On Racism and White Privilege

[Johnathan Clayborn]

I will preface this by saying that this one is going to be rather long, because I'm pretty worked up about this issue, but it should be worth the read.

Just yesterday I was discussing the recent bouts of protests in Baltimore, Maryland that were sparked by the tragic death of young Freddie Gray while he was in police custody. Some ignorant, narrow minded racist actually had the nerve to sit there and call me racist, which was met with applause by his group-think companions. Even though this person did not know me, and was clearly incapable of grasping any of my comments with any ounce of understanding or comprehension, this still bothered me, so much so that I swore off even commenting about politics or religion or equality on Facebook.

To any of my friends who know me personally, they recognize that there's not a racist bone in my body. I may be a great many things; I may be naive at times, I may be idealistic, I may be a hopeful dreamer of a Utopian future that will likely never come, and I am definitely overly analytical and highly logical in my thoughts, but I'm not racist.

So why was I called a racist? Because I actually proposed that people be treated equally and fairly and that the color of your skin should not, under any circumstances, play a factor in deciding who is awarded benefits or opportunities. I stated that the fact the job applications and college admission applications even have a race field seems like a sad, sad commentary on how far we still have yet to progress. You are either qualified for the job, or you are not. You are either capable of academic success, or you are not. The color of your skin plays absolutely no bearing on how you perform either of these functions. But to suggest that people be judged as individuals based on their own personal merits and abilities rather than skin tone is, apparently, racist.

A lot of people are upset, rightfully so, about the excessive use of force by police and the shootings of unarmed civilians. The media and society is generally far more upset when the suspect who was shot is black. Curious about this, I actually went a looked this up. According to the CDC WISQARS database on injury mortality reports there are some interesting values to be considered. When pulling the data from the database I examined "legal intervention" as the cause of death. This is their way of saying "police caused". I also looked at data for both genders for ages between 15 and 50. The breakdown of the results of that search are below:

It might not be noticeable right away, but the table tells an interesting story. If you look at it strictly in terms of number of total deaths, numerically, then it shows that police kill  white people more than twice as often as blacks. Some people would argue, where's the bias there? However, if you evaluate the number of deaths as compared to their percentage of the total population (the total number of available victims possible), then the data tells the opposite story; blacks are killed at twice the rates of whites. All of this will inevitably, invariably turn into an argument between two sides; blacks are killed more because they commit more crime, which will be counter-argued with blacks commit more crime because the police target them and profile them and racially discriminate. Which group is right? I don't know, I honestly have no idea Realistically, it's probably somewhere in the middle. But, it's completely irrelevant. How can I say that? I'm a racist asshole, remember? No, really I'm not. The point of the protesting is that police brutality and unnecessary use of police force is an epidemic problem. As the data on this chart shows, it's a problem that affects everyone. I had suggested that they stop using the hashtag #Blacklivesmatter and instead use the hashtag #Allivesmatter. That's also, apparently, racist thinking. 

When one considers the main crux of the argument, and the points of the riots, it's that police treat people unfairly. Ancient wisdom tells us that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. By using hashtags that turn the issue of police brutality into a racial issue, then it tears apart and divides any real traction that the movement might have before it even begins. Ancient Chinese wisdoms taught by Sun Tsu in the Art of War explain strength and unity. If you pick up sticks one by one you can break them easily. If you pick up a bunch of sticks and bundle them together, they cannot easily be broken in half. This same logic applies to social change and social reform. One unified voice all demanding the same change will get results. Divided voices are easily swatted down, broken, and quickly lose focus on exactly what it is that they want in the first place. Do they want Justice for Freddie Gray? Do they want an end to police brutality? Or do they want to change the paradigm of thought process? The answer is probably "all of the above", but prioritization must take place. 

