There is a post in PJM (5/11/12) by Clayton Cramer lamenting, the “prejudice” of judging a person by their appearance and class membership.

For instance Mr. Kramer writes that many blacks are justifiably bitter about being “being treated as potential criminals no matter where they go” and that such treatment is based on prejudice. He further goes on to write that even when those prejudices are based on some “actual difference in the average for the group“, that it is prejudice to make individual judgments accordingly.

Interesting and thoughtful comments by readers generally go along with Mr. Cramer’s use of the word ‘prejudice’ and a number of readers admit to their “prejudices” of perceiving blacks to be more violent than whites or Asians.

This is a misuse of the term ‘prejudice’. Prejudice is holding on to a judgment in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. In time critical situations making initial and tentatively held judgments about an individual on the basis of “actual difference in the average for the group“, is not prejudice. Nor is it prejudice to make a judgment on the basis of accumulated evidence about general patterns of behavior of one group as opposed to another - as long as judgments regarding individuals of the group are subject evidential correction. The “Hoodie” imbroglio involving Fox news commentator Heraldo being a case in point, "I apologize for the language," he said. "I don't apologize at all for the substance of my advice. I was trying to save lives."

Rational people with no other evidence to go on will make an initial judgment based on appearance and manner and the relative characteristics associated with such an appearance and manner. Thus if you have tattoos and a Harley jacket I expect different behavioral patterns than those of a modestly dressed young mother walking with her child. We have to make snap judgments to chart our path in the world. I am much more apt to be cautions around a Pit Bull than a Pekinese. It may turn out that the Pekinese has a thoroughly nasty disposition and the Pit Bull is gentle as a lamb. But my initial reaction is rational. Thus being wary when, as a black or white, I find myself walking toward a group of tough looking black teenagers as opposed to a group of young Mennonites, is rational. Making time-critical snap judgments on the basis of what you have to go on, however precious little it may be, is prudence not prejudice. Being unwilling to change your perception in the face of additional evidence is prejudice. Being cautious is not thereby being prejudiced. Being unwilling to dissociate attributes on the basis of appearance and class membership in face of evidence to the contrary is prejudice. It is also prudent to suspend judgment if one is in the position to do so. In the absence of evidence to the contrary and where one does not have the luxury to suspend judgment it is prudent to act on the evidence one has or thinks one has and adjust one's position as further evidence accumulates.

A Canadian acquaintance of mine admitted to feelings of shame when he was visiting Washington D.C. and found himself walking down a side street toward a group of Black teenagers and then proceeded to cross the street. Regrettable, perhaps, but erring on the side of caution is not prejudice.