A professor admits she faked her racial identity

[bacardiandlime]

In this Medium post.

The Washington Post has a piece on it.

It's something of a doozy, she works in Africana studies and had claimed to be black. She was apparently a diversity hire, so essentially took a post that could have gone to a scholar of color.

[marshwiggle]

In this Medium post.

The Washington Post has a piece on it.

It's something of a doozy, she works in Africana studies and had claimed to be black. She was apparently a diversity hire, so essentially took a post that could have gone to a scholar of color.

Basically a repeat of Rachel Dolezal.

So, I guess "Black-passing" is a thing. I'm betting we see more of these as time goes on. It raises an interesting question. If a white person "passes" as black, then what does that say of any "oppression" they experience, since by definition, it can't be because they are black?
Does it have to be admitted as a fiction, or does it get acknowledged as part of ordinary human experience, and not "oppression" at all?

[mahagonny]

So is the job open now? Maybe Coleman Hughes is interested.

[marshwiggle]

So is the job open now? Maybe Coleman Hughes is interested.

If he doesn't vote for Biden, "he ain't black", so maybe not.

[Parasaurolophus]

Ugh. That is, indeed, very bad.

So, I guess "Black-passing" is a thing. I'm betting we see more of these as time goes on.

You shouldn't be surprised. If you were familiar with the discourse, then you'd know that passing in general is a thing. All kinds of people can pass for all kinds of other people.

(Whether this is strictly about passing, xface, or trans-racialism, or something else is another matter. It seems much more active than passing, to me.)

It raises an interesting question. If a white person "passes" as black, then what does that say of any "oppression" they experience, since by definition, it can't be because they are black?

A lot hangs on what's meant by 'oppression', but for a start we need to distinguish between harm and oppression. A harm is something that sets back someone's interests; 'oppression' is typically understood to be group-based injustice (so: people are oppressed when they're subjected to injustice due to their group membership).

From there, there are different ways to go. One is to bite the bullet, because it's not so big: a white person who passes as non-white is harmed or faces injustice, but they're not oppressed. Another is to focus on the structural element of oppressive structures, rather than the individual case: what makes a structure an oppressive one is that it distributes or perpetuates injustice based on group-membership--once you have an oppressive structure in place, though, it oppresses everyone it's taken to apply to. So if you're white but look non-white in the Jim Crow South, you're oppressed, too. Other options are available.

I pass as non-white--entirely because of people's ignorance, I might add (i.e. they mistake one phenotypical thing for another, one linguistic thing for another, etc.). I get all kinds of comments. All kinds. Almost every time I interact with strangers, actually (it's exhausting). Some are worse than others (the worst of all came from senior academics, actually). A group of young men once pelted me with beer bottles while yelling at me to "go back to [country]". I'm certain--although I can't prove it--that it's affected my job applications negatively. I don't think anybody would deny those are harms and injustices. I tend to think that in at least some of those cases, I was oppressed, and experienced the same kind of oppression as someone who actually belonged to that group would have. But I'm no kind of expert on the subject, and I'm comfortable with the possibility that it might turn out, upon reflection, that what I've experienced was not oppression, properly-speaking.

As I said: to my mind, what matters is oppression's structure. What matters is that it targets people based on group membership; whether it correctly targets someone doesn't seem all that relevant to me. But, again, I'm not an expert.

[Wahoo Redux]

Huh.  Anyone see her picture online?  How did she pull this off? 

I wouldn't mind hitting the job market one more time (now that things are very, very bad) but there's no way my skin tone can pass for anything other than whitey white white.

[mahagonny]

In this Medium post.

The Washington Post has a piece on it.

It's something of a doozy, she works in Africana studies and had claimed to be black. She was apparently a diversity hire, so essentially took a post that could have gone to a scholar of color.

Basically a repeat of Rachel Dolezal.

So, I guess "Black-passing" is a thing. I'm betting we see more of these as time goes on. It raises an interesting question. If a white person "passes" as black, then what does that say of any "oppression" they experience, since by definition, it can't be because they are black?
Does it have to be admitted as a fiction, or does it get acknowledged as part of ordinary human experience, and not "oppression" at all?

There should be reparations, or restitution, for the oppression experienced. she should return the salary made form the teaching job that was obtained through fraud --  impersonating a person who deserved it. She should give it to a black scholar in her field, maybe.

As I said: to my mind, what matters is oppression's structure. What matters is that it targets people based on group membership; whether it correctly targets someone doesn't seem all that relevant to me. But, again, I'm not an expert.

By this definition white people are easily some of the most oppressed in society today as we are targeted for suspicions of racism because of our group membership. (And, strikingly, to me at least,  is that much of the work that keep these suspicions in circulation is done by whites). But when I think of oppression I think of not just dislike or distrust, but preventing a person from making progress socially, economically, etc. Which would not be something these more surly subset of POC would not have as much opportunity to do to the white man, being that we have greater numbers and more wealth.
putting is simply, a guy can hate your guts, but have little power to oppress you.