All of these conversations brought up another point, one that I've argued against for some time; the idea of White Privilege. As a white male, I have not, at any point in my life received any sort of privilege simply for being white. My family doesn't have "connections". We don't have "family money". We don't own land. For generations we were poor farmers. I am moderately successful by most interpretations of that word, but I only got there through hard work and determination. I got there through working a full-time job and going to school at more than a full time rate. One person argued with me saying that where she was from in the south, all of her white friends were just handed jobs and that's how they succeeded, and that her family directly benefited from her being white. That's fine, for you, but it never benefited me in any way.

Here's the real root of the bigger issue though; Saying that White Privilege even exists is a racist ideology. I know, I know, I keep making outlandish "racist" claims, but here me out. The problem with thinking that there is even such a thing as White Privilege assumes that all white people are the same. Would it be fair to say that Native Americans are the same, or do they have unique and distinct cultural differences between their tribes? Would it be fair to assume that all Latinos are the same and that people from Puerto Rico had no differences when compared to people from Brazil and Chile? Would it be fair to assume that all Black people are the same and that people from Nigeria and Kenya are the same as people from Somalia? If the answer to these questions is no, which it is, why then is it okay to assume that all White people are the same?

The whole concept of White Privilege is that white people have a better socioeconomic disposition than Black people because they aren't discriminated against when looking for work or applying for school because they're white and society caters to whites. Within the broad spectrum of White cultures that make up the total overall White demographic, my particular culture that I identify with is Irish. Irish are probably, aside from the English, the epitome of "white". Then you have French, and Germans, and Italians, Russians, Polish, etc. I want you to consider these images here for a moment: 

Consider for a moment that Irish and Italian immigrants to the US were discriminated against. They were denied work. They were denied education. They were denied other benefits and opportunities in exactly the same way that people of color were denied to them. So what then, pray tell, would these people claim was the reason that they weren't successful? Are they going to claim White Privilege held them back also? That's crazy and it doesn't work because, oh wait, they are white. 

The whole point of this particular illustration is that just trying to say that people of color are underprivileged and it's due to White Privilege not only grossly oversimplifies the situation, but it actually completely detracts the conversation and shifts the focus away from the actual mechanisms that cause social injustice and inequality in the first place. Clearly not every black person is destitute, underprivileged nor a criminal. Clearly not every white person has doors and opportunities available to them simply because of the color of their skin. If you honestly believe that, then either you are totally ignorant of actual history within the United States, or you're harboring racist thoughts yourself. 

So what is racism anyway? Really, racism is the discrimination, mistreatment or abuse of another person or group of people due to the color of their skin or their ethnic origin. To combat racism there's another word that's thrown around a lot lately; equality. We talk about gender equality, we talk about racial equality, we talk about religious equality and social equality. But there's a problem with this: 

Everyone keeps talking about equality, but no one actually wants to be equal. I am very egalitarian in my worldviews and beliefs. I think that all things; rewards, opportunities, benefits, punishments, everything, should be decided equally, unilaterally, and fairly to every person without regard to race, religion, or socioeconomic status. Is that a realistic thought? Maybe not, but it's still how I think that the world should be run. 

As I had said to some of my friends discussing this issue; "you cannot create a racial construct as a response to a socially or institutionally racial issue and expect the underlying racism to be resolved". Case in point, consider this for a moment: If there was a scholarship for one group of people, but another group of people could not apply because of the color of their skin, would that be racist? Of course it would, right? So if there is a scholarship that was available only to white people and no people of color could apply, that would be racist, right? Of course. Well, what if it was a basketball scholarship because there aren't enough white basketball players? Still racist, right? So, why then is it okay to have scholarships for black people and other people of color where white people are not permitted to apply, but that's not racist? I'll tell you why, because it actually is racist. But, wait, Affirmative Action! That's nothing more than a bullshit excuse to exercise more racism because of racism. To those people of color who were discriminated against it might feel like vindication, but it's still racism at it's very core. 

