Racial Sensitivity Gone Too Far

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]nephorm wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Neph, maybe I should ask, do you feel advantaged/disadvantaged by your race? Or would you say it’s a non-issue?

I would say it is a mixed bag, and it is difficult to separate from class.

I certainly felt disadvantaged during the college admissions process, during which time I saw people who had lower GPAs and SAT scores being given full rides to the same university (and for the same or similar majors) that was willing to give me very little.

At one point, I felt as though I was given some breaks based on my race - that there had a presumption in my favor that other kids did not get. On the other hand, most of the staff knew me by name, and I had set myself up in a position in which many teachers depended upon my expertise by my sophomore year. And I did not take that into account at the time. Certainly other white kids at my school were not given the same latitude.

Occasionally I do encounter people who treat me in a different way than they treat their black customers. But this is rare.

For the most part, it is a non-issue to me. But saying that only feeds into the rhetoric behind “white privilege” theories - that the white person is not even consciously aware that he is benefiting from his race.
[/quote]

I was thinking more about this as I ran this morning. It occurred to me that I would be interested in being a black male for a short while only because of my curiosity about what it’s like to be male. Black would confer no advantage for me.

The other thing that occurred to me was that your talents and aspirations are very different from mine. All other traits remaining static, you probably would be advantaged by being black in today’s world.

202

“White privilege” is an empirical issue. As it turns out, White job applicants have a call back rate that’s 50 to 500% higher than otherwise identical Black applicants.

There is a tremendous body of research that has addressed the question of possible racial inequality, its antecedents, and its effects. But interestingly, people seem more interested in offering conjecture than in discussing reality.

203

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
“White privilege” is an empirical issue. As it turns out, White job applicants have a call back rate that’s 50 to 500% higher than otherwise identical Black applicants.

There is a tremendous body of research that has addressed the question of possible racial inequality, its antecedents, and its effects. But interestingly, people seem more interested in offering conjecture than in discussing reality.[/quote]

I’m familiar with that research. As are the other posters, I believe. I think the issue is that change is occurring so rapidly, studies conducted 10-20 years ago may already be outdated. That’s what we seem to be puzzling over at present.

Unless I’m completely lost. Which happens occasionally.

204

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Maybe I would be interested in trying out “black male” for a short while, but I wouldn’t want to be a black female. I just don’t see a single advantage beyond the college admissions process. Maybe there’s some job advantage if you’re in a bureaucratic or large corporate environment, but that doesn’t interest me. And then there’s the resentment it might engender.
[/quote]

Minority managers in corporations tend to be pushed into dead-end careers, such as head of diversity. Women managers also tend to be pushed into staff management positions. Importantly, both are taken out of the line management career track.

If you’re lucky enough to get past the discriminatory hiring process, your career is still likely to be crippled. And, of course, you’ll be making significantly less than your white male colleagues.

205

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
“White privilege” is an empirical issue. As it turns out, White job applicants have a call back rate that’s 50 to 500% higher than otherwise identical Black applicants.

There is a tremendous body of research that has addressed the question of possible racial inequality, its antecedents, and its effects. But interestingly, people seem more interested in offering conjecture than in discussing reality.

I’m familiar with that research. As are the other posters, I believe. I think the issue is that change is occurring so rapidly, studies conducted 10-20 years ago may already be outdated. That’s what we seem to be puzzling over at present.

Unless I’m completely lost. Which happens occasionally.

[/quote]

The most recent study I have on hand is Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004). Pager (2003) found the same.

206

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Maybe I would be interested in trying out “black male” for a short while, but I wouldn’t want to be a black female. I just don’t see a single advantage beyond the college admissions process. Maybe there’s some job advantage if you’re in a bureaucratic or large corporate environment, but that doesn’t interest me. And then there’s the resentment it might engender.

Minority managers in corporations tend to be pushed into dead-end careers, such as head of diversity. Women managers also tend to be pushed into staff management positions. Importantly, both are taken out of the line management career track.

If you’re lucky enough to get past the discriminatory hiring process, your career is still likely to be crippled. And, of course, you’ll be making significantly less than your white male colleagues.[/quote]

Wait, I’m on your side. The “yes, there is white privilege” side. Are we further dividing the “yes, there is” side? And…which side of that am I on?

207

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
“White privilege” is an empirical issue. As it turns out, White job applicants have a call back rate that’s 50 to 500% higher than otherwise identical Black applicants.

There is a tremendous body of research that has addressed the question of possible racial inequality, its antecedents, and its effects. But interestingly, people seem more interested in offering conjecture than in discussing reality.

