Friday, May 21, 2010

Fighting injustice with more injustice

SMOKERING SAID:

“From all I've read about affirmative action, its proponents don't see it as the final and ultimate good, simply a necessary and temporary corrective. If and when racism ceases and POC have truly equal opportunities, affirmative action will not be necessary - and I haven't seen anyone suggest it should continue beyond that point.”

i) In a fallen world, racism will never cease.

ii) Affirmative action discriminates against POC in case you’re the wrong POC. If you’re Asian-American, then affirmative action discriminates against you because Asian-Americans are “overrepresented” in college.

iii) BTW, an unspoken assumption of your claim is that only whites are racist. Couldn’t be that POC are ever racist. No, racism is a one-way street.

“In fact, the bloggers I've read on the topic are transparent about considering it a necessary evil.”

Well, if you only read bloggers who reflect a certain ideological slant…

“What is your solution to the issue, if you are anti-affirmative action? Do you affirm that there is a problem with white people in positions of power giving other white people privileges over POC due to conscious and unconscious biases?”

Since you’re given me no reason to accept your racist stereotyping, why should I offer a solution to your prejudicial claim?

“Do you agree that being black results in decreased opportunities (AA aside) in education and the workforce regardless of other personal qualities?”

Why would I accept a sweeping claim like that?

“Do you admit that various races are not on an equal footing in the USA due to decades or centuries of small-scale and systemic racism?”

What about more salient factors like rampant single motherhood, a culture of dependence (welfare), a drug subculture, bad role models (e.g. hip-hop “artists”), &c.?

“Do you think something should be done about this?”

Done by whom? I don’t share your racial paternalism.

“Do you think the current racial discrimination is better than the legalised discrimination that AA mandates…”

You have a habit of posing loaded questions, which beg the question by building tendentious assumptions into the question.

I also don’t think that we should rectify injustice with injustice.

“Even though the latter has benefits to oppressed people…”

Throughout your comments you assume what you need to prove. Here’s what a black economist has to say:

In the United States, where many group preferences have sought to justify themselves as counterweights to discrimination that would otherwise prevail, such “discrimination” often turns out to be statistical “under-representation” in desirable occupations or institutions. The implicit assumption, tenaciously held, is that great statistical disparities in demographic “representation” could not occur without discrimination. This key assumption is seldom tested against data on group disparities in qualifications. For example, as of the year 2001, there were more than 16,000 Asian American students who scored above 700 on the mathematics SAT, while fewer than 700 black students scored that high—even though blacks outnumbered Asian Americans several times over. Data such as these are simply passed over in utter silence—or are drowned out by strident assertions of “covert” discrimination as explanations of a dearth of blacks in institutions and occupations requiring a strong background in mathematics.

False beliefs are not small things, because they lead to false solutions. In the field of medicine, it has long been recognized that even a false cure that is wholly harmless in itself can be catastrophic in its consequences if it substitutes for a real cure for a deadly disease. Proponents of affirmative action cannot console themselves for their false assumptions on grounds that their intentions were good, because social quackery likewise substitutes for real efforts to deal with real problems that can tear a society apart. Despite an orientation of asking what “we” can do for “them,” those who want to see blacks advance in fields requiring a mathematics background need to confront black students with a need to master this subject, even if that means giving up other diversions and giving up attitudes that doing academic work is “acting white.” This will win few friends and fewer votes. But the question is whether one is serious about results for others or simply wants to feel good about oneself.

Such data as can be gleaned from a variety of private sources in the United States suggest that the more fortunate American blacks receive a disproportionate share of the benefits going to blacks as a whole in the United States, just as the more fortunate Malays tend to benefit most from affirmative action in Malaysia or the more fortunate untouchables benefit from affirmative action in India.

Affirmative action programs also generate major social costs that fall on the population as a whole. Losses of efficiency are among these costs, whether because less-qualified persons are chosen over more-qualified persons or because many highly qualified members of non-preferred groups emigrate from a society where their chances have been reduced. However, the cost of inefficiency is overshadowed by the cost of intergroup polarization, violence, and loss of lives. Bloody and lethal riots over affirmative action in India are the most obvious examples, but there have also been young brahmins who have died by setting themselves on fire in protest against policies which have destroyed their prospects.

As the country which has had preferences and quotas for the less fortunate longer than any other, India presents the clearest historical picture of their consequences, as well as the clearest statistical picture. Its history is not one to encourage other countries to follow in India’s footsteps, much less the footsteps of Sri Lanka.

The history of blacks in the United States has been virtually stood on its head by those advocating affirmative action. The empirical evidence is clear that most blacks got themselves out of poverty in the decades preceding the civil rights revolution of the 1960s and the beginning of affirmative action in the 1970s. Yet the political misrepresentation of what happened—by leaders and friends of blacks—has been so pervasive that this achievement has been completely submerged in the public consciousness. Instead of gaining the respect that other groups have gained by lifting themselves out of poverty, blacks are widely seen, by friends and critics alike, as owing their advancement to government beneficence.

Within the black community itself, the possible ending of affirmative action has been portrayed as a threat to end their economic and social progress. Thus whites are resentful and blacks are fearful because of policies which have in fact done relatively little, on net balance, to help blacks in general or poor blacks in particular. Among black students in colleges and universities, those admitted under lower standards face a higher failure rate and those admitted under the same standards as other students graduate with their credentials under a cloud of suspicion because of double standards for minority students in general.