The whole argument for Affirmative Action scholarships and programs in the first place is that people of color have been historically underprivileged socioeconomically and therefore had less access to money for healthcare and education. (We'll pretend that the Irish and Italians that were also discriminated against just got money from magic leprechauns for a moment). Going back to the logical, egalitarian way of thinking, financial aid should be awarded on the basis of need as the sole criteria. Race should never play a role in these kinds of decisions. So, if that is the case, and assuming that people of color are underprivileged, then by default they would also have the most need (because they make the least amount of money). And, because they had the most need, they would also, therefore, be pushed to the front of the line as an intrinsic result of their low socioeconomic status. The people who have the most need for the money are the ones who get it, period. Race need not be an issue. Creating special categories whereby certain races are excluded or prohibited from applying at all because of the color of their skin is the very definition of racism. If you can't see that, then you are a part of the problem. 

The issue of why certain populations are underprivileged is a complex issue that does not have a simple answer. Trying to summarize it as a race issue is not only ignorant of historical context or understanding of race, but it also does the entire conversation a disservice. How can you truly understand a problem and get to the real root of the situation if you enter into the conversation with an outlook that you already understand the problem and are closed off to hearing the viewpoints of others? I recently removed some people from my Facebook feed because I was tired of their racist dribble while they spouted that those people who didn't agree with them are racists. 

By continuing racist lines of thinking, such as white privilege, it further undermines their efforts to bring about meaningful social change. For example, by making this a racial issue, instead of simply a social issue, then it serves to alienate all of the other white people, like myself, who might be otherwise sympathetic to the plight of the underprivileged because they are or were underprivileged themselves. It's not a white vs black issue, it's much more complex than that. 

Some of the arguments that were thrown around were that the "power structure" of the country was skewed and that white privilege exists because white people have the power. Again, this is racist thinking and oversimplifies the issue. We've already established that it's racist to think of all Natives the same way, and that it's racist to think of all black people the same way. So which white people is it that have the power, exactly? It certainly isn't me. It's certainly not anyone that I personally know, either. This kind of thinking, that all white people are the same, creates additional problems that weren't there before in addition to everything else. 

I ask you all, if you truly want to understand the people around you, start looking past the end of your noses. Stop this racial nonsense and actually listen instead of pretending to know all of the answers. You've been discriminated against by those in power. That sucks. I would know because I have been too. But, rather than seeing myself and people like me as an ally, as a brother in the same boat of suffering, most people will instead downplay my personal successes and undermine me and lump me in with the same group of people that discriminated against me in the first place, all while calling me racist for thinking logically and rationally. 

The whole point of this rant is this; if you want to protest, that's your right, protest. If you want to speak out against the abuse of power and the social injustice that exists, that's great, I'm right there with you screaming for exactly those same things. I don't want to be abused by those in power. I don't want to be unfairly punished or rewarded for things I don't deserve or didn't do. But as soon as you start making it about the color of my skin or the color of your skin, then our common ground and our common goals dissolve away and become divided. So I ask you, if you are upset about Baltimore, if you are upset about unjust police brutality and unnecessary use of force, then what is it that you want? Do you want actual, meaningful social change, or do you just want to be right? 

The Portrayal of Self

[Johnathan Clayborn]

There has been a lot of fallout and discussion over the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO a short time ago. To say that there are some strong, political and philosophical disagreements over the issue would be a gross understatement. People are quick to argue about their take on the militarization of police, abuse of power, the requirements for lethal force, and the overall social injustice of underprivileged minorities being discriminated against. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these conversations shouldn't take place, because they should. They're very important conversations to be having as a nation and as individuals. But there was one bit of fallout from this that's not discussed very much, and when it is, it's often a one-sided discussion. So, rather than contribute my two cents to the plethora of opinions about the above topics I wanted to talk about the portrayal of self.

There are many people who are complaining because the media is showing picture a picture of Michael Brown that makes it hard to view him as a defenseless victim. His detractors are using this photo as justification that he deserved to be shot and was dangerous. His supporters are saying that the photo was taken out of context and was hand-picked by the media to deliberately portray him in a bad light. Take a look:


In an apparent show of support for Mr. Brown and as a backlash to the media many people, mostly young African Americans, are posting two photos of themselves, one respectable and the other questionable with the hashtag: IfTheyGunnedMeDown. You can see examples of some of the photos here and here and here and here.

