To explain why certain minority groups are chosen as scapegoats psychologists help us out with another theory-the "symbolic" theory. This theory is based on the important fact that one thing can stand for something else in the unconscious mind. People often find themselves liking something-certain foods or places, for example without knowing why. If such feelings could be traced back to their origin, it would be found that these foods or places "reminded" people of some pleasant experience in their past.

There can also be substitutes, or "symbols" as the psychologists call them for things disliked. Probably everyone has had the experience of disliking something at first sight, without any reason for doing so.

Now, the question is, Why are certain minority groups disliked by so many people? Obviously, they must be symbolically connected with things that are very important to many people. A list of important things might include money, a belief in being kind and just to others, family life and sexual satisfaction, good health and so on. Toward all these things most people have mixed attitudes. We like them, but we also may wish to rebel against them. But we cannot properly say that we dislike them. So the dislike becomes unconscious, and can be expressed only through a substitute.

Minority groups become substitutes for important things in the culture with which they have deep psychological and historical connections. We cannot publicly admit dislike, or fear or the wish to revolt against these things. So we apply these attitudes to their substitutes.

Let us take an example of how this would work out. All of us have had the experience of disliking. a thing that is good for us. Most of us have kicked up our heels at our parents, at our church, at practices that are said to be healthful, and SO on. But some people will not admit that they would like to rebel. They pretend that they adore their parents at all times, that they always have "pure" feelings about sex. Since this is not really the case, they have to give vent to their rebel feelings in some other way. And they do so by having prejudices against minority groups.

It is not only a matter of disliking the objects of prejudice; it is also a matter of fear. When people hate something strongly, they are usually also afraid of it. It is, of course sensible to hate and fear certain things, but when the danger is imaginary there is something wrong with the person who hates and fears. Most of the fears connected with prejudice are imaginary, even though they

seem real enough to those who have them.

1. Take, for example, the fear of large numbers. Many people who are prejudiced against Negroes, or any other minority group, say that there are so many Negroes. They are afraid they are going to be "overwhelmed" or "dominated" by Negroes. If these people are asked, "What percentage of the people in this town are Negroes?" they usually give a falsely high number. The real facts are available to them if they wish to know them. But prejudiced people seem to wish to hold onto fears.

2. Another fear is that minority groups have too much power. Prejudiced people say that Jews own the big banks and run the Government. Even a little investigation will indicate that this is not so. As a matter of fact, in some countries Jews are kept out of the banking business and out of many Government posts because of prejudice.

3. There is the fear that members of the minority may be spying for foreign Governments. For World years before the Second War many Americans were afraid of Japanese spies. There many rumors of various kinds of secret work for the Japanese Government. But when it was all investigated, not a single Japanese-American was discovered to

were

have been helping the enemy. The Japanese Government knew about Americans' prejudice and hired only white Americans as spies.

A number of students have sought to explain prejudice as a type of mental disease. Some mental disorders can be traced to inadequacies in personality development, and prejudice is regarded under this theory as as resulting from a particular kind of misdevelopment.

One study, by Frenkel-Brunswic, Sanford, and others at the University of California, is based on a detailed comparison between the personality traits of known anti-Semites and the personality traits of known non-anti-Semites. By comparison, the typical antiSemite was found to be a compulsive conformist, exhibiting anxiety at the appearance of any social deviation. He appears to be a person with little insight into himself, who projects his own undesired traits into other people, so that he blames people against whom he is prejudiced for traits that are characteristic of himself. He tends to have unconscious inferiority feelings centering mainly in a feeling of sexual inadequacy. He expresses strong filial and religious devotion, but unconsciously hates his parents and is indifferent to moral values.

Another study was conducted by Professor Hartley of the at

NEW OUTLOOK

titudes of students at several colleges. His summary of the characteristics of the intolerant personality follows: "Unwillingness to accept responsibility; acceptance of conventional mores; a rejection of political interests; a desire for groups formed for purely social purposes and absorption with pleasure activities; a conscious

was

conflict between play and work; emotionality rather than rationality; extreme egotism; compulsive interest in physical activity; the body and health. He likely to dislike agitators, radicals, and pessimists. He was relatively uncreative, apparently unable to deal with anxieties except by fleeing from them."

Prejudice is indeed a complex thing. Perhaps we can best summarize our findings by suggesting what kinds of action will contribute toward a reduction of prejudice.

to

1. Prejudiced people need have an intellectual appreciation of the fact that prejudice harms them, financially logically. The gains that seem to psychocome from prejudice are to some extent temporary and illusory.

and

minority and dominant groups. Facts of this type are learned not only through books, newspapersonal contact on a friendly and pers, and speeches, but through equal basis.

3. One of the most important traditions to combat is that of racism. This can be attacked not only when it is applied to minority groups. but also whenever biological explanations are applied to any social phenomenon.

4. Legislation that penalizes discrimination reduces the occasions on which prejudice is made to seem proper and respectable, as well as eliminates some of the worst effects of prejudice. Legislation against discrimination is thus one of the most important means of breaking traditions of prejudice.

5. A tradition on which prejudice is based can be maintained only by being transmitted to children. If the transmission of prejudice through the home and play group can be counteracted by the school and church while the child's mind is still flexible, prejudice cannot long survive. Also, if the public can be led to consider that manifestation of

2. We should provide accurate information about the minority prejudice are shameful, many par

groups against which there is prejudice. This should include facts that break stereotypes, and explanations of the causes that give rise to differences between

ents will refrain from displaying their prejudice in front of their children.

6. Direct efforts to solve major social problems will not only

NEW OUTLOOK

Loyalty Oaths

IN MANY communities throughout the nation the 161st anniversary of the ratification and adoption of the first ten amendments to the Constitution was observed on Dec. 11. Speeches were made, editorials were written in honor of the Bill of Rights, which is the name we give to these first ten amendments. Many different meanings of the Bill of Rights were supplied on that day, for it seems that each man and each group has a slightly different interpretation of this important charter of human freedom. For example, one editorial coming across the desk appeared to say, in effect, that present tax levels represent a clear violation of the Bill of Rights. Most of us would agree that tax levels are certainly a whale of a lot higher than we would like to

Chet Huntley

with Justice Jackson taking no part in the decision. The Court declared Oklahoma's state loyalty oath unconstitutional on grounds that it would have penalized those who unknowingly or unwittingly or without intent to be part of a subversive movement might have joined subversive organizations.

The Court pointed out that a loyalty oath required by the City of Los Angeles for all its employees was upheld because dismissal action may be taken only upon proof that an employee had knowledge of the subversive aims of the particular organization involved. The same applies to the New York State loyalty oath; and presumably it will apply, as well, to the loyalty oath which the State of California now requires of all its

have them; but many of us might employees including teachers and

also agree that if taxation were the only strain on the Bill of Rights, we might have far less to worry about.

Perhaps the most significant statement on Bill of Rights Day came on that very day in the form of a decision handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States. It was a rare 8 to 0 opinion,

professors. It is believed, in the office of the California Attorney General that the California oath will meet the specifications indicated by the Supreme Court this morning.

Of course, inherent in all law is the question of intent. While it's true that ignorance of the law is no excuse, still in a case such