I’m familiar with that research. As are the other posters, I believe. I think the issue is that change is occurring so rapidly, studies conducted 10-20 years ago may already be outdated. That’s what we seem to be puzzling over at present.

Unless I’m completely lost. Which happens occasionally.

The most recent study I have on hand is Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004). Pager (2003) found the same.[/quote]

Whoa, wait a minute. Bertrand and Mullainathan were studying name impact. That’s different, isn’t it? Because when we start talking about names we bring class markers in, too.

Which Pager? Do you have a first name or initial?

Edit: Never mind, it’s Devah, I assume.

208

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Maybe I would be interested in trying out “black male” for a short while, but I wouldn’t want to be a black female. I just don’t see a single advantage beyond the college admissions process. Maybe there’s some job advantage if you’re in a bureaucratic or large corporate environment, but that doesn’t interest me. And then there’s the resentment it might engender.

Minority managers in corporations tend to be pushed into dead-end careers, such as head of diversity. Women managers also tend to be pushed into staff management positions. Importantly, both are taken out of the line management career track.

If you’re lucky enough to get past the discriminatory hiring process, your career is still likely to be crippled. And, of course, you’ll be making significantly less than your white male colleagues.

Wait, I’m on your side. The “yes, there is white privilege” side. Are we further dividing the “yes, there is” side? And…which side of that am I on?
[/quote]

oops, I didn’t mean to make it into a confrontation!

I took your comment “maybe there is an advantage in a large corporate setting” to be a question (i.e., is there such an advantage?), and I answered it based on my readings.

In a corporate setting, you’d get screwed over, stigmatized minorities would get screwed over, and stigmatized minority women get screwed over worst. That is, assuming they have line-management aspirations. If you “know your role”, and stay within it, there may very well be advantages within the staff management function (more so for women than for stigmatized minorities, of course).

209

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
“White privilege” is an empirical issue. As it turns out, White job applicants have a call back rate that’s 50 to 500% higher than otherwise identical Black applicants.

There is a tremendous body of research that has addressed the question of possible racial inequality, its antecedents, and its effects. But interestingly, people seem more interested in offering conjecture than in discussing reality.

I’m familiar with that research. As are the other posters, I believe. I think the issue is that change is occurring so rapidly, studies conducted 10-20 years ago may already be outdated. That’s what we seem to be puzzling over at present.

Unless I’m completely lost. Which happens occasionally.

The most recent study I have on hand is Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004). Pager (2003) found the same.

Whoa, wait a minute. Bertrand and Mullainathan were studying name impact. That’s different, isn’t it? Because when we start talking about names we bring class markers in, too.

Which Pager? Do you have a first name or initial?

Edit: Never mind, it’s Devah, I assume.[/quote]

You are absolutely right, Bertrand and Mullainathan used names to signal race, which are confounded with class (e.g., Fryer and Levitt, 2004). However, the broad range of research methodologies that have found evidence of selection bias, including Pager’s (2003) study, really strengthens the inference that it is indeed racial discrimination.

As for more recent field studies, it’s a funny thing. I know one of the researchers that has done this kind of work. As it turns out, no one wants to find this type of research, because “racism isn’t a problem”.

He told me that the one year his study was finally funded, after several years of rejections, occured only because the funding organization had not managed to use its entire budget, and they needed to get rid of it before the fiscal year end or their budget for next year would be reduced.

As it turns out, his was the only proposal they had on hand, so they had to fund it. In other words, I wouldn’t ho9ld my breath for more of this type of research to come out in the near future. That being said, it’s been a while since I’ve done a lit search on this, so if you come across anything newer, I’d love to hear it. Especially if a well designed study finds that racism in selection has gone away. That would seriously make my day.

And yes, Pager (2003) is Devah.

210

[quote]rsg wrote:
This is one good ad.

[/quote]

I liked this one better

It was in related videos.

211

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
“White privilege” is an empirical issue. As it turns out, White job applicants have a call back rate that’s 50 to 500% higher than otherwise identical Black applicants.
[/quote]

Which country are we talking about here? What is the reason for the massive variation in results?

Assuming that those figures are correct, what do you think should be done about it?

Also, where do you draw the line with regards to what is considered discrimination. The average male CEO is significantly taller than average, and also tends to have a stronger jawline than the average man. While you could argue that correlation does not equal causation, I honestly believe that both factors play a significant role in the hiring/promotion process for certain jobs.

I wonder how much of a disadvantage being ugly would be in the hiring process for certain professional roles.

I recently attended two activity centers during the application process for a couple of jobs that I applied for, and I honestly believe that my height provided me with a very significant advantage over some of the other applicants.