There are two things that I want to point out. First, is that the media is not the paragon of impartial truth that they are sometimes considered to be. I've worked with enough reporters and been burned by them and seen them in action enough to have first hand knowledge of this. The news will always report the story with a slant. And if it's not the slant of whatever major political corporation pays the bills, then it's whatever slant will generate the most viewership. So, you should expect that the media will always use the worst photo of you that they can find.

The second thing that I want to point out is that you have total control over this. Many of the articles talk about these photos and throwing around the terms "alleged gang signs". No. These are gang signs. What other signs are they if they aren't gang signs? They aren't peace signs. They sure as hell aren't American Sign Language. They are gang signs. If you are a respectable person, would you want to associate yourself with a gang by flashing signs in photos? Gangs do nothing but perpetuate violence. Many gangs have a "blood in, blood out" policy that requires violence. You certainly don't see gangs helping old ladies across the street, covering up graffiti or feeding the homeless. Why would any person want to associate themselves with such organizations. If you post crap like that on your page, society will judge you as thuggish. If you are posting such photos as a joke, you need to revise your sense of humor. It would be akin to me posting a photo, as a horribly unfunny joke, of myself in a KKK hood and then being upset when the media circulates that picture calling me a racist. And I never understood the point of flipping off the camera either. I typically don't go around giving people the bird in my day-to-day life, so why would I pose a picture of that on my page? If I saw people walking down the street throwing signs or flipping people off, I would pay them closer attention and view them warily.

Society will judge you by whatever means that they can, and whatever means they have available to them. If you don't want to be viewed as a thug or a brute, or a no-good-doer, then stop posting pictures of gang signs, drugs, profanity, etc. If you want society to view you as a respectable person, then keep that stuff off of your page. It's really that simple. You have the power to control how you are viewed by society. You have the power to say to the world "this is who I am, and this is how I want you to see me". Make a smart choice.

Albert Bandura: Social Modeling Theory - fact or fiction?

[Johnathan Clayborn]
Question: Can classroom bullying be attributed to social modeling and/or vicarious learning?

To answer the question of whether or not classroom bullying can be attributed to Social Modeling Theory, we have to first examine if social modeling theory is viable and logical outside of the classroom.

Albert Bandura postulated that people learn behavior through modeling (Bandura, 1977). According to this theory, people learn how to behave by watching those around them. There are certainly some examples where this would seem to be the case, but as a general principle, I disagree with Bandura, at least with regards to violence. I do not believe that violence is a trait that is learned through social modeling at all. Violence, whether we like it or not, is an intrinsic part of being human.

Any day that you watch the news you will see evidence of violence; shootings, muggings, rape, murder. It happens every day all over the world. Most of the media is quick to blame violent video games, saying that the shooters were influenced and learned how to do it from these video games, which would support Bandura's theory (ABC News, 2013). However, others, myself included, are quick to argue the fallacy of this logic in what has become a hotly debated topic (Atlantic wire, 2013).

Regardless of what side of this debate you find yourself on you cannot logically deny the fact that violence has existed long before video games. There are many famous mass shootings that happened prior to the advent of violent video games: George Hennard - 1991, Patrick Henry Sherrill - 1986, James Huberty - 1984, George Banks - 1982, Joseph Whitman - 1966, etc (CNN, 2013). So, if social modeling through video games is to blame for today's modern killers, then what social modeling is to blame for these killers? Television? What about mass murders that happened prior to television? Did Jack the Ripper learn how to kill through social modeling in victorian literature?

In parts of the world that are completely devoid of media, children still violent games with each other (Diamond, 1999). One could make the argument that these children learned to be violent through social modeling through their parents and other adults in their communities. However, violence has been used as a family event and a form of entertainment for hundreds of years. During the "wild west" and the colonial era of American history public executions were common practice that included the whole family. This practice originated from Medieval europe where it was precedated by the Roman practice of the gladitorial games.

Probably the most damning concept to Banduras theory is Otzi the Iceman. Otzi is the oldest, intact complete human remains ever recovered from anywhere in the world with his mummified corpse dating back 5,000 years ago (PBS, 2011). He is damning to bandura's theory because in addition to being the oldest intact human ever found, he's also the world's oldest cold-case murder victim; he was shot in the back with an arrow and cudgeled over the head (PBS, 2011). If Bandura's theory of social modeling is correct, and we learn our behaviors from those around us and our parents, then where did the people who came before learn how to be violent? One might argue that violence was learned and perpetuated from the earliest humans, but where did they learn it? Additionally, there are many examples of people who do the opposite of the behaviors that were socially modeled for them; pastor's chidlren becoming involved in gangs or drugs, people who grew up in a gang family becoming police officers, etc. If social modeling is correct, then why do these people deviate from, and do the exact opposite of the behaviors that were modeled for them?

To get back to the original question; can classroom bullying be attributed to social modeling and/or vicarious learning? No, I don't think so. There is a lot of evidence that suggests that this is not the reason why children bully each other. I would argue that there is something within our residual evoluationary psychology that makes children bully each other, rather than social modeling. I would argue that peer pressure and the need for acceptance plays a much bigger role than social modeling.

Personally I think that peer pressure and evolutionary psychology play a more important role than social modeling. Humans are an intrinsically social group. In our days as a hunter-gatherer society society ostracization from the group meant almost certain death (Diamond, 1999). This is one reason we still like to form groups and perpetuate an "us vs. them" mentality in everything we do from religion to politics to sports. In a throwback from our hunter-gatherer days we still view strength as a desirable trait and people are incined to try to "prove" their strength by picking on those weaker than they are.

References:

ABC News (2013) How Violent Video Games fit in with Violent Behavior. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/navy-yard-shooter-played-military-style-videogames-relevant/story?id=20285169

Atlantic Wire (2013) Don't Blame Video Games for Monday's Mass shooting. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2013/09/dont-blame-violent-video-games-mondays-mass-shooting/69499/

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,

CNN (2013) 25 Deadliest Shootings in US History http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/

Diamond, Jared. (1999) Guns, Germs, and steel: The fate of human civilizations.

PBS (2011) Iceman Murder Mystery http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/iceman-murder-mystery.html

Why Reporters Have a Bad Name

[Johnathan Clayborn]
Okay, so there is arguably a stereotype about reporters being dirty, underhanded people who are only interested in the story and are willing to the skew the reality of the situation to make sure that it’s an interesting story. Naively, I didn’t believe this stereotype. And that mistake is the reason for the rant in today’s post.

As many of the friends and readers know, I am almost finished with my Bachelors of Psychology program over at Grand Canyon University. Also, those of you know who know me know that it has not been an easy journey.

I had some serious issues with my financial aid crop up late last year and among the resources that I uncovered was a reporter who works at the Arizona Republic who was writing a story about the “woes of online schooling”. Naturally, I reached out to her. I know that my issues were not an isolated incident and my hope was that by holding GCU accountable for the mistakes that they are making, they might institute better policies and prevent this from happening to other students.

I spent about 3 months talking with this reporter, telling her my story, sending her emails and ensuring that she had access to my records at GCU. The article broke in yesterday’s paper in the business section (the electronic version is here: http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2012/02/09/20120209arizona-board-hears-complaints-vs-for-profit-schools.html#comments)

The article does mention me and my plight by name. However, that’s about where the accuracy stops. The school, as I suspected they would, lied to cover up their mistakes. The Vice President told the reporter that he “never knew anything about my issue”. Well of course not, the Student Resolution Team specifically blocked that from happening. I asked to meet with a Dean or a President of the school and I was told, and I quote “as far as meeting with a Dean or a President, they will not be able to assist you with financial issues.” It is therefore no surprise that the school told the reporter that they didn’t know anything about my plight.

However, that’s about where the school’s credibility ends. In the article Chris Linderson, the VP for Finance and Compliance is quoted as saying that I have had four Finance Counselors since I started at GCU. That’s a lie. I’ve had at least six. They are; James Mitchell, January Harrison, Jasmine Taylor, Sarah Crouse, Chrissy MacDonald and David Jacobson.

Going back to my issue with Financial Aid, on July 14th, 2011 I received an email from FAFSA saying that my aid had been processed and that I would be getting the full amount. The following day I received another email from FAFSA saying that my aid had been processed and was available.

Then, on July 18^th, 2011 I got an email from GCU saying that I have been selected for “verification” and that I needed to redo my FAFSA and turn it in, and that’s when the trouble began. On August 9^th, 2011 I got another email from FAFSA saying that my student loan had been changed; it had been cut in half.

I immediately contacted GCU about this and was met with nonchalance. They literally told me “nothing’s wrong”.  Apparently getting your financial aid cut in half inexplicably and being told that you had to pay for half of your schooling out of pocket is “not wrong”.

Continued efforts to contact the school were met with increasing hostility. The school blamed the government for the error saying, and I quote; “The decision to give you less money for the academic year is not GCU’s decision, it is the Federal government.  You need to call the FAFSA representatives if you have concerns about how much money you will receive.  I will have the Office of Financial Aid review your account regardless, just to make sure everything is correct.  Keep in mind, if you are reaching your aggregate limit, there will be no more funds for your education.” Are you kidding me? What kind of bullshit answer is that? Reaching my aggregate limit? I’m not even halfway there yet, I have plenty of aid remaining. And the Federal Government awarded me full financial aid, then GCU “corrected something”, then I have half the aid and I’m just supposed to believe that the government changed their minds?

Next, at the behest of GCU themselves, I called FAFSA directly on August 10^th. I spoke with someone named Crystal. She told me, and I quote “the Federal Aid Administrator at GCU is the person who is completely and solely responsible for this. FAFSA has no reason to deny additional aid based on your income and the change in your award was the direct result of the correction made by GCU.” Hmmm…so GCU says that they aren’t responsible, but FAFSA says they are. Call me crazy, but I’m inclined to believe FAFSA on this one.

I contacted GCU again via email that same day. The response I got was, and I quote “everything is in order on your account.”  Really? My financial aid is cut in half, FAFSA says that you changed it, and my academic counselor is telling me that I have to pay half of my costs, and everything is in order? There haven’t been any changes to the laws or regulations about how financial aid is awarded. There haven’t been any changes to the number of classes I’ve been taking, my number of dependents and my income has dropped and yet my award is reduced.

It wasn’t until several weeks later after I involved the Department of Education that Finance counselor miraculously discovered the error; the Verification Packet that GCU submitted to FAFSA had me marked down as a half-time student. FAFSA recalculated my aid based on that information. Once they corrected it, my aid was restored to normal.

In the article the VP at GCU is quoted as saying: “In this case, Clayborn's financial-aid calculation changed last summer, in part, because the number of class credits he was taking increased and there were changes in his household income. It took a few months -- until early December -- for all of the federal loan and grant payments to show up on his account, she added. That may have led Clayborn to conclude that he would have to pay expenses out of pocket, Linderson said.” What a crock of shit. This school and this spokesperson obviously do not know the innate detail of the records of which I keep. My first semester at GCU was 12 credits (UNV103, CWV101 & EDU 310). My second semester was also 12 credits (EDU230, EDU 215 & EDU 225). My third semester was 16 credits (ENG260, PHI103, MAT134 & ENG350). My fourth semester was also 16 credits (ENG450, ENG358, EDU313N & ENG460). This financial aid incident happened during my 5th semester, during which I took 12 credits. So, if I went from two semesters of 16 credits and full financial aid, I ask you, dear readers, how the hell does dropping to 12 credits constitutes and “increase in the number of credits”?