One of the most widely used defenses of group preferences and quotas is that there are precedents for them. In college admissions, for example, there have been preferences for athletes and for alumni children. Merit criteria have not been universal in other institutions either. Why then the objections to racial or ethnic preferences or preferences for women? As a strategic argument, this arbitrarily puts the burden of proof on critics of affirmative action, as if the demonstrable social costs of this program needed no justification. But of all justifications, precedent is one of the weakest. Everything that has ever been done wrong—from jaywalking to genocide—has had precedents. Any justification or criticism of affirmative action must be based on its actual consequences. If we took the argument from precedents as conclusive, then nothing could ever be corrected until there was perfection in everything else.


http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3010426.html

22 comments:

  1. I gotta say that few things offend me more than racist white liberals, with their racist white guilt, impugning racist motives to me. When I consider the attributes of a person, race is just about the lowest thing on the list for my consideration.

    It also offends me that someone thinks that because of the color of my skin, *I* owe someone else money for reparations. Not only have I never owned slaves, my family were abolitionists. Yet I am lumped in with slave owners, *solely because of the color of my skin*, and then I am told not to be a racist by these same people when I object to them stealing my money for "social justice."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Judging by Wikipedia's description of the general concept of "affirmative action," I think it is both a) unjust and oppressive and b) could never actually accomplish what it intends.

    Affirmative action is unjust and oppressive because it requires a government to step over the constitutional and God-given boundaries of their authority by both coercing firms and organizations and redistributing wealth (stealing from group A to give to group B).

    Affirmative action could never accomplish its goals because a) as Steve mentioned, racism is an unavoidable feature of a fallen world and will exist as long as the world is fallen, b) a color-based incentive or quota for firms will become a disincentive for real competition--it just rigs the deck in favor of the minority who don't have to work as hard to compete with their majority peers, c) there is no such thing as "equal opportunity"--everyone has different gifts, experiences, personalities, skills, and most importantly, different connections. There can be no "one size fits all" AA policy which maximizes economic productivity without forcing firms to utilize lower-quality human resources.

    In any case, if the alleged "white people in positions of power" are self-consciously disqualifying POC from job opportunities at their firm, then it's their economic loss if the POC is just as or more competent than his or her competitors for that position.

    Also, there's a thousand reasons why a firm might disqualify a job applicant. As Steve pointed out, the unfortunate influence of the cultivated black "hip-hop" subculture is enough to make any thinking person wary of those--black or white--affected thereby.

    Bottom line: if a POC IS NOT as equally qualified as his competitors, then there's no reason why some firm should be forced to hire him. If he IS just as competent, then the racist firm which spurns him suffers the opportunity cost of its racism, and the POC finds a job at a non-racist firm. The scales of justice are balanced, and everybody's happy, right?

    ReplyDelete
  3. (OFF-Topic)

    Dear Peter Pike (and Steve),

    What do you think of this "Evangel" post critiquing presuppositionalism called "A Problem in Presuppositional Apologetics?".

    If you want to answer this off-thread, please e-mail me at truthunites@hotmail.com.

    thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is a heretical moral systemic problem.

    I am a California Indian.

    My father did well for himself.

    How? He was afforded scholarships and utilized them to get himself educated out of his "old" identity.

    I have been over to Africa a lot.

    One occasion, I was at the restaurant of the finest hotel in the capital city, Freetown, Sierra Leone. My host and I were having breakfast. In walks a couple of guys from Detroit, Mich. Both were black. They came up to our table talking trash and making some off color remarks about me being there.

    My host got visibly upset and then told them to go somewhere else, in fact, go back to your racist America, blacks over here don't think that way.

    Later in the day I was invited to his home. He was well off and boy did he have servants! A lot of servants! All were blacks. All were from poor "interior" Tribes and some were from neighboring countries.

    I got to talk to some of these servants that day and found out a lot about racism as it is perceived within the harsh realities of that Black Continent! I have seen the same in about a dozen or so other African countries I have been to.

    It doesn't matter from whence you come. We all come from one race. It's the disparity of the circumstances we find ourselves that we should rejoice in:

    1Pe 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.
    1Pe 2:19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly.
    1Pe 2:20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.


    1Pe 4:9 Show hospitality to one another without grumbling.
    1Pe 4:10 As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace:
    1Pe 4:11 whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies--in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

    Oh, and one more thing:::>
    And get out the vote and get politicians elected into office who will abolish AA! :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. TUAD,

    It's not a post critiquing presuppositionalist *per se*, just one argument some presuppositionalists employ.

    Second, the post didn't seem to capture the transcendental premise of Van Til's argument. As I understand it, the modal claim should be if possibly p or possibly ~p then
    God G: (<>p v <> ~p) --> G.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Paul,

    Thanks for your reply. (My grasp of formal logic symbolism is really rusty, but...)

    If I understand what you're saying, the premise that Adam Omelianchuk should have used to represent the TAG argument is:

    "Whether P exists or not, God exists... regardless!"

    How far off am I?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes, racism will never cease in a fallen world. Neither will spousal abuse, but that doesn't mean laws can't be enacted to outlaw some forms of it, which may eventually result in a societal shift away from certain manifestations if it. (That's not to say AA will succeed in that, or that it's a good way of doing it; just that the fact that no law will succeed in curing sin is not in and of itself a reason not to enact that law.)

