Among other prounouncements that were guaranteed to enflame those with propensities to suffer from “microaggressions” during his administration, George W. Bush once made reference to a “soft bigotry of low expectations” (a phrase penned by Michael Gerson) regarding what others might have assumed to be the cultural prerogatives of certain subgroups even if said exercising prerogatives were considered reprehensible in and by other cultures.
There’s another more subtle soft bigotry currently being employed in mainstream circles that hasn’t been as cleverly and accurately labeled, heretofore be tagged “sterotroping”.
(“Bignorance" was the other, actually original, option, but it was already taken and defined in a completely different context; “stereotrope” doesn’t have a definition according to Google, and the stereotrope.com domain expired a month ago. Plus, “stereotroping” bears a remote resemblance to “stromtrooping”, hopefully uncomfortable enough for the tropers and troopers.)
Stereotroping has three particular features: stereotyping entire cultural subgroups based on one member’s behavior, portraying a gross ignorance of the basics of that culture; attempting to enforce that false definition in the face of readily available evidence to the contrary; and denying the ostensibly offended subgroup the opportunity to reclaim its self-definition.
The first two aren’t unusual regarding almost any subgroup considered to some extent to be a “protected class”, irrespective of whether that designation is a salient one. The third has been rather endemic to critics of Jews and Judaism. (Oftentimes, what makes the third element so trenchant is that the barbs are tossed from within: the enemies are erstwhile Jews lobbing the barbs from within. Specific examples like the JVP and Richard Falk come to mind.)
Two recent incidents that bear this out might provide a glimmer of hope that incidences of stereotroping toward Jews might be punished in the public sphere with the same level of punition that offenses leveled at other subgroups are punished.
The first is Carey Purcell’s stereotrope-laden lament about dating Jewish men, which invited an almost immediate ferocious backlash of ridicule from almost all corners of the Twitterverse, leaving her defenders few and far between; when her editor weighed in defense of running the piece, she similarly invited ridicule.
Was this level of dogpiling disproportionate? Possibly; however, the value of the backlash serving as a cautionary tale outweighed the immediate probative value of the actual response to the actual offense: people will be more careful, even if ever so slightly. Consider Ms. Purcell’s likely career prospects, forever be defined by this piece and the backlash, almost as the UVa fabrication in Rolling Stone indeilbly defines the career of author Sabrina Erdely. Erdely, who won numerous journalism awards before her credibility was permanently shredded by the UVa piece, was made of much baser clay than Purcell and still has few options other than under the radar freelancing.
(Purcell apologists might opine that she is no less redeemable than Judith Miller, forever remembered for the WMD reports at the NYT. Consider, however, that Miller was scapegoated by the MSM and eventually found a home on the other side at Fox News. Purcell would have to do one of two things to resurrect her career, neither being likely: as she does not yet harbor a personal level of Judeomisia to go full on far-right bigot and sign up with the truly Jew hater blogosphere. If she tried to play the #MeToo card and join the intersectional movement, she might be as forcefully ejected from that movement as Kevin Spacey was when he tried to “come out” after his harassment career came to light, if the almost universal ridicule Purcell got from even the left is any indication.)
The second incident—comparably minor, but still noteworthy—was ESPN host Stephen A. Smith’s comment that top QB prospect Josh Rosen, "according to my sources, would prefer to be in New York. He’s Jewish, there’s a stronger Jewish community, he’d rather be in the New York market than the Cleveland market, blah blah blah. We don’t know, but it’s some of the things that we’ve heard.”
In theory, this doesn’t even approach the level of offense and/or stereotyping that Purcell engaged in, and there have certainly been more actual moments of offense to Jews in the sports world recently, from Chargers radio color man Hank Bauer’s one-game suspension for aiming a “Jews are miserly” joke at his play-by-play announcer (for which he was sincerely penitent) to the antisemitic Twitterverse weighing in on Ryan Braun’s 65-game PED suspension. Plus, as of now, Smith’s co-host Max Kellerman doesn’t seem to have weighed in on the statement, and Kellerman is trustworthy when it comes to these issues: he once uttered the immortal adage, on the air: “There are no self-hating Jews. There ARE Jewish antisemites."
Smith should be made aware of a few things, even if sotto voce and off camera, that might make him more sensitive to why his rant resembles stereotyping: he added a bit of a conspiratorial cast, which is an oft-used tactic in the arsenal of Jew-baiters; and he implied—even if inadvertently—that the was something illegitimate about his ostensible desire to join a jewish community, as if granting that desire would be grossly unfair to the Browns.
Smith could also be reminded that Blue Jays GM Gordon Ash traded Shawn Green to the Dodgers after taking into account Green’s desire for a larger Jewish community. As far as Cleveland having a Jewish community—and the fact that the Cavs once had a very prominent proudly Jewish coach—I’ll let the Jews in Cleveland do the reminding.
