Welcome to the age of the victim: an age where workers are “disabled” because they drink too much or abuse drugs and therefore collect full insurance benefits; an age where not having the government pay for sex-change operations for convicts is a human rights violation; and an age where tripping over an 18-foot-long trailer in a Sam’s Club parking lot can mean a multi-million dollar settlement from parent company Wal-Mart.

There is money behind the rhetoric of victimology. Charges of racism, for example, sometimes do have a basis in fact, but more often than not, they seem to be little more than a useful tactic in the funding process.

Today, being a racist is the ultimate bad thing to be in America, and focusing attention on unfounded charges of racism is extremely unpopular. Combine these two principles together and subtle versions of “approve the funding or we’ll call you a racist” is an extremely effective strategy for gaining financial support.

The imbalance between actually helping victims and helping increase funding and status for the organizations and individuals who “speak for them” is often apparent.

Recently, the civil rights industry has taken the enormous moral capital of the anti-slavery movement, women’s suffrage movement and the movement to end forced segregation; then, they are spending it to promote themselves.

Those three movements had clearly defined goals and addressed issues of profound importance for millions of people. Slavery is over, women can vote and segregation is not required by state laws.

Gone is the optimistic focus on such monumental but ultimately solvable problems. Today, enormous attention is given to issues that are little more than petty political squabbles.

Where are the achievable goals once laid before us? It is figuratively as if we went from landing on the moon to orbiting in the Mir and measuring bone decalcification rates. It’s just not the same.

There are huge problems left to be solved. Inner-city violence is one of them. It would be expected that the civil rights establishment and their young admirers would be the most vocal critics of this violence and the cultural influences that glamorize it.

Yet these victims are not spoken for; instead, the topic is quickly changed.

My favorite example of verbal gymnastics to date has been “well, we can’t talk about physical violence without first talking about the violence of exclusion that causes it.” Language like that, creative as it is, ultimately is aimed at getting easy applause from political supporters and not aimed at solving the problem at hand. In this case, those supporters would be those who see white racism as the fundamental cause of all social problems.

Is bidding for the financial and political support of this demographic the same as representing the interests of victims and their families? Clearly it is not. But it is certainly more aggrandizing in the same way that leading a candlelight vigil on TV for a death-row murderer is more aggrandizing than quietly helping the family members of the murder victim.

A second huge problem that gets ignored by advocates for victims is illegitimacy. On average, few things will help a child have a better quality of life and influence later success more than coming from a stable two-parent home.

The economics of illegitimacy alone are so great, that much of the overall difference in financial earnings between races disappears when family structure is factored in. This information has prompted social theorist Charles Murray to say that much of the race crisis is really a marriage crisis.

Illegitimacy should be an issue that organizations ostensibly dedicated to victim advocacy should be outspoken about. Actually they are, but from a curious perspective.

Single parents aren’t simply “making the best of a bad situation” as previous generations would have described their situation. Instead, feminist organizations condemn concern about illegitimacy as being based on hatred.

They celebrate “women who choose to live their lives for themselves, not a man.” It’s politically savvy language, but sidesteps a cultural disaster primarily harming women.

Money, prestige and politics seem to mean more than honest concern in this age of the victim. Victims’ advocates have become media stars and politically powerful, even quite wealthy at times, but few seem to be selfless champions of noble causes.

Don’t let those who speak for victims professionally keep you from speaking yourself. Often your voice will be necessary to promote the most sensible policies to help victimized people. These policies will not always be originated by those with often complex monetary and political concerns.

---

Benjamin Studenski is a junior in industrial engineering from Hastings, Minnesota.