    "ii) Affirmative action discriminates against POC in case you’re the wrong POC. If you’re Asian-American, then affirmative action discriminates against you because Asian-Americans are “overrepresented” in college."
    True.

    "iii) BTW, an unspoken assumption of your claim is that only whites are racist. Couldn’t be that POC are ever racist. No, racism is a one-way street."
    Unspoken indeed, as I never said anything like that. I've heard people say that in academic discourse racism equals prejudice plus power on a systemic level, so that while a Black person in America could be prejudiced he couldn't technically be racist (being in the non-powerful group). The dictionary definition of racism doesn't seem to support that, however. I certainly believe that people of all colours can be prejudiced; but that's not what we're talking about. Universities in America are very largely controlled by white people.

    "Well, if you only read bloggers who reflect a certain ideological slant…"
    Well... what? It's worth mentioning, because you don't seem to be aware of that ideology.

    "Since you’re given me no reason to accept your racist stereotyping, why should I offer a solution to your prejudicial claim?"
    It is racist stereotyping to state that white people have conscious and unconscious biases towards POC? I'm stating a social trend, just as you later state social trends in the Black community towards single motherhood and a drug culture.

    I wasn't aware that anyone denied the existence of racism in hiring and applications, but here are a few articles on the topic:

    http://www.jobbankusa.com/News/Hiring/hiring100803a.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/us/01race.html?_r=1
    http://www.collegerecruiter.com/insightblog/003515.php
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jan/01/job-discrimination-anonymous-cvs-report

    "Why would I accept a sweeping claim like that?"
    Why wouldn't you? :p See the articles above. Even having a name that "sounds" Black is enough to prevent some people getting hired; surely that indicates racism to you?

    "What about more salient factors like rampant single motherhood, a culture of dependence (welfare), a drug subculture, bad role models (e.g. hip-hop “artists”), &c.?"
    I don't see that they're more salient in terms of getting hired or accepted to colleges.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Done by whom? I don’t share your racial paternalism."
    On Triablogue you frequently call for the government to fix injustice - for example, outlawing abortion. You don't dismiss that as "paternalism" towards the fetuses. What makes you say this isn't the government's problem, while other injustices are?

    Incidentally, I'm not necessarily in favour of affirmative action. I believe systemic racism is a problem and results in plenty of POC being denied jobs in favour of equally qualified white people for no reason other than race; and I think something should be done about it. I don't know if AA is effective or the proper solution, and I'm open to arguments that it isn't. My initial post was simply in response to your accusing AA proponents of being hypocritical, which I felt was simplistic. I'd like a charitable discussion on this, if you're up for that.

    "I also don’t think that we should rectify injustice with injustice."
    So how do you think we should rectify it? I'm not trying to cause a fight here; I'm curious. Now you've admitted that injustice exists, what is the next step?

    The quote you cited mentions hiring *less* qualified POC instead of white, which is certainly a poor solution. But at the same time, people's resumes are being chucked out because they have Black-sounding names, and that's not a good thing either.

    "b) a color-based incentive or quota for firms will become a disincentive for real competition--it just rigs the deck in favor of the minority who don't have to work as hard to compete with their majority peers"

    There are a LOT of POC out there. It's not like a company would need to be stuck with a poor worker. Nor would any companies with brains hire underqualified POC. Smart, capable, useful POC do exist. :p

    "c) there is no such thing as "equal opportunity"--everyone has different gifts, experiences, personalities, skills, and most importantly, different connections."
    Yes - "equal opportunity" is a silly phrase. But "different connections"? Being friends with the boss' son is one thing; having a white-sounding name is something else.

    "In any case, if the alleged "white people in positions of power" are self-consciously disqualifying POC from job opportunities at their firm, then it's their economic loss if the POC is just as or more competent than his or her competitors for that position."
    And the POC's loss is the competitors are also white people in positions of power and they can't get a job at all.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Smokering said:
    ---
    It is racist stereotyping to state that white people have conscious and unconscious biases towards POC?
    ---

    Yes, it is.

    Show me one minority who I've discriminated against. Show me one minority who was unable to get a job because of me. Show me one minority who was not allowed into college because of me.

    Because I'll show you that I can be 500% better at a job than a minority, and I will still not get hired because of some quota that I had nothing to do with. And I will show you all the scholarships I was UNABLE to get despite being third in my class because I wasn't an undocumented female transgendered Muslim Somalian of Hispanic descent.

    Bottom line: there will never be a white history month; there will never be a National Men's Day; I will never be able to say, "I am proud to be a white male" without being accused of racism and sexism. White men are the only group around now who are *allowed*, indeed *encouraged*, to be discriminated against.

    In as much as a free market will hire the best people for the job, regardless of race, gender, creed, or whatever, the proper way to avoid the injustice of bad hiring practices is to allow the market to be free. It will automatically weed out racist employers.

    Put it this way: if a black person can do a better job than a white person, the company that hires the black person will have an advantage over the company that discriminates against black people. The only factor that the market is concerned with is "Can this person do the job in such a way that the company can make a profit?" Nothing else matters, and smart businesses know that. Therefore, even if it takes generations, in the end racist employers will lose out.

    But if, instead of allowing free market principals to govern, someone forces a company to hire a worse employee solely to maintain an arbitrary quota, put in place by politicians and not the market, then you will only *HURT* the market. Not only are companies being shot in the foot by being required to hire substandard employees, but the substandard employees know they don't have to work as hard to maintain their job, and those who are forced to pick up the slack can feel only resentment. In other words, instead of fixing racism, affirmative action CAUSES it by making those who are unable to get a job (qualified whites) bitter and angry toward the minorities who get a job they don't qualify for.

    The same thing applies with scholarships for school.

    The only fair method is to abolish quotas and affirmative action, and go by strict merit.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Smokering said:

    Universities in America are very largely controlled by white people...

    Hi, Sarah.

    Hm, I'm not so sure about that though. It seems like a generalization to me.

    First off, not all "white people" are cut from the same cloth. You can't lump them all in together.

    BTW, some "white people" suffered quite a bit of racism in America as well (e.g. Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans).

    And even if it's true that universities in America are largely controlled by "white people" (which I'm afraid I don't agree with), it doesn't necessarily indicate racism, as it sounds like that's what you're suggesting. For instance, as far as I'm aware, WTS is largely "controlled" by "white people." But they're quite tolerant (e.g. they admit scores of minorities as well as international students). So I don't see how it's ipso facto racism for "white people" to be in "control" over college or university administration.

    Obviously it's because WTS is a Christian university striving to live by biblical morals. But the point here is it's not really about the color of someone's skin so much as it is about their moral and ethical compass.

    Moreover I'd think Howard University and others would object to such a statement. I mean I'd think they'd think they have had a considerable influence across the various historically black universities (if not further). See here for a list of historically black colleges and universities in the United States.

    Similarly, so would a lot of Hispanic Americans. See here for the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities.

    On a smaller scale, Native Americans (Indians) have had control over various colleges and universities too. See here.

    Likewise various University of California campuses have had many minorities in administrative (management) and related positions in the past (e.g. chancellor, provost).

    Same with the California State Universities.

    Also, there are plenty of minority professors throughout the US who may not work directly in university administration but who have nevertheless had a huge influence on curricula and the like.

    Overall my impression is that mainline univerisities in America (e.g. Harvard, Yale) bend over backwards to hire minorities in university and faculty administrative and management positions and the like. Also, they bend over backwards to hire liberal-minded "white people" who support their agenda.

    We could go on.

    But at the same time, people's resumes are being chucked out because they have Black-sounding names . . . having a white-sounding name is something else.

    But how do you know if a name is "black-sounding" or "white-sounding" though? For example, many African Americans (including my own family members) have inherited their last or surnames from their past slave masters.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Show me one minority who I've discriminated against. Show me one minority who was unable to get a job because of me. Show me one minority who was not allowed into college because of me."
    Obviously I can't do that, not being Johnson to your Boswell. But it's certainly plausible your past employers chose you over an equally qualified POC because of your skin colour, or that a POC with precisely your talent and determination was rejected from a college that accepted you because of your whiteness. The articles I linked to above cite instances of that very thing happening.

    Also, even if these things never occurred in your instance, that hardly makes my original statement racist - any more than Steve's mention Black single motherhood would be deemed racist if a Black woman responded saying "*I'm* not a single mother!" I didn't say all white people; I noted a social trend.

    If you have been barred from positions you deserve, well, that sucks... just as it sucks for a POC to be barred from a position he deserves. The difference being, you suffer from THE prime position of privilege on the planet, whereas the POC suffers from a much less privileged position. Would you swap your colour and sex for the privilege of a scholarship and a National Month? I doubt it. Perhaps if you engaged with a few "undocumented female transgendered Muslim Somalians of Hispanic descent" you'd be a little less jealous. AA privileges are a drop in the bucket - they don't cancel out racism.

    That said, I agree that hiring people less qualified for a job based on race is wrong and counterproductive. The problem is, one can't end the conversation there. There are employers - lots of them - who will happily assume POC will be less qualified and toss out their resumes without a second glance, and I don't think that should be allowed to continue either (for Black Americans *or* other minority groups, a point Steve raised earlier). Simply "allowing the market to be free" isn't working - for one thing, it assumes the rejected, talented POC *can* get a comparable job elsewhere. For another thing, in countries without AA racist hiring is still rampant, perhaps because other factors contribute to a company's success than the excellence of some of their employees. In low-level jobs, such as my stint selling movie tickets, the most dedicated and brilliant usher of any colour wouldn't contribute noticeably to ticket sales - so why would companies bother hiring POC if their preference was for whites?

    "The only fair method is to abolish quotas and affirmative action, and go by strict merit."
    That would be fair in a perfect world - a far, far better alternative to AA. But how would you enforce the strict-merit criteria on bosses bringing their own racial biases into play? A computer system which stripped details regarding sex and race from resumes, as some have suggested? Computer analyses which penalised bosses for consistently choosing the "wrong" applicant if the other qualifications were equal? I can't see a workable way to ensure that racism wouldn't just creep right back in, leaving POC to the socially debilitating consequences of racism. And *that* ain't fair either.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "First off, not all "white people" are cut from the same cloth. You can't lump them all in together.
    BTW, some "white people" suffered quite a bit of racism in America as well (e.g. Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans)."
    Yes... I'm aware of that. If those people still suffer from racial discrimination in terms of hiring and college applications, then they're relevant to the topic just as POC are; if not, they're not relevant to this discussion at all.