What does all of this have to do with why reporters have a bad name? Because I gave all of this information to the reporter at the AZ Republic and she didn’t do anything with it. Instead she wrote an article that painted me to be an unassuming imbecile who can’t calculate student loans. By the time this happened let’s not forget that I was starting my third academic year with this school so It’s not like I was new to the process. This reporter was armed with enough information to call the school out on their lies and hold them accountable and get answers, and she blew it. The whole reason that I cooperated in the first place was so that she could make people more aware and keep this kind of thing from happening to others. I was naïve to think that a reporter had the civic duty to spread the truth and inform the people who read the paper about what happens. This will certainly be the last time that I cooperate with a reporter on a story like this one. I’m just offended that after all of the conversations that we had and the mountain of evidence that I sent her that would even imply that I just didn’t know what was going on. 

 

The Blame Game

[Johnathan Clayborn]
Today on my way into work I heard an article on the news report that made me shake my head. The Article said that Facebook was to blame for 33% of all divorces in the United States and that rate was up from 20% a few years ago.  Say what? I readily disagree with the news article. Facebook is not to blame for the divorce. The bad behavior of the other spouse is to blame. Facebook is merely the vessel by which the other spouse uncovered the truth.

Case in point, there was a 99 year old man who filed for divorce from his 96 year old wife a few days ago. The reason? She cheated on him….60 years ago. The man obviously has strong feelings about it and once he found her secret stash of love-letters to her boyfriend he filed for divorce. Sure, in some cases the truth remains hidden, shrouded in lies and divorce never materializes. However, all Facebook does is allow people to find out the truth much sooner. Had this couple had Facebook back then they probably would have been divorced long ago. Is that Facebook’s fault? No, of course not. It’s the cheating wife’s fault in this case.

If anything, the only thing that Facebook is guilty of is providing people with an easy way to see what’s really going on with people. In the old days people still cheated. In fact, according to some lawyers infidelity has been a leading cause for 25% of all divorces over the last 50 years. That number hasn’t fluctuated much. What has fluctuated is the manner in which the evidence is gathered. Private Investigators to follow your spouse to their illicit rendezvous are no longer needed as Facebook often provides the means, especially when people have it on their phones and they auto-enable features like “check-in”.  Susan Smith is at Motel 6  - with Bob Thompson. …Hmmm…that could be slightly incriminating. But, even if Facebook doesn’t report that transgression, that doesn’t mean that it’s not happening or that the truth won’t come out some other way.

So, if Facebook isn’t to blame, who is? Obviously, it’s the lying, cheating spouses. It kind of makes me stop and wonder how many people lie, and how often. I would say that most people tell small on a regular basis. No, Greg, we’re not having a surprise party for you… or how about the lies to your friends when you tell them that their outfits look good? But these aren’t the lies that I’m talking about. I’m talking about serious lies, giant whoppers of the “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” proportions. I mean, everyone knows that politicians, even Presidents like Clinton, lie. They definitely have a reputation for that. But what about everyone else? What about the average Joe?

According to television, lies are far too commonplace. Special Agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs of my favorite crime-solving series certainly believes this. He routinely says that “there’s no such thing as coincidence”. He’s not alone either. Famous TV doctor of ill-repute, Gregory House, MD, concurs. He’s often been known to say that “everyone lies, the question is about what”. Can this really be true? I used to think that these viewpoints were the exception and that most people were genuinely honest and forthcoming. However, after one bad divorce from a lying, cheating spouse I have begun to question my view as possibly being somewhat naive.

It popular media is to be believed, lying and cheating are all perfectly normal behaviors that should be embraced and accepted by the American people. When most people tune into a “family TV station” they expect to find shows that support good moral character traits; honesty, compassion, chivalry, etc. However, ABC family seems to have taken a much different approach to family TV.

