As a tutor, one of my students is writing his college-application essay on prejudice ... which has inspired me to take up this same subject. Here goes:
"Prejudice" really means to pre-judge something or someone. After viewing N events or characteristics of a particular group of people, it is human nature to draw a generalization from the preponderance of a trait exhibiting itself in this experience. This generalization is
not prejudice. Prejudice is applying this generalization to the next or N+1 person or event. As an example, if after a life among Irishmen, one concludes that this group has a tendency toward over-imbibing ... the generalization ... then upon meeting a next Irishman, one assumes that he is a sot ... this is prejudice. You have unfairly prejudged him without any evidence other than your prior generalization.
There is an unfortunate mix-up in the use of the term prejudice in today's society ... and that is to call any generalizations about WASPs, Jews, gays, Muslims, Asians, etc. "prejudice." They clearly are not ... unless of course the person making such a generalization cannot resist the temptation to apply it in the N+first case ... at which point it lives up to this societal condemnation. I know this is a subtle and difficult distinction to make, but, to me, it is a very important one. I rankle when I am accused of prejudice if I am making a generalization. This is because the accuser assumes that I cannot abandon this generalization when dealing with my next encounter under this generalization. I pride myself on being able to shuck my generalizations in such situations. (Interestingly, in this case, my accuser turns out to be prejudicial.)
Now let's test this definition of prejudice in the real world. When a Cambridge, Massachusetts policeman stopped Professor Chip Gates from entering his house thinking he was breaking in, President Obama said that "the Cambridge police acted stupidly." This is clearly prejudicial for Obama is applying one instance (questionable at that) to the entire Cambridge police department. He, of all people, should know better since, I assume, he has experienced the pain of prejudice in his past life. And now the flip-side ... the Obama administration's unwillingness to generalize with the term "Islamic extremists" or "jihadists" when dealing with ISIS and their ilk, tells me that they are confounded by the distinction made above. (Although, if I met one such militant dressed in black robes and carrying an assegai, I think I would myself tend toward prejudice.)
