I am in grad school now and I love everything about it. 

Well, almost everything…

There is a part of academia that just really loves itself. 

It loves creating a scholarly tribe where the price of admission is knowledge, and the unspoken wage is a feeling of superiority (over those who do not yet know).

Of course, on the positive side of the coin, academics also gain real power through application of acquired knowledge, which is very cool. Also, you get in on the “Academic Club” and it is human nature to want to belong in community.

We are tribal after all.

Learning is an excellent way to feel powerful, until that power comes at another’s expense.

In the case of academic tribes, it tends to come at the expense of the uninformed, in the form of eye-rolls and tittering with superior glee, when someone is vulnerable enough to say they do not know something; or it comes through a pompous correction when someone misspeaks or says something incorrectly (for example, using “less” when “fewer” is called for), and it is driven by a lack of empathy towards anyone who may not have access to the same information, or towards those who live in a place where actually speaking like an academic might be dangerous for them.

This is the dark side of academia – the unspoken wage of feeling superior that academics get from their scholarly achievements.

The Academic Unspoken Wage is similar to the unspoken wages earned through racism and sexism, but it also has an Emperor’s New Clothes effect to it that makes it harder to spot and sometimes more dangerous to point out.

When someone uses academia to sound like an elitist prick, calling them on it can make some of us feel even more stupid.

When we are made to feel stupid, we are often also made to feel sheepish, so in some ways it seems trickier to confront than an obviously sexist or racist statement. The dark and dangerous side to this mentality is that it shuts down diverse opinion for pious reasons (e.g., incorrect grammar, simplistic vocabulary, or incomplete information). It seems to be part of human nature. You have seen it. We all have. 

On a recent episode of Modern Family, sweetheart Phil Dunphy attends an academic award ceremony at Caltech for his daughter and tries to enter a conversation among intellectuals. They say: “something, something, Schrodinger’s cat…” (don’t they always?) and Phil clearly lacks the codewords to enter the conversation. Of course he puts that on himself instead of calling them out for being rude-ass jerks who wanted to quiz him on science before letting him enter the conversation.

But that is what we do, isn’t it?

We put it on ourselves when we don’t know something, and it feels awful.

Recently I posted on social media honoring Emmett Till. A friend thanked me for doing so, as it led her to read his profound and compelling story (about a 14-year-old black boy who was lynched in 1965 for, you guessed it, basically being black). I was thrilled my little post had opened the door for her to explore this compelling moment in US history, but someone else had a different reaction. His comment:

“You haven’t heard this story before?!?!”

He then proceeded to post on his own feed about how gross it is that liberals don’t even know their history. 

Disclaimer: My friend does not self-identify as liberal.

I do.

Here is the thing, my blowhard academic friend: one does not need to know the entire history of civil rights in the US to see the story of a slain child as powerful and resonant.

I have another friend who often gives off a misogynistic vibe, and when I call him on it, his claim is it’s impossible for him to be a misogynist because he read the entire ERA bill and therefore he knows more than ridiculous feminists.

I have another friend who told me his girlfriend was mansplaining something to him, and when I pointed out that was impossible (because mansplaining is brought to you by privilege and a desire to suppress any perceived threats to that privilege), he pivoted to a discussion of the original article by Rebecca Solnit who he claimed coined the term mansplaining (she didn’t). His position: Reading the article makes you the expert on mansplaining. Of course I should have realized that. It has nothing to do with living the life of a woman who is mansplained to constantly. 

I have another friend who expressed outraged when the DSM stopped using roman numerals and became the DSM 5 (instead of DSM V). When I pointed out the change disambiguates and makes the book versions easier to understand (for those who may be unfamiliar with roman numerals), she laughed and recalled that she did hear someone call it the “DSM – Vee” and wasn’t that funny? 

No, not really funny.

Understandable.

It does not make anyone less of a person because they have yet to be exposed to the same knowledge you have. The information found in the DSM 5 should not only be available for those who know the magic words unlocking the front cover. Information is nearly always best when it is easily consumed by all.

Look, education is like a candlestick. It can be a beautiful and useful thing, but if you use it as a weapon – someone is going to get hurt.

Being uninformed does not merit your disdain, and when others appears to know less than you, that should never make you feel superior. 

Uninformed does not equal stupid.

Uninformed simply means uninformed.

And if you want to make the world a better place, then I say we make room for informing people without shaming them.

Tell your friends...