They have one show called Pretty Little Liars. This show features four pretty teenage girls who are united in their lie. The show makes light of the lying behavior and portrays it as the hip thing to do. Rather than come clean about their actions, they tell more lies to cover up the other lies. Here’s an excerpt from the show’s website:

Rosewood is a perfect little town. So quiet and pristine, you'd never guess it holds so many secrets. Some of the ugliest ones belong to the prettiest girls in town -- Aria, Spencer, Hanna and Emily, four estranged friends whose darkest secrets are about to unravel. One year ago, Alison, the Queen Bee of their group, disappeared and the girls swore they'd never tell what really happened that night. They thought their secrets would bond them together, but just the opposite is true. Then again, who's to say what the truth is in Rosewood. It seems everyone in town is lying about something. Now, as the mystery surrounding Alison's disappearance resurfaces, the girls begin getting messages from "A," saying – and threatening – things only Alison would know. But it couldn't be Alison. Could it? Whoever it is, they seem to know all the girls' secrets, and seem to be watching their every move. The girls are friends again, but will they be there for each other if their dark secrets come to light?

But that’s not all. Literally, right after that show there’s another show called the Lying Game. Really, ABC Family? As if one full of hour of making lying seem fun, exciting and hip wasn’t enough, they put their audiences right through another hour of the same rhetoric. Here’s the description of this show:

Inspired by the Sara Shepard (Pretty Little Liars) book series of the same name, The Lying Game follows long-lost twins Emma and Sutton. Separated under mysterious circumstances, Sutton was adopted by the wealthy Mercer family in Phoenix, while Emma grew up in the foster system. When the twins reunite as teenagers, they keep it a secret. While Sutton goes in search of the truth, Emma takes over her life and discovers more secrets and lies than she could have imagined.It's a season of secrets, seduction and life-and-death stakes as the twins continue to expose the skeletons in their family closet. Emma and Ethan's love is stronger than ever, but their relationship is tested by questionable motives and accusations. With Sutton's disappeance, Emma and Ethan don't know whether Sutton is missing or dead. Meanwhile, Char's aunt Annie has returned to town after many years, bringing back old memories and secrets that Alec and Ted would like to keep in the past.

And then let’s not forget about Secret Life of the American Teenager. One more show spouting the same rhetoric as the others.

The teens at Grant High are living life in the fast lane. Between their love triangles, secrets, drama, accusations, gossip, confusion, and scandalous rumors, there's never a dull moment. The he-said, she-said gets intense! Their parents' lives are just as complicated. From paternity questions to happy reunions and unexpected romances (past and present), there's always something going on. You can't stop watching, because you've just gotta know what'll happen next.

I mean, sure, everyone knows that an espionage thriller is full of lies. But those lies are sold under the guise of national security, life and death, King and Country, millions of people will die if we tell the truth kinds of lies. And, from a pragmatic viewpoint I understand the need for those lies. Oh, what’s that you say Mr. Terrorist? You’d like to know the exact position of our US troops? Sure. Here you go…  There’s certain information that you just shouldn’t divulge.

My problem with these shows is that there’s no underlying justification for these lies other than they’re fun, or they keep people from facing the consequences of their actions. Is this really the message that we want to be sending to our youth?  And yes, I can hear the critics now;  well, if you don’t like the shows then find something else to watch. I get that, but that’s not my point. I make it a point not to watch the shows in question.

My point is the fact that these show even exist in the first place. In the last 60 years TV has gone from Leave it to Beaver, I love Lucy, Dragnet and Perry Mason to shows about lying, cheating, murder and theft. I understand that society has changed drastically over the last 50 years too and that TV has naturally changed along with it. However, I think that as a society and a culture we need to stop playing games and passing the blame and take accountability for our collective actions. Lying is not fun, and being lied to is even worse. If we want people to stop lying as a behavior, then we need to stop idolizing it with TV and other media. But, I do realize that there’s always the possibility that I’m becoming somewhat cynical too.

Sources:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703597804576194563288753204.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2080398/Facebook-cited-THIRD-divorces.html

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/12/italy-divorce-marriage-antonio-rosa

http://abcfamily.go.com/shows/pretty-little-liars/

http://abcfamily.go.com/shows/secret-life-american-teenager

http://abcfamily.go.com/shows/lying-game