Bias

This quarter I have amassed the courage to talk about bias. That begs the question, what is bias?  Bias, in my mind, is one of those slippery things that we should all talk about, but we don't, because it begs other questions such as personal bias, journalistic bias, etc.  This is, in other words, hard stuff. Then it leads to the even more difficult question of ... political bias.

I have heard my colleagues engage in journalistic bias: "I'm using this NYT for a coaster; at least it's good for something"-- this, from a philosophy professor. Students, as well, have complained about the bias of the Times. This is a hard thing to combat. Where do I start?

Bias is a difficult thing to address. My definition of bias is a investment in a position that has the potential to result in personal gain -- political, financial, social, or otherwise. We also have personal bias, in the sense that we all have our filters from family, background, religion, eduction, which often amounts to, not just predilections, but to the positions that we take on issues, particularly the controversial ones. Is that bias, or simply perspective?

And, what is wrong with bias?  Is bias at least something that we should acknowledge, or is it also something that we should work to unravel, i.e. defend, and then be open minded about, to be available to change?

All part of the teaching. I find that I can't legitimately teach informative speaking without addressing the concept of bias. Just like the continuum between informative and persuasive speaking, there is a continuum between our personal perspectives that infuse, "simply" informing, and the bias that we reveal in persuasive positions. 

Teaching is calling me now, to stacks of papers. The bias conversation must be continued.  

At this time I'm watching the Democratic National Convention. There are so many lessons from these speakers, but I don't want to appear -- I guess too -- biased.

Here is a list of some of the attributes / qualities that I've heard in the DMC speeches:

• Clinton: inclusiveness, civility, dialogue
• Biden: testimony, narrative, signposting, vocal volume control
• Maddox:  Creating connections and conversations.

If I reviewed the speeches from the Republican National Convention, would I find the same qualities? I should try. I will try. 

Clinton, memorably, talked about the simple idea that Barack Obama, as a leader, didn't hold grudges from the 2008 election, but instead invited those who most would consider his adversaries, to join in his administration. Biden was his competitor in the primaries but, as vice-president, he entrusted Biden to oversee the end of the Iraq war and run the recovery act; he appointed Republican secretaries of defense, and "even appointed Hillary." This demonstration of leadership without being (mis-)guided by partisanship and divisiveness is a standard of leadership that merits the attention of college students, regardless of political leaning (many, I've found, at the art school where I teach, have no leaning).  Obama's actions are plain ol' "good sportsmanship" --an attitude of interaction that is a healthy part of any competition from video games to golf  -- as well as plain old cooperation, not just in rhetoric, but in the practices of leadership.