Many of the other arguments (like one’s skin color not creating an impression of unreliability) represent rights denied to blacks, rather than privilege granted to whites.

Do you think that anyone has a right to have their skin color not be taken as a sign of unreliability? Or — does anyone have a right to have their gender not be taken as a sign of incompetence, or to have their sexual orientation not be taken as a sign of immorality? While most reasonable people would agree that everyone should be able to live free from prejudice, is “rights” really the correct framework for talking about discrimination based on individuals’ personal impressions of other individuals based on race, gender, or sexual orientation?

I agree that the article is useful in pointing out all of the issues that blacks experience daily that many whites are unconscious of, but for the vast majority of those issues, the problem is not that whites are granted a privilege, but that blacks are denied the fair treatment that is due to them.

Someone in the comments of another thread had asked what LGBTQ rights have to do with IP. While this blog is not meant to be restricted to IP issues, I think the progressive IP movement should become more explicitly informed by critical race feminism. This would better help to understand and explore the ways in which IP as well as the public domain can sometimes perpetuate or subvert power dynamics, so that IP policy could be shaped accordingly to maximize social justice. Professors Madhavi Sunder and Anupam Chander at UC Davis School of Law have written a fabulous paper to this effect.

On the resistance to so-called P.C., this is a great paper by James Boyle deconstructing the roots of the backlash.

On “privilege,” this article by Peggy McIntosh lays out some examples of white privilege, and it should be apparent how and why “privilege” in this context is distinguishable from “rights.”

No, the “You” in that sentence was meant to refer to the authors of the chapter, not a specific post. My mistake.

The point I am trying to make is not what I think it is?

“Is there another, more neutral, word that would have a similar meaning in context.“

I am afraid I will have to leave that to native speakers of English.

This is to be expected. Whenever you are being open about reframing the debate, some people will get suspicious. Changing language in order to effect policy sets off people’s Orwell senses. It sounds like double speak. The way to deal with this is to be completely open and clear about why you are choosing certain language. Some (or most) didn’t read the chapter, and consequently, shouldn’t be expected to understand what’s going on. You have to be careful to explain that the words are chosen because they more clearly state what it is the speaker actually believes in. Otherwise, you end up with the “politically correct” style backlash we experienced in the 90s. Aferall, you asking people to voluntarily change their method of discourse, not cramming it down people’s throats.

However, many people on this blog have had a profoundly negative intial reaction to the terminology. Much of this seems to circle around the varying definitions of “privilege”, not the actual point that you are trying to make. Maybe the word “privilege” is causing too many misunderstandings. Is there another, more neutral, word that would have a similar meaning in context. Perhaps “advantage”?

Jennifer and Ian, please feel free to join in the debate in the comments section as it develops. Blogs are about debate, not about lecture (IMHO).

“I understand the resistance to a concept like “heterosexual privilege.”

The way I read it, the resistance was not to the concept, but rather to the ambiguous phrase. Apparently, some people understand something else by the word “privilege” than others do.

Example: most of us think nothing of being able to walk on the street hand in hand with a lover/partner/spouse is just a given, although doing so can be highly dangerous for gay people. But does this make it a “privilege”?

Likewise for many things given as examples of “skin privilege”. We need to define the rights of gays and blacks up, not define the rights of straights and whites down, so talk of abolishing privilege is the wrong way to go about this.

Now the advocates of the term “privilege” mean well; they are trying to wake people in the better-off majority and make them more consciously aware that they take some things for granted that aren’t available to others. Still, it implies that the majority has to become worse off to make the minority better off, and it does not have to work that way.