    “And even if it's true that universities in America are largely controlled by "white people" (which I'm afraid I don't agree with), it doesn't necessarily indicate racism, as it sounds like that's what you're suggesting.”
    This article: http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/54_black-faculty-progress.html is fairly recent and discusses the percentages of faculty members by race – along with into a few other articles I read, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say universities in America are largely controlled by white people. Not all, sure. But a lot. And yes, it’s certainly true that there are better and worse universities (and businesses). Whiteness does not necessarily indicate racism; but power includes the ability to discriminate. Some do, some don’t.

    “But how do you know if a name is "black-sounding" or "white-sounding" though? For example, many African Americans (including my own family members) have inherited their last or surnames from their past slave masters.”
    So they probably get it wrong sometimes. I assume the creators of the study on the subject chose names based on census data.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Patrick,

    reading your comments above to Smokering, I thought of a story I read or heard about a visiting Chinese Professor who was hired by an Ivy League school to teach a semester course.

    The President of the School, because of his own particulars hadn't had a chance to greet the new Professor from China, who was hired to teach some students a curricula based on the Chinese perspective.

    After about a month or so it just so happened that the University President had an appointment at their campus Library. As he was walking up the steps to the entrance out comes this Chinese Professor. The Prez came up to him and asked if his name was so and so?

    The Chinese Prof. acknowledged affirmatively with a smile asking who he might be who was asking? The Prez identified himself as such then asked if there was anything he would want him to know about his experience so far staying in America and particularly teaching the students? And also if their hospitality getting him located in a residence and his stipend, was ok?

    The Prof. thought for a minute and said, yes, everything seems to be ok. He was pleasantly surprised with the hospitality and the energy the students brought to the class. Then he thanked him for such hospitality. Then he said, oh, there is one thing though about my experience here that amazes me most.

    Oh, the Prez asked, fearing there was something amiss? What might that be, he asked, of your experiences here that amazes you?

    The Prof without missing a beat said: Everyone's eyes are different!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Smokering said:

    Yes... I'm aware of that. If those people still suffer from racial discrimination in terms of hiring and college applications, then they're relevant to the topic just as POC are; if not, they're not relevant to this discussion at all.

    Actually, Sarah, I'm afraid you did miss one of my points. But perhaps I wasn't clear enough so I'll try and make it explicit now. Even among "white people" of the exact same race and ethnicity (e.g. Anglo-Americans, Irish-Americans) there are differences in how other races and ethnicities are perceived and treated.

    This article: http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/54_black-faculty-progress.html is fairly recent and discusses the percentages of faculty members by race.

    First off, I don't see where or how this article demonstrates that American colleges and universities are controlled by "white people." Rather it argues that there aren't enough African-American PhDs and faculty members.

    Plus I think this is looking at things backwards. It's trying to judge by results. But results don't necessarily indicate racism. The fact that there aren't as many African-American faculty members as there are faculty members from other races and ethnicities could be due to other factors besides race and ethnicity.

    But to try and fix racism by seeking to meet certain numerical criteria is not helpful, I don't think. Broadly speaking, what would better help is not equality of results, but equality of opportunities.

    I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say universities in America are largely controlled by white people.

    and

    Whiteness does not necessarily indicate racism.

    Okay, so then you'd agree with what I've said above: even if it's true that "white people" "control" American colleges and universities it doesn't therefore necessarily indicate racism is occurring.

    but power includes the ability to discriminate.

    Again, I'm afraid I don't see where you've shown that "white people" "control" American colleges and universities (e.g. hiring faculty, admissions). For "white people" to control hiring faculty members and being in charge of admissions implies things like most "white people" are of a homogenous or similar mindset in terms of racial and ethnic views, that admissions isn't done anonymously or semi-anonymously (which isn't necessarily the case at every college or university), that even if admissions were based on race, etc.

    Let alone, even if it's true "white people" are in "control" over these matters, that they're using their "control" to discriminate against minorities. After all, "power" also includes the ability to fight against wrongs like racial discrimination, which likewise has occurred and continues to occur.

    And it's also possible "white people" or other races and ethnicities are discriminated against at say African-American or Hispanic-American colleges and universities. Or even within "white people" "controlled" colleges and universities (e.g. La Raza isn't exactly inconspicuous on many college and university campuses). They might be using their "power" to discriminate against others.

    Of course, I do believe racism occurs. I've been subjected to it myself. (Although in my case, oddly enough, not nearly as much in the US as overseas.) But I don't think it's helpful to fight against racism by mandating policies like affirmative action. To paraphrase Steve, it's like fighting racism with racism. That's no good.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Smokering said:
    ---
    The difference being, you suffer from THE prime position of privilege on the planet, whereas the POC suffers from a much less privileged position.
    ---

    I'm sorry, but that's utter tripe. I haven't gained a single advantage by being a white male; indeed, I've gained thousands of disadvantages. Again, I was third in my class and did not qualify for a *SINGLE* scholarship at the university I went to. The only scholarship I got was a $1,000 scholarship to a different school that I never planned on attending--a scholarship I got because of being co-captain of a team of nerds who happened to win a particular quiz show hosted by the university that gave the scholarships to the winning team.