212

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Moving even further along the spectrum, from anecdotal to entirely subjective, one thing that makes me think white privilege is a reality is that while I feel advantaged to be female, I sometimes wish I could be male, see what their advantages feel like (physical power, rewarded aggression, stuff like that). I don’t feel that way about being black. Maybe I would be interested in trying out “black male” for a short while, but I wouldn’t want to be a black female.
[/quote]

Couldn’t this mean you think black people are not significantly different to white people? In which case it actually places doubt on the whole idea of white privilege.

I don’t want to try out being black because I don’t think it would be much of a difference. What a waste of a switch. I would like to switch bodies with a lot of people in far worse situations than me just to see what it’s like (knowing that I can change back whenever I want of course :)) and yet I don’t want to try being black.

213

Black people have a lot more to prove, so whites have a higher call back rate. Big deal. When black people stop hurting themselves, they’ll have equality.

Quit having 70% or 80% babies out of wedlock. Graduate from high school. Quit treating prison as your ‘home away from home’.

Don’t give me any bullshit about equal skills, educ, and such. That’s horseshit. A young black professional has to compete in a background deeply influenced by what I wrote in the paragraph above.

An employer doesn’t want any racial/gender drama. Would any of you? NO! Why hire a black applicant? They may have anger issues against ‘whitey’, when all the boss wants to do is make money. Why take a chance on all the background crap that a black person MIGHT (repeat: MIGHT) bring with them? Why hire a woman who decides that having a baby is more important than the 100k you spent to train her?

“Fuck it, I just want to make money.”

Life unfair? Tough shit.

214

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
“White privilege” is an empirical issue. As it turns out, White job applicants have a call back rate that’s 50 to 500% higher than otherwise identical Black applicants.

There is a tremendous body of research that has addressed the question of possible racial inequality, its antecedents, and its effects. But interestingly, people seem more interested in offering conjecture than in discussing reality.

I’m familiar with that research. As are the other posters, I believe. I think the issue is that change is occurring so rapidly, studies conducted 10-20 years ago may already be outdated. That’s what we seem to be puzzling over at present.

Unless I’m completely lost. Which happens occasionally.

The most recent study I have on hand is Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004). Pager (2003) found the same.

Whoa, wait a minute. Bertrand and Mullainathan were studying name impact. That’s different, isn’t it? Because when we start talking about names we bring class markers in, too.

Which Pager? Do you have a first name or initial?

Edit: Never mind, it’s Devah, I assume.

You are absolutely right, Bertrand and Mullainathan used names to signal race, which are confounded with class (e.g., Fryer and Levitt, 2004). However, the broad range of research methodologies that have found evidence of selection bias, including Pager’s (2003) study, really strengthens the inference that it is indeed racial discrimination.

As for more recent field studies, it’s a funny thing. I know one of the researchers that has done this kind of work. As it turns out, no one wants to find this type of research, because “racism isn’t a problem”.

He told me that the one year his study was finally funded, after several years of rejections, occured only because the funding organization had not managed to use its entire budget, and they needed to get rid of it before the fiscal year end or their budget for next year would be reduced.

As it turns out, his was the only proposal they had on hand, so they had to fund it. In other words, I wouldn’t ho9ld my breath for more of this type of research to come out in the near future. That being said, it’s been a while since I’ve done a lit search on this, so if you come across anything newer, I’d love to hear it. Especially if a well designed study finds that racism in selection has gone away. That would seriously make my day.

And yes, Pager (2003) is Devah.[/quote]

The Pager study was more interesting, and supported your point (my point!). But it also supports the view, along with your mention that no one wants to fund further study of the matter, that racism/discrimination is continuing to reduce. There is plenty to support an optimistic viewpoint.

215

[quote]phaethon wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Moving even further along the spectrum, from anecdotal to entirely subjective, one thing that makes me think white privilege is a reality is that while I feel advantaged to be female, I sometimes wish I could be male, see what their advantages feel like (physical power, rewarded aggression, stuff like that). I don’t feel that way about being black. Maybe I would be interested in trying out “black male” for a short while, but I wouldn’t want to be a black female.

Couldn’t this mean you think black people are not significantly different to white people? In which case it actually places doubt on the whole idea of white privilege.

I don’t want to try out being black because I don’t think it would be much of a difference. What a waste of a switch. I would like to switch bodies with a lot of people in far worse situations than me just to see what it’s like (knowing that I can change back whenever I want of course :)) and yet I don’t want to try being black.[/quote]

I don’t want to switch because if all of my other traits stayed the same (intelligence, level of attractiveness) I think it would be worse. Not terrible, perhaps, but worse. I would have to have an increase in other traits to make up for it, I think. If I were a brilliant black woman, for instance, or a beautiful one, then maybe.

