Classism takes heart out of cohesive campus

Wednesday, November 25, 1998

Classism takes heart out of cohesive campus

CATEGORIES: Focusing on socioeconomics neglects issues like
racism, sexism

Amid the spectre of "racism," "sexism" and "homophobia" emerges
a bizarre and nonsensical new entry into the battle over
sensitivity.

To the undiscriminating observer, "classism" may seem as valid
an evil as abject bigotry. But on closer examination, this most
recent attempt by the campus left to fragment and torture the
naturally cohesive UCLA student body is simply pathetic. In short,
"classism" is a paper tiger: an irrelevant end derived from failed
logic and played up to extreme levels.

One of the things that I have found most profound is the
relative unimportance of socioeconomic status. This may seem
incomprehensible to the average UC student. And after listening to
the brouhaha over socioeconomic status and its relation to
affirmative action for the past (seemingly) billion years, it would
be easy to think otherwise.

As a case in point, I first met a friend of mine from the class
of 1997 in an honor’s collegium course during my freshman year. It
was only after he had graduated that someone pointed out to me that
that friend is in fact heir to one of the larger fortunes in the
world. Contrary to the classmeisters’ assumptions, I had no inkling
of his monetary status just from knowing and talking to him.

Likewise, it debunks the classist manifesto that I was
completely surprised to discover that another of my friends from
the class of ’97 lived in a neighborhood that most people consider
unsafe to visit after dark.

Neither of these two friends acted "rich" or "poor" – in fact,
very few people do.

Most individuals have talents, interests and weaknesses
fundamentally shaped by their G-d-given personalities and innate
preferences. People are not walking, talking stereotypical
representatives for their respective socioeconomic groups; saying
otherwise might be offensive were it not so foolish.

First of all, even in the most general terms, the notion of
class is a really, really stupid premise upon which to rest any
sort of grandiose theories of social tendencies. A basic example:
communism.

Communists liked to talk about class a lot, and they even based
their entire politico-economic philosophy on class. This philosophy
was followed to the letter until the mighty nations fell amid
unnumbered masses crying, "Wow, now we’re all part of a
disgruntled, oppressed lower class – this sucks!"

And as if this weren’t proof enough that classism as an academic
construct is ridiculous, one only needs to look to the headlines to
see more thoroughly convincing proof that classism is an invalid
premise.

For instance, right now the United States is being run by a
backwoods, razorback-wrestlin’ bubba hand-in-hand with a
Harvard-educated senator’s son. Guess which one’s the cash-hungry
power-slut and which one’s the mild tempered family man trying to
save the wilderness. If you’re a classist, you’re the proud owner
of one very incorrect answer. Although the "upper classes" (in a
classist’s view) are typically ruthless tyrants, one can see here
that it just doesn’t work like that.

Likewise, the ousted conservative prime minister of Britain,
known for his adherence to fewer government handouts and
state-owned enterprise, was a primary school dropout. Former prime
minister John Major grew up amid the poverty incorrectly assumed to
mesh seamlessly with certain working-class, anti-business
rebelliousness. Can classist analysis explain reality? Sources
point to "no."

So, you may ask, "What does any of this international
communist-British-hillbilly conspiracy have to do with me, the
red-blooded, livin’-in-the-city,
spendin’-$8-for-eight-ounces-of-orange-juice-at-Treetop
student?"

Plenty.

First of all, students should remember that crackpot ideas come
from two places: Washington, D.C., and elite American universities.
That there is seldom an objection raised when "classism" is thrown
in right next to "racism" on the long list of latter-day evils that
end in "-ism" means that as rational citizens, most of us are not
doing our jobs – namely looking askance at people who spout
nonsensical ideas.

Frankly, as students at one of the great, potential
bad-idea-in-a-fancy-wrapper factories of planet Earth, simply
allowing UCLA’s amassed tenured faculty to throw our college’s
reputation around like an intellectual Frisbee is unacceptable.
When the Frisbee lands in the mud, it’s our problem; if classism
becomes the next new soda, I’d like to see UCLA’s name squeaky
clean of collective academic blame.

Second, if I was a little harsh on the faculty just then, I’ll
even the score up a little: the classism myth is being pushed just
as much by misguided students as misguided faculty. Why is this a
problem? Put two and two together: all UCLA students are within
three and three-quarters years of becoming the proud owner of a
prestigious diploma, the great international high-wage meal
ticket.

If you are hearing about the class divide between UCLA students,
you are hearing about the class divides among thousands of people
imminently capable of receiving a "Get out of low-wage job free"
card.

A UCLA student worrying about class differences is like someone
fretting over who gets the fullest little bag of peanuts on the 747
flight to Xanadu. We are lucky to be at UCLA because, chances are,
most of us are going to do well. Quit fidgeting – accept the truth:
living without a car and having to do $4,500 worth of work a year
isn’t so brutal that it drives reasonable people to insanity within
four years (well, as long as that person isn’t me anyway).

So what does all of this mean? A couple of things.

For starters, when people start talking about classism, either
tune them out immediately, or (better yet) feel free to interrogate
them on the subject. It likely will take only a few questions to
elicit a stumble or obvious breach of logic from your local
class-backer.

The person you’re talking to is probably only mentioning
classism because he or she has consistently heard that term thrown
into intellectual discussions between "racism" and "homophobia"
(two actual vices of modern society) on the list of "things that
politically active American citizens fought this year."

This is how pseudo-intellectual drivel spreads. Help stop the
tide.

Secondly, continue to do what UCLA students have consistently
done since I’ve matriculated – hang out with people you like
regardless of socioeconomic background. Do fun things together that
do not require vast sums of liquid cash.

My freshman year, I was the envy of all dorms because I lived in
the posh Sunset Village. But there was no reason for this jealousy;
if you were to stroll around the other resident halls, you would be
hardly amazed to see people having fun throwing a Frisbee around,
watching TV in dorm lounges, and messing around on public e-mail
computers.

It is free. It is human nature. It is the reason why class does
not divide UCLA and why classism is a philosophy destined for the
intellectual trash heap.

Daniel Inlender

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]