    Frankly, it's down right delusional to say that I'm privileged when A) I have to pay full price for the same education that someone else gets at a reduced rate *SOLELY* because of the color of his or her skin, and B) if I am not so far above the caliber of minority applicants, I will *NEVER* be selected to the same position, let alone C) the fact that I point this out automatically makes *ME* the freaking racist! In what possible universe could that constitute privilege?

    Again, I say none of this with enmity toward minorities. Race is the *LAST* attribute that I look at in a person, and it's the least important for me. I couldn't care less what color someone is, or what ethnic culture he's from. It's totally irrelevant to me. It *OUGHT* to be totally irrelevant to everyone.

    The world will never be rid of racism if the races are not treated equally. Affirmative action is racist, and it causes racism in those who would otherwise never have been racist.

    You said:
    ---
    Would you swap your colour and sex for the privilege of a scholarship and a National Month?
    ---

    This shows the complete fallacy of your position. I would rather there not be ANY special recognition for irrelevant features in the first place. It would be like saying, "Would you rather be tall so you could have a national tall month?" No, I'd rather that such a feature not be used to divide people in the first place.

    Banish all special months, and have scholarships based strictly on the merit of scholastic achievement. This would make it fair.

    So I reject the bogus foundation of your question in the first place. It assumes that it's a moral good to elevate certain segments of the population for accidental features that are irrelevant to their being praiseworthy in the first place.

    You said:
    ---
    AA privileges are a drop in the bucket - they don't cancel out racism.
    ---

    That's because THEY ARE RACISM! It's like shooting a patient in the knee to cancel out the fact that they got shot in the stomach.

    What cancels out racism is treating everyone equally. This is not a difficult concept. And if someone is a racist, you punish the person who is actually a racist! You don't punish everyone who just happens to be the same color as the original racist. Again, I've never done anything but condemn racism; my family was in the abolitionist movement (as would I be, had I the opportunity); I've never been racist toward anyone in my life. Yet somehow it's still just to punish me because someone I've never met, who is no longer alive, once was racist toward victims who are no longer alive? Explain the logic.

    ReplyDelete
  16. “I'm sorry, but that's utter tripe. I haven't gained a single advantage by being a white male; indeed, I've gained thousands of disadvantages.”
    How do you know you haven’t gained a single advantage? I find that highly unlikely. There are thousands of stories out there of POC being treated “invisibly”, being denied tenancies and mortgages, being treated badly by police, and so on and so forth. This Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege mentions some of the studies demonstrating advantages to white people over POC. If you’ve ever gotten a job, owned a home, heck, been treated nicely by a waiter, how do you know that wasn’t due to a racial or sexual advantage? I’m not accusing you of anything deliberately malicious; I’m saying that by virtue of your race and sex there are a LOT of ways you will be treated better, trusted more and given more opportunities than if you were a POC and/or a woman. (And yes, I’m aware there are also political downsides to being a white male – paternal leave being one.)

    “Frankly, it's down right delusional to say that I'm privileged when A) I have to pay full price for the same education that someone else gets at a reduced rate *SOLELY* because of the color of his or her skin, and B) if I am not so far above the caliber of minority applicants, I will *NEVER* be selected to the same position, let alone C) the fact that I point this out automatically makes *ME* the freaking racist! In what possible universe could that constitute privilege?”
    If privilege were limited to those factors, it couldn’t. It isn’t. See above. Read some blogs about race. Look up some of the numerous studies on the way people perceive whiteness and beauty, issues of race and representation in the media, prejudice in pre-verbal children... Privilege is in the little things as well as the big. As a white woman, I’m privileged too. Do I get some of the benefits Maori do in NZ? No, but I sure as heck wouldn’t want to exchange my privilege for theirs! I know at leat one of my bosses wouldn’t have hired me if I’d been Maori, for one thing – he would have been horrified to hear himself called a racist, but never hired Maori applicants because, “mumble, cough, you know those Maori, I don’t really want to go there”. Not an uncommon attitude in NZ – and from what I hear, similar attitudes exist in the US.

    “Again, I say none of this with enmity toward minorities. Race is the *LAST* attribute that I look at in a person, and it's the least important for me. I couldn't care less what color someone is, or what ethnic culture he's from. It's totally irrelevant to me. It *OUGHT* to be totally irrelevant to everyone.”
    In terms of moral worth and human dignity, sure. I wouldn’t say “race ought to be totally irrelevant to everyone” as a sweeping statement, simply because race is very relevant in certain areas of life (having a kosher Jew over for dinner, for instance).

    ReplyDelete
  17. “The world will never be rid of racism if the races are not treated equally. Affirmative action is racist, and it causes racism in those who would otherwise never have been racist.”
    OK, but we’ve already agreed the world never will be free of racism. And races aren’t treated equally – with AA, some whites are disadvantaged by POC, while without AA, some POC are disadvantaged by whites. What’s your solution? “Merit-only” societies don’t exist while racism does.

    “This shows the complete fallacy of your position. I would rather there not be ANY special recognition for irrelevant features in the first place. It would be like saying, "Would you rather be tall so you could have a national tall month?" No, I'd rather that such a feature not be used to divide people in the first place.”
    Lovely, but we’re not in a perfect world, and “irrelevant” features such as Black-ness are extremely relevant to those who have been oppressed for centuries for having those features. Oppressed groups invariably draw together and react against oppression by celebrating their distinct features – hence, National Months. To look at this and complain that, as a privileged person, you are “not allowed” a special month is mind-bogglingly petty. “I don’t judge people for having autism, so there shouldn’t be a National Autism Month if I’m not allowed a National Neurotypical Month”? Take away celebrations of difference and racism will not go away.

    “Banish all special months, and have scholarships based strictly on the merit of scholastic achievement. This would make it fair.”
    It would make it fair if all other things were equal, including equally good schools and home environments for all students, equally good prenatal nutrition, and so on and so forth...

    “So I reject the bogus foundation of your question in the first place. It assumes that it's a moral good to elevate certain segments of the population for accidental features that are irrelevant to their being praiseworthy in the first place.”
    Nope. I’m saying that both AA and not-AA elevates certain segments of the population; AA just changes those segments from oppressed to privileged people. I can see why some people feel that’s a good thing. But I’m still not convinced of the wisdom of AA, myself.

    ReplyDelete
  18. “That's because THEY ARE RACISM! It's like shooting a patient in the knee to cancel out the fact that they got shot in the stomach.”
    Giving a person a scholarship is like shooting her in the knee? That’s unique. If the “bullet” is “not getting a job”, then AA is telling the gunman to shoot that-a-way for a change instead of this-a-way, as he’s been doing for decades. Somebody’s still getting shot, but those who were being shot at for a few generations will be glad of the reprieve.

    “What cancels out racism is treating everyone equally. This is not a difficult concept.”
    Not difficult to understand – impossible to implement. That’s the problem. The government can’t just wave its hands and say “Right, everyone, we stopped AA so y’all gotta hire fairly now”. How the heck would they prevent racist bosses from saying their company of 3000 white guys just happened to not include any POC? It’s easy for someone to claim they didn’t hire a Black person for “other reasons”. There would be no way of preventing POC being barred from jobs due to racism.

    “And if someone is a racist, you punish the person who is actually a racist! You don't punish everyone who just happens to be the same color as the original racist. Again, I've never done anything but condemn racism; my family was in the abolitionist movement (as would I be, had I the opportunity); I've never been racist toward anyone in my life. Yet somehow it's still just to punish me because someone I've never met, who is no longer alive, once was racist toward victims who are no longer alive? Explain the logic.”
    For one thing, the intent of the law is not to “punish” white people. For another: the logic, as I see it, is that whether AA exists or not, people will be barred from jobs because of race; and AA changes the have-nots from people already systemically oppressed to people in a better political position, Sort of a “If somebody has to miss out on lunch, take it from the well-fed guy, not the skinny one” idea. Is it an ideal solution? Hell no! I’d be utterly against it if I thought there was a fairer method. But you haven’t provided me with any viable alternative to champion. Simply letting racist businesses be racist in the hopes they’ll eventually wither away because of it is NOT a solution, as I’ve addressed upthread.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Smokering said:
    ---
    If you’ve ever gotten a job, owned a home, heck, been treated nicely by a waiter, how do you know that wasn’t due to a racial or sexual advantage?
    ---

    How am I supposed to defend myself against make-believe?

    How do you know that your computer didn't get that last virus because it knew you were ignorant of C++? Oooh, two people can play at make-believe!!! Isn't that fun.

    You've invented this entire universe where white Americans just are racist, and everything they do is racist, so no matter what they do--even when they behave in ways that are not racist--by golly, race must be the reason. And not only is it the reason, it's so insidious that you aren't even consciously aware of it!

    And you gotta be careful because they put fluoride in the water to steal your precious bodily fluids. Don't believe me? Racist.

    You are incapable of viewing anything aside from race, and you project that view onto everyone else. I'm sick of it. I don't have to justify to you or anyone else how I got my job, but if you want the specifics I got my job because I can type at over 150 wpm when the requirement was to type 70. I got the job because I can use Excel and Word with proficiency. I got my job because I was qualified for it.

    And the black woman who hired me would laugh in your face if you insinuated I was hired because I was white. Everyone knows I was hired due to nepotism. Get with it.

    You said:
    ---
    I’m saying that by virtue of your race and sex there are a LOT of ways you will be treated better, trusted more and given more opportunities than if you were a POC and/or a woman.
    ---

    So you claim.

    SHOW ME.

    SHOW ME!!!!

    I'm waiting for even a single example of this blessed universe that I get to occupy that my minority friends have somehow missed out on.

    Just where exactly is this rampant racism? Where? Do you think the average American black man has a lower standard of living than the average black Kenyan? Do you think Hispanics are more disadvantaged to live on the streets of El Paso or to live on the streets of Rio de Jeneiro?

    I would think that maybe there's a reason that Hispanics are sneaking into the United States and Americans are not sneaking into Mexico, Columbia, or Brazil; I would think that there's a reason that black people aren't moving back to Africa, but that many Africans are moving to America; I would think there's a reason that Asians are flocking to the Pacific Northwest instead of to Cambodia.

    Must be because they liked being oppressed....

    ReplyDelete
  20. “How am I supposed to defend myself against make-believe?”
    Were the studies I linked you to make-believe? Are the dozens of anthropological studies showing racism in the US make-believe?

