No amount of information can eliminate prejudice because prejudice is rooted in emotion, not reason. - GRE Issue 65

The speaker actually raises two distinct issues here: (1) whether information can eliminate, or at least help reduce, prejudice; and (2) if not, whether this is because prejudice is rooted in emotion rather than reason. Despite the evidence to the contrary, I fundamentally agree with the speaker's essential claim that prejudice is here to stay because it is firmly rooted in emotion rather than reason.

Regarding the first issue, it would appear at first glance that prejudice is declining as a result of our becoming a more enlightened, or better informed, society. During the past quarter-decade, more so than any other period in human history, various voices of reason have been informing us that racial, sexual, and other forms of prejudice are unfounded in reason, morally wrong, and harmful to any society. During the 1960s and 1970s such information came from civil-rights and feminist activists; more recently the primary source of this information has been mainstream media, which now affirmatively touts the rights of various racial groups, women, and homosexuals. Moreover, increasing mobility and cultural awareness surely serve to inform people the world over that we are all essentially alike. It would seem that, as a result of this flood of information, we would be making clear progress toward eliminating prejudice. However, much of this so-called progress is forced upon us legislatively--in the form of anti-discrimination laws in the areas of employment, housing, and education, which now protect all significant minority groups. Without these laws, would we voluntarily refrain from the discriminatory behavior and other forms of prejudice that the laws prevent? Perhaps not.

Moreover, signs of prejudice are all around us today. Extreme factions still rally around bigoted demagogues; the number of "hate crimes" is increasing alarmingly; and the cultural gap between white Americans and African-Americans seems to be widening as the level of mutual distrust heightens. Besides, what appears to be respect for one another's differences may in fact be an increasing global homogeneity--that is, we are becoming more and more alike. In short, on a societal level an apparent decline of prejudice is actually legislated morality and increasing homogeneity. Accordingly, I find the speaker's threshold assertion--that no amount of information can eliminate prejudice-- compelling indeed.

The second issue that the statement raises is whether prejudice is learned or instinctive. If it were learned, then it would seem that by obtaining certain information, or by purging one's mind of certain dis-information, one could learn to not be prejudiced. Despite popular notions that this is possible, I have my doubts because these are age-old theories but we see little evidence that prejudice is on the wane. Thus it seems that the root of prejudice lies more in an instinctive, almost primal, sense of fear than in the sort of distrust that is learned and can therefore be "unlearned." Accordingly, I also find the speaker's second assertion--that prejudice is rooted in emotion---compelling as well.

In sum, despite a deluge of information debunking our false notions about people who are different than us, as a society it appears we have not reversed our inclination toward prejudice. Therefore, I find convincing the speaker's claim that prejudice is rooted in the sort of emotion that reason cannot override.