If you think you are about to read an article about white male privilege, then your expectations are wrong. I'm not going to talk about the discrepancy in how we treat whites or men as compared to minorities. I am going to address the language we use to discuss this problem. Language is the framework for understanding. It is the basis of communication.If we misuse language or misappropriate words, then communication breaks down, which is something we cannot afford in any conversation. So I am going to talk about what privilege means, how we are using it incorrectly and why that is so destructive to our understanding of the treatment of difference races and sexes.
Google defines privilege as "a special right, advantage or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people." Dictionary.com and Merriam Webster say similar things. They are wrong. In fact, any definition that uses the word "right" synonymously with the word "privilege" is wrong. A right is defined as "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way." Rights are given because of moral entitlement without regard for the inclusion or exclusion by a particular group of people that is necessary for privilege. This difference, though small, cannot be underestimated.
We abuse the word privilege when we equate white privilege to not being shot during a routine traffic stop. That is not privilege. It is a right that was denied to a black man. Not every situation is that simple and most are ambiguous, but the point is that when racism stops being an opinion and starts being an infringement of right(s) that is not a demonstration of white privilege. Of course, this does not mean privilege does not exist. When Brock Turner sexually assaulted a girl, he was privileged by the media because they focused on his swim times and not his crime. That is privilege be it because he was, male, white or an athlete, I do not know. But that is privilege, and it is important to understand the difference between that and the violation of rights that may occur.
The reason this is so important is because it explains what we believe to be an unalienable human right that belongs to all people. Everybody has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So when racism takes a life, it is a denial of that right. But when a white man keeps his right it is not a privilege of his race. It is a right that may be easier for him to maintain because of his race. If it is a privilege of men to walk home without being raped, then the assumption is that since I am not a man that I do not get that privilege. Morality and justice do not play a role in this. But when it is a conversation about rights ideals of morality and justice are present. It is not illegal to be privileged. It may become problematic if that privilege prevents justice from being enacted, but it is not inherently wrong to be privileged. Privilege is about social workings, but rights are about morality. They are intertwined, of course, because the people in a society can choose whether or not to act morally, but the two are different. Rights exist whether or not society acknowledges them. Privilege does not.
The key problem with the misuse of language in this situation is that a solution could easily be taking away "white privilege." When the conversation is framed with language like "privilege" racial inequality can be solved by removing privilege rather than by restoring rights. This however, is clearly a flawed solution. The flaw stems from the fact that privilege is a gift from society rather than a moral given. Refusing to make the conversation about rights rather than privileges denies the fact that these deaths are are a denial or rights. If no rights are violated, then anybody can be killed at a traffic stop. Equality will be reached, but not justice because it is not a problem of privilege. It is a problem of rights.
