How much does peer pressure influence breed standards?

Peer pressure is a formidable force. It makes people agree to do things that they would not do on their own.

One has to wonder how much of a factor it plays in breed officials defining breed standards and in judges evaluating animals at a breed inspection or show.

The force of peer pressure was demonstrated by NBC in a “Dateline” special that aired May 6, 2012. It was broken into several similar segments, but the last one stands out in my mind the most. In it, two teens were led to believe they were participating in judging a singing contest. The best singer, a teen actor, was hispanic. He nailed his performance. The other singers intentionally sang at a lower level. There were two other judges, who also were teen actors. They intentionally derided the hispanic singer’s talent, made fun of him and speculated on his legality in the country to see how the teens being filmed would react. Ultimately, the actor judges convinced the teens being filmed to eliminate the best singer based on his ethnicity. One of the teens being filmed was black, and her mother revealed up front that the girl had been bullied herself over race, so she should stand up to the pressure, but that didn’t stop her from going along with the bad decision of the actor judges.

Both teens seemed uncomfortable with the decision, even as they made it.

They were distraught when NBC’s Natalie Morales revealed what was really going on. The one girl felt so shameful for her behavior that she was in tears as she apologized to the hispanic actor and hugged him.

Also on the show was an expert in teen ethics, Rosalind Wiseman.

She said the situation showed that even people who feel strongly about fairness and inclusion can get caught up in doing discriminatory things they don’t mean to do.

Morales previewed the piece on NBC’s morning news show on May 5 and said to fellow newsman David Gregory that it’s “really important for parents to be specific when talking to their kids about the issue of discrimination. Tell them what discrimination can look like.”

I would argue that discrimination looks like breed inspections, and anyone who pretends to be a fair-minded person should evaluate their behavior when it comes to breed standards.

Do all people who create breed standards really believe that writing down a specific set of physical characteristics on paper for a breed is the appropriate behavior in the 21st century? Do they decide those breed standards based on their own thorough research of the topic, such as extensive research into whether encouraging Connemara breeders to breed for short, thick legs is even a sound practice? Do they agree to those standards based on their own personal conviction that the breed standards serve a reasonable and fair purpose? Or do they do it to please their peers or to avoid being the voice in the room that speaks up and draws attention?

What behavior would those same officials exhibit if the breed standards being set were designed to exclude children from reproducing? How would breed officials feel if the breed standards being described eliminated their own child from that group, in effect killing off their own genes?

I suspect their behavior would be vastly different. Survival is a primal instinct. That has to be protected.

People feel free to play with animal genetics because their human genes are not at risk. At the end of the day, that’s what allows the concept of breed standards to survive.

Morales went on to say to Gregory in the promotion that parents should set an example for their kids: “If you stand up to that person and say, ‘You know, that’s kinda of not right, that makes me feel uncomfortable,’ that’s a great message to send your kids.”

On the show itself, Wiseman concluded at the end: “How can we expect our children to do these things (stand up against discrimination) if we are not willing to do them ourselves.”