Why disease boosts discrimination, and what that costs society (video)

As COVID-19 continues to spread in the United States and around the world, another kind of malady has also emerged: discrimination.

The fact that the novel coronavirus was first reported in Wuhan, China, has placed a target on people of Chinese and Asian heritage. Across the globe, reports have spiked of Asians being verbally attacked, denied service, or actively avoided on public transit and on the street – even though there’s no evidence to suggest that Asians are more likely to spread the disease. Chinatowns have been especially hard hit, with the fallout beginning even before social distancing policies forced restaurants and other businesses to suspend operations. Some public officials continue to refer to COVID-19 as the Chinese or Wuhan virus. 

Unfortunately, we’ve been here before. For centuries, diseases have been used as an excuse to ostracize groups of people who are either perceived to be prone to infection, or from places where the illnesses are thought to have originated. But associating a disease with a specific minority group can put the whole population at risk, says Monica Schoch-Spana, a medical anthropologist at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Health Security. Members of the stigmatized group may avoid seeking care, she says, while the rest of the community may lower their guard.

Why We Wrote This

These days, the speed at which events unfold can leave us feeling as though every situation is unprecedented and beyond our control. But the past can inform the present. In this new video series, we turn to history to help us understand, and face, today’s biggest issues. Our first episode explores why the spread of disease often brings with it discrimination – and how we might find ways to do better.

Still, while the past shows us where we went wrong, it also provides examples of what people did right. 

This episode asks: What can we learn from the consequences of this attitude around past pandemics? And how can we do better?

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.