform our interactions but should never be the sole basis for theories or policies. That's plain dangerous.
Statistically, we say that such research lacks external validity. The results, or reasoning, cannot be broadly applied. Because of this fault a case study can be interesting and provide suggestions for future inquiries but can in no way be used to dictate broad policy change or treatment plans.
Last week, I became aware of the comments of Kansas state Rep. Connie O'Brien. In short, O'Brien retold a story of seeing a woman apply for financial aid who was in the country illegally. When asked how she knew this to be the case, she responded, "Well she wasn't Black, she wasn't Asian, and she had the olive complexion."
Initially, I became frustrated by how intricately linked race and the immigration debate continue to be. (Note the use of "the olive complexion.") Of course, that link is faulty and misrepresents the full spectrum of immigrants to our country. However, our default is to rely on race as a short cut to label and judge. I chuckled at her giving Blacks and Asian a "pass" as to suggest that the years of exploitation and cheap labor had, perhaps, created some benefits for descendants of these groups.
However, what continued to nag at me was the overarching entitlement in the remarks. Beyond being exclusionary (we can tell who "belongs" based on complexion), O'Brien takes on an all-knowing frustration in retelling her son's quest for financial aid:
"My son who's a Kansas resident, born here, raised here, didn't qualify for any financial aid. Yet this girl was going to get financial aid. My son was kinda upset about it because he works and pays for his own schooling and his books and everything and he didn't think that was fair. We didn't ask the girl what nationality she was, we didn't think that was proper. But we could tell by looking at her that she was not originally from this country."
She and her son were polite enough not to ask, but they were certain a person who was in the country illegally was getting the money that he deserved (note the use of "yet"). Whether the woman had legal status or not, who is to say that her son was treated unfairly? Millions of students work to pay for school. That in and of itself does not guarantee aid.
She speaks as if something was taken from her son. Not qualifying for aid does not mean that life is easy or that it is painless to pay for today's college education. So, painting it as if this woman, and those like her, is at fault for her son not receiving aid appears to be misguided frustration.
For the record, another committee member made it clear that an undocumented student could not receive federal or state scholarships. And it is essential to note that this transcript is from a meeting of the Federal and State Affairs Committee, not from a casual conversation.
Personal stories and experiences of constituents can help strengthen a professional stance that is based in evidence. From my understanding, O'Brien's anecdote was lacking just that and was based on assumptions that she failed to check out. I am not faulting her for wondering about the status of an individual who does not have any form of documentation. She later issued an apology acknowledging that is where her comments should have focused.
Yet even within that apology, O'Brien failed to grasp what was most problematic about her comments. But perhaps that is because no one called her on the underlying tone of her comments. If people are willing to question her mention of "the olive complexion," I believe the subtext of "who deserves what" is also worth noting.
The comments were reminiscent of those I hear when teaching about affirmative action. Everyone seems to know that kid who got into Harvard solely because of his race when his scores were the same or lower than their friend, who was white and did not get in. These are the times, when we must check ourselves and recognize that we do not have full information. We do not have access to college applications any more than O'Brien had access to the young woman's financial records. Even if we had the files in hand, we minimize the expertise of admission and financial officers who have the knowledge to compare cases when we declare our Monday morning quarterback ruling. It is also worth noting that post Gratz (and Grutter) vs. Bollinger, most schools are even more conservative in how race is factored into admission.
Back to the point at hand, it's dangerous to leave our personal experiences unchecked before using them as a launching pad for broad generalizations. While it is tempting to cling to our personal understanding of the world, we must be willing to consider how limited our view can be. Stepping outside of ourselves to gather more information might support our own experiences but more often pushes us to consider and integrate new information.
Next time you hear yourself say, "I know someone who...." or "From my experience..." be sure not to let those statements lead you down a path of idiosyncrasies, if your desire is for others to follow.
Kira Hudson Banks, Ph.D., is assistant professor of psychology at Illinois Wesleyan University in Bloomington. The native of Edwardsville is a regular contributor to the Beacon.