[Parasaurolophus]

By this definition white people are easily some of the most oppressed in society today as we are targeted for suspicions of racism because of our group membership. (And, strikingly, to me at least,  is that much of the work that keep these suspicions in circulation is done by whites). But when I think of oppression I think of not just dislike or distrust, but preventing a person from making progress socially, economically, etc.

As I said: oppression is structural injustice (and often, though not exclusively, institutionalized) predicated on group membership. It's not the same thing as bare harm or injustice. With respect to the example you're giving (I'm assuming its truth for the sake of argument, even though I don't agree at all), white people would satisfy a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for being oppressed.

[dismalist]

By this definition white people are easily some of the most oppressed in society today as we are targeted for suspicions of racism because of our group membership. (And, strikingly, to me at least,  is that much of the work that keep these suspicions in circulation is done by whites). But when I think of oppression I think of not just dislike or distrust, but preventing a person from making progress socially, economically, etc.

As I said: oppression is structural injustice (and often, though not exclusively, institutionalized) predicated on group membership. It's not the same thing as bare harm or injustice. With respect to the example you're giving (I'm assuming its truth for the sake of argument, even though I don't agree at all), white people would satisfy a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for being oppressed.

Race has replaced class in a certain way of thinking. We know how the class version ended. Why should the race version end in anything but the same sea of tears?

[mahagonny]

Aw, nobody's picking on white people. C'mon! that's just made up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPDpcYEdiOg

[Parasaurolophus]

By this definition white people are easily some of the most oppressed in society today as we are targeted for suspicions of racism because of our group membership. (And, strikingly, to me at least,  is that much of the work that keep these suspicions in circulation is done by whites). But when I think of oppression I think of not just dislike or distrust, but preventing a person from making progress socially, economically, etc.

As I said: oppression is structural injustice (and often, though not exclusively, institutionalized) predicated on group membership. It's not the same thing as bare harm or injustice. With respect to the example you're giving (I'm assuming its truth for the sake of argument, even though I don't agree at all), white people would satisfy a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for being oppressed.

Race has replaced class in a certain way of thinking. We know how the class version ended. Why should the race version end in anything but the same sea of tears?

I'm not saying that white people couldn't conceivably satisfy the necessary and sufficient conditions. I'm saying they don't in that example. More generally, I take it that this will often be the case.

And who says the 'class version' has ended?

[financeguy]

I'm glad to see these attempts at "diversity hires" thwarted even if by a douche nozzle like this. I still don't see why she doesn't go all the way and claim to identify, if everyone's allowed to be whatever they want without objective standards of any kind.

BTW, this is one of the few times I've heard a position openly referred to as a diversity hire at all, and even then only retrospectively. I have noticed now that Biden has told us beforehand the race and gender of his VP and initial Supreme Court picks that no one should feel the need to perpetuate the fallacy that AA only comes into place between two "otherwise equal applicants as a tie breaker." Come to think of it, I haven't even heard that justification recently. We're basically ok openly stating who the role should NOT go to (i.e., usually a white male) if not specifically who it should go to.

A USC Valedictorian either last year or the year before said the quiet part out loud when instead of advocating for "diversity opportunities" she said that there needed to be more opportunities for "non-whites." I actually wish people would just say this as opposed to the euphemism.

[dismalist]

By this definition white people are easily some of the most oppressed in society today as we are targeted for suspicions of racism because of our group membership. (And, strikingly, to me at least,  is that much of the work that keep these suspicions in circulation is done by whites). But when I think of oppression I think of not just dislike or distrust, but preventing a person from making progress socially, economically, etc.

As I said: oppression is structural injustice (and often, though not exclusively, institutionalized) predicated on group membership. It's not the same thing as bare harm or injustice. With respect to the example you're giving (I'm assuming its truth for the sake of argument, even though I don't agree at all), white people would satisfy a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for being oppressed.

Race has replaced class in a certain way of thinking. We know how the class version ended. Why should the race version end in anything but the same sea of tears?

I'm not saying that white people couldn't conceivably satisfy the necessary and sufficient conditions. I'm saying they don't in that example. More generally, I take it that this will often be the case.

And who says the 'class version' has ended?

The class version buried itself in 1989.

[bacardiandlime]

I'm glad to see these attempts at "diversity hires" thwarted even if by a douche nozzle like this. I still don't see why she doesn't go all the way and claim to identify, if everyone's allowed to be whatever they want without objective standards of any kind.

People have always faked their identities for social advantage. 50 years ago, the advantageous identity in academia was WASP. (You'll find plenty of stories of people adjusting their accents, if not outright lying about backgrounds).
Now when job ads specify "people of color", