Today I’d like to talk about “Devil’s Advocates.”

This is the person who is often situated in a place of both privilege and ignorance, but simultaneously has the confidence to suggest simplistic, often black-and-white, solutions and questions for an often complex and multifaceted issue.

As an activist, woman of color, undocumented immigrant, and survivor of violence, I have encountered my fair share of devil’s advocates to the very issues that impact my life daily.

“The Sake of Argument” xkcd web comic [xkcd.com/1432]

So how does this differ from people who play “devil’s advocates”?

I first look to an article written by Juliana Britto Schwartz called “An open letter to privileged people who play Devil’s Advocates”  in which she articulates the potential harm in using this strategy: “These discussions may feel like ‘playing’ to you, but to many people in the room, it’s their lives you are ‘playing’ with. The reason it feels like a game to you is because these are issues that probably do not directly affect you… You can attach puppet strings to dialogues about real issues because at the end of the day, you can walk away from the tangled mess you’ve exacerbated.”

Often, devil’s advocates (or DA’s) aren’t open to engaging in a real dialogue because they are so committed to proving that they’re right… so they’re unwilling to listen, learn, and potentially change their opinions. DA’s don’t want to learn from a discussion — they want to win a debate.

Interestingly, a devil’s advocate isn’t even necessarily trying to prove that their position is correct; in fact, quite often they don’t even necessarily believe in the position they’re arguing! DA’s might argue a devil’s advocate position not to prove themselves right, but rather to prove someone else wrong– they’re not arguing for their position so much as they’re arguing against yours. So the difference between someone who engages in conversation in good faith versus a devil’s advocate is that for a DA the conversation is an impersonal and abstract intellectual exercise, whereas for people actually impacted by these issues it’s very personal and significant.

Like Britto Schwartz describes, it can be incredibly hurtful, damaging, and insensitive to approach a conversation with a person about a painful experience with an “objective” viewpoint and expect the person to do the same. You might hear comments like, “Don’t be so sensitive…”, and “But I heard that…*insert story about the exception to your point here*”

This is where the idea of “objectivity” as “truth” comes into conflict. I’d like to challenge this idea of “objectivity” and the misguided assumption that someone who has not had a personal experience or investment in an issue is necessarily better able to understand it and is thus more equipped to provide critical perspective and solutions. I, along with many of my friends, particularly women of color, have often expressed our frustration with this idea of “objectivity” as truth.

Why is it that an issue or experience can miraculously become relevant and worth listening to when someone who is not directly impacted talks about the issue? It’s as if people are more willing to listen to and empathize with someone who they feel is not “too involved” or a “direct survivor” of an experience because it is more comfortable.

As I was working on my senior capstone, I came across an insightful and informative research report called, “American Perceptions of Sexual Violence” from the FrameWorks Institute. The goal of the research was to figure out some of the effective ways of communicating what constitutes sexual violence and what can be done to address this in the United States. The study measured both experts’ and the public’s perceptions about sexual violence and showed the discrepancy between experts, who looked to larger social and cultural patterns to explain why sexual violence is pervasive, and the public, who often saw sexual violence as a problem that rested within the minds, hearts, and actions of particular individuals. Interestingly, one of the main thought models that the public most often used is similar to what I have often seen used by devil’s advocates.” This thought model is called the Mentalist Model. 

“According to the mentalist model, Americans tend to view outcomes and social problems as a result of individual concerns that reflect character, motivation and personal discipline. As such, the use of mentalist models by the public has a narrowing effect—it boils complex interactions among individuals, contextual determinants and systems down to either the presence or absence of individual motivation and internal fortitude.

Sexual violence continues to be perceived as a problem solely and fundamentally created by individual moral failings on the part of the perpetrator and, on the part of the victim, the lack of responsibility to ensure one’s safety (often seen in Victim-Blaming).” (4)

While this research was focused on attitudes toward sexual violence, I find it incredibly relevant to many other social issues in our society. For example, in discussions about unemployment, a DA can be heard dismissing or ignoring the importance of systemic inequality, generational poverty, and racial discrimination by reducing the problem to “laziness.” Or talking about how “illegal” immigrants are taking “hardworking Americans'” jobs, when undocumented workers are not even eligible for the jobs that DA’s allege they’re “taking.” How people of color need to “get over it” and “stop talking about race” because we live in a “post-racial” society in which racism no longer exists and everyone has equal opportunity for success (also meaning that any disadvantage is, again, caused by the control and decisions of the individual). And of course, when we talk about sexual assault and gender-based violence and the DA references how one woman lied about her rape, thus reinforcing the idea that women are vindictive, untrustworthy, and constantly “crying rape,” or the popular favorite: “Not ALL Men…”

When we are faced with challenging discussions about social issues, particularly those that we have not experienced, it is so important to take a step back, consider the larger perspective, and listen to the members of the community who actually experience the issues that we might only talk about in the comfort of our homes and schools. Playing devil’s advocate to someone’s life experience by spurting out counter statistics and black-and-white solutions can be both isolating and damaging. It is important that we all check our privilege, recognize and acknowledge when we do not know things, and make clear our intentions when we engage in critical dialogues.

The path to social change requires community and solidarity. In order for solidarity to develop, we must practice listening to and talking with— rather than talking at. We are not all going to see eye-to-eye on everything, but by taking the first step to solidarity, I believe we can get a lot more done together.

________________________________________________________________________

Here are some helpful videos to check out!