    “You've invented this entire universe where white Americans just are racist, and everything they do is racist, so no matter what they do--even when they behave in ways that are not racist--by golly, race must be the reason. And not only is it the reason, it's so insidious that you aren't even consciously aware of it!”
    This is a discussion about racism, so it’s hardly surprising I’m talking about race – although I’ve also discussed sexism. Again, there are studies demonstrating the existence of unconscious racism. But I have by no means stated that “everything” is racist, or that race is the only factor in people’s behavior. In fact, I’ve specifically asserted the opposite (although it was possibly in the other combox, in response to Steve’s post).

    “And you gotta be careful because they put fluoride in the water to steal your precious bodily fluids. Don't believe me? Racist.”
    Uh-huh.

    “You are incapable of viewing anything aside from race, and you project that view onto everyone else. I'm sick of it. I don't have to justify to you or anyone else how I got my job, but if you want the specifics I got my job because I can type at over 150 wpm when the requirement was to type 70. I got the job because I can use Excel and Word with proficiency. I got my job because I was qualified for it.
    And the black woman who hired me would laugh in your face if you insinuated I was hired because I was white. Everyone knows I was hired due to nepotism. Get with it.”
    I see, and this single example not only means you have never experienced an advantage due to race, but negates the – oh yes, make-believe – anthropological studies which demonstrate racism exists in America and whites have privileges POC do not.

    “So you claim.

    SHOW ME.

    SHOW ME!!!!”
    Very dramatic. I already told you to look up the studies and read some blogs by POC that mention race. Did you do that? If you’re not actually interested in finding out, stop shouting.

    “Just where exactly is this rampant racism? Where? Do you think the average American black man has a lower standard of living than the average black Kenyan? Do you think Hispanics are more disadvantaged to live on the streets of El Paso or to live on the streets of Rio de Jeneiro?

    I would think that maybe there's a reason that Hispanics are sneaking into the United States and Americans are not sneaking into Mexico, Columbia, or Brazil; I would think that there's a reason that black people aren't moving back to Africa, but that many Africans are moving to America; I would think there's a reason that Asians are flocking to the Pacific Northwest instead of to Cambodia.

    Must be because they liked being oppressed....”
    1.That assumes racism is not an issue in other countries.
    2.It assumes people are flocking to America because of its racial attitudes, not a) despite them or b) for other reasons, trading racism off against other factors
    3.It assumes they know what racial attitudes are like in America.
    4.Standards of living are not the issue here. I have never claimed that America was a worse or better place to live on the whole than anyone else; I have simply stated that racism exists in America, with which statement you agreed in your first post (“racist white liberals”). Would I, given the choice, prefer to live in a country where I was daily referred to by racial slurs, or a country where I was daily in significant danger of being raped and/or shot? The former, obviously; that doesn’t mean being called racial slurs is A-OK.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Here are some quotes from two "make-believe" studies on racism:

    The Mark of a Criminal Record
    Devah Pager
    Department of Sociology
    Northwestern University
    November 2002

    “I find that a criminal record is associated with a 50 percent reduction in employment opportunities for whites and a 64 percent reduction for blacks.”

    “Among blacks without criminal records, only 14 percent received call-backs relative to 34 percent of white non-criminals. In fact, even whites with criminal records received more favorable treatment (17 percent) than blacks without criminal records (14 percent).”

    “Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination”, by Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan:
    MIT Department of Economics Working Paper No. 03-22, 2003.

    “Abstract:     
    We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is randomly assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase. Applicants living in better neighborhoods receive more callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. The amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and industries. Federal contractors and employers who list Equal Opportunity Employer in their ad discriminate as much as other employers. We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class, from the names. These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market.”

    ReplyDelete
  22. Smokering said:
    ---
    Were the studies I linked you to make-believe?
    ---

    Way to completely miss the point. You argued from a hypothetical, asking how I knew that I wasn't given some advantage by virtue of my race and sex without knowing it. THAT is what is make-believe. It is an impossible standard.

    Again, I ask, how do you know your last computer virus wasn't because your computer knew you didn't understand C++?

    It's a completely stupid question because it's based on completely stupid reasoning.

    And to the extent that any "study" you put forward, by groups with agendas, says the same thing, they're equally flawed.

    By the way, there is also a systematic flaw with all those studies, in that they are asserting a correlation between race and such things as crime rate when that may not be the correlating factor at all. Indeed, whenever you isolate any particular sub-group of people, you will find charactors of similarity within that group that are higher than the average rate simply by accident. For example, look at baseball statistics and you might find that for a particular year, people who hit above .350 were 20% more likely to have been born in the summer than those who hit below .350. Can you claim that they hit better because they were born in the summer? Of course not.

    The problem is that people are similar to others in many different trivial ways, and these can completely accidentally be lumped together. Raup once pointed out that in the 1986 Reader's Digest, the cities with the highest populations in the world tended to begin with letters from the last half of the alphabet (New York City, Mexico City, Tokyo, etc.). Obviously if you want to live in less populated cities, pick a city with a name in the first half of the alphabet...

    We see studies like this all the time, though. "People with blue eyes are more likely to be rich" for example. It's based on a fallacy and the inability of people to understand statistical correlation.

    When people, such as yourself, have a white guilt complex, it is impossible for them to see the data objectively. That is why I demand you show actual occurances of me benefiting from racism. I don't take your unfounded correlation samples as being accurate, because they're not.

    And yeah, far be it from me to demand you actually prove your case. If you cannot show me even one instance where I've benefited from being a white male, then your argument has failed. I don't have to disprove your position--YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT.

    ReplyDelete