To me that suggests that being white carries an advantage. At least for females. I still haven’t decided about males. I’m having a hard time separating out gender advantages.

216

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
The other thing that occurred to me was that your talents and aspirations are very different from mine. All other traits remaining static, you probably would be advantaged by being black in today’s world.
[/quote]

I’m not quite sure what this means.

217

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
“White privilege” is an empirical issue. As it turns out, White job applicants have a call back rate that’s 50 to 500% higher than otherwise identical Black applicants.

There is a tremendous body of research that has addressed the question of possible racial inequality, its antecedents, and its effects. But interestingly, people seem more interested in offering conjecture than in discussing reality.[/quote]

I know you have a lot of faith in quantitative studies of social issues, but I also know that you are aware that such studies have all kinds of caveats attached to them because underlying assumptions must be made in order to conduct the study.

“White privilege” is a broad term that encompasses many different experiences or perceptions. If you want to measure “call rate,” you can measure call rate. But that is not the same thing as measuring “white privilege.”

I will read through the studies later… I am swamped at work right now and cannot do it this week. So I do not know if/how they control for prior income, background, etc.

As a side note, what would be interesting, to me, is to compare black children raised by white parents and white children raised by white parents, while controlling for parental income.

218

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
phaethon wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Moving even further along the spectrum, from anecdotal to entirely subjective, one thing that makes me think white privilege is a reality is that while I feel advantaged to be female, I sometimes wish I could be male, see what their advantages feel like (physical power, rewarded aggression, stuff like that). I don’t feel that way about being black. Maybe I would be interested in trying out “black male” for a short while, but I wouldn’t want to be a black female.

Couldn’t this mean you think black people are not significantly different to white people? In which case it actually places doubt on the whole idea of white privilege.

I don’t want to try out being black because I don’t think it would be much of a difference. What a waste of a switch. I would like to switch bodies with a lot of people in far worse situations than me just to see what it’s like (knowing that I can change back whenever I want of course :)) and yet I don’t want to try being black.

I don’t want to switch because if all of my other traits stayed the same (intelligence, level of attractiveness) I think it would be worse. Not terrible, perhaps, but worse. I would have to have an increase in other traits to make up for it, I think. If I were a brilliant black woman, for instance, or a beautiful one, then maybe. [/quote]

Why would it be worse and just how do your feelings signify white advantage?

I don’t think your feelings are related to any sort of white advantage. No offense intended though as they are YOUR feelings.

Does Professor X secretly want to be white? I don’t think he does. Does this mean there is a black advantage?

219

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
“White privilege” is an empirical issue. As it turns out, White job applicants have a call back rate that’s 50 to 500% higher than otherwise identical Black applicants.

There is a tremendous body of research that has addressed the question of possible racial inequality, its antecedents, and its effects. But interestingly, people seem more interested in offering conjecture than in discussing reality.

I know you have a lot of faith in quantitative studies of social issues, but I also know that you are aware that such studies have all kinds of caveats attached to them because underlying assumptions must be made in order to conduct the study.

“White privilege” is a broad term that encompasses many different experiences or perceptions. If you want to measure “call rate,” you can measure call rate. But that is not the same thing as measuring “white privilege.”[/quote]

True, and this is why these studies have to be interpreted together, rather than individually. The reality is that compared to Whites (and controlling for all other pertinent characteristics), Blacks have fewer opportunities to find out about jobs, are less likely to be offered jobs, make less money when they do find a job, and, should they break the law, receive harsher sentences. You could consider these some of the sub-factors that comprise the construct of “white privilege”

[quote]
I will read through the studies later… I am swamped at work right now and cannot do it this week. So I do not know if/how they control for prior income, background, etc. [/quote]

It varies from using otherwise identical targets of different races to including control variables in regression analysis.

[quote]
As a side note, what would be interesting, to me, is to compare black children raised by white parents and white children raised by white parents, while controlling for parental income.[/quote]

That does sound like it would be interesting. What would you be looking for, and what do you think you’d find?

220

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Doug Adams wrote:
Shedding those old labels can be seen as another step towards equal rights.

Or as a way to exercise political control by controlling the vocabulary and keeping innocent people constantly on the defensive.[/quote]

I agree neph. But I still think we should kill whitey.Even whitey should kill whitey. I’m gonna start killing al the white soldiers in know. Then I’ll start killing the Iraqi’s with red or blonde hair. When I get home I’ll kill my wife too cuz she’s white. As a matter of fact she’s a racist too. I know she married me and all but if I really think about it I’m sure I’ll find some way to prove she’s a racist too. White mutha fuckas!!!