• “Just stop talking about race” – Chescaleigh
• “Five tips for being an Ally“- Chescaleigh
• “Not All Men: How discussing women’s issues get derailed” – Slate
• “Debunking the ‘Pull Yourself Up by Your Bootstraps’ Myth”– Everyday Feminism
• “5 Questions to Help you know when to pick your battles in controversial conversations” – Everyday Feminism

UMBC Cyber Defense Lab

Verifying Security Properties of
Cryptographic Protocols with CPSA

Edward V. Zieglar Jr.
Analysis and Design Methods
DoD Trusted Systems Research Group

12-1pm, Friday, 15 May 2015, ITE 227

The design of cryptographic protocols with well understood properties is a difficult problem. Many simple cryptographic protocols that have been designed over the years by experienced designers have been found to have subtle flaws or incorrect assumptions that have led to attacks against them. Much effort has gone into the development of theories, techniques and tools to formally analysis the security properties of cryptographic protocols in an attempt to identify and eliminate such security flaws. This talk will address basic paradigms used in the analysis and verification of the security properties of cryptographic protocols, discuss efforts to develop tools to assist designers in developing protocols with verifiable security properties and demonstrate one such tool, the Cryptographic Protocol Shapes Analyzer (CPSA), available at https://hackage.haskell.org/package/cpsa.

Mobile Computing and Smart Home
Automation Systems Demonstrations

UMBC Students in CMSC 628 and 691

12:00-1:30pm Tuesday, 12 May 2015
Third floor main corridor, ITE Building

The students in UMBC's graduate Introduction to Mobile Computing class and Systems for Smart Home Automation course will showcase their cutting-edge projects and application that use mobile phones, tablets, cloudservices and smarthome sensors.

Come and enjoy the demonstrations that range from cool smartphone games to smartphone-based educational tools to location‐based mobile phone services to voice and mind controlled home appliances.

For more information, contact Prof. Nilanjan Banerjee at Sorry, you need javascript to view this email address.

CSEE Ph.D. student Kavita Krishnaswamy will give a talk entitled Robotics for Independence sponsored by Refresh Baltimore on May 20 at 7:00pm. The talk will be given at Betamore, 1111 Light Street in Baltimore. Refreshments at 6:30, RSVP online.

Robotics for Independence

Kavita Krishnaswamy

7:00pm Wednesday, 20 May 2015
Betamore, 1111 Light St., Baltimore

The future is here! In this talk, Kavita will discuss the development of robotic systems and how they provide assistance and increase independence for people with disabilities. Kavita will introduce several prototype robotic systems that support transferring, repositioning, and personal care, and focus on accessible user interfaces for control that are feasible for persons with severe disabilities.

Kavita Krishnaswamy is a Ph.D. candidate in Computer Science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County working with Dr. Tim Oates. As a professional researcher with a physical disability, Kavita is motivated by a powerful, innate force: autonomy is the soul of independent daily living that is achieved with the advancement of technology. She is both a Ford Foundation Predoctoral and National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow. Kavita has worked at the National Science Foundation's Engineering Research Center – Quality of Life Technology Center (QoLT) in Carnegie Mellon and University of Pittsburgh and IBM Business consulting services.

Refresh Baltimore describes itself as "a community made up of sharp design and development professionals, creative minds and Baltimore technologists looking to learn from one another and apply critical thinking to the industry."

The UMBC Cybersecurity Graduate Program will hold a virtual information session at 6:00pm on June 16. Participate to learn about the  program options and find out how a master’s degree or graduate certificate can help you advance in the cybersecurity industry. During the online information session, graduate program director Richard Forno will discuss courses, credit requirements and prerequisites, and admissions processes.

The session will cover cybersecurity programs at both UMBC's Main Campus and UMBC-Shady Grove in Rockville, MD. It will provide an overview of our innovative curriculum, practice-oriented instruction and flexible class schedules, which are designed for working professionals.  You will also learn about admissions, curriculum, class format and the cybersecurity career outlook.

If you would like to participate in the information session, please RSVP online.

Name: Nora Corasaniti

Internship, Co-op or Research Site: Maryland House of Delegates | Title of Your Position: Legislative Assistant

Major(s)/Minor(s): Political Science

Expected Graduation Year: December 2017

Briefly describe your internship, co-op, research, or service-learning opportunity, including your day-to-day tasks, responsibilities, and assignments.

In my internship, I write a lot of emails and answer the phone a whole lot too. But I also get to work with constituents on their various issues, which is really great and satisfying! I get a lot of free food and networking opportunities too, which are awesome.

Describe the process of obtaining your internship, research, or co-op opportunity.

I found my internship myself-- I had met my former delegate last year working as a House page and she offered me an internship. Then, when she became a judge, I sent my resume and a cover letter to my current delegate and chief of staff, who coordinated with each other and decided to hire me.

What have you enjoyed the most about your position or organization/company?

I have loved everything about it! My favorite part is getting to work closely next to such kind and influential people, and seeing how they get things accomplished like passing legislation or working with someone of the opposite party on an issue.

What have you gained from your experience that you could not have gained from another opportunity ?

I have learned a lot about presenting myself well and public image-- it is entirely too important to be careful about how you present yourself both in person and on social media!

What advice would you give to another student who is seeking an internship or similar experience?

I would say that they should always go for it--put yourself out there! The worst that can happen is that someone could tell you no, and that is not half as bad as knowing you could have gotten an amazing internship with fantastic people.

Please provide a short reflection or quote about what you liked most about your position / earning internship credit / the internship placement process.

I liked working with the Career Center and learning more about the process. Kacie Lawrence is awesome and really helpful!

Like this story on Facebook or FAV/RT on Twitter!

Like the Career Center on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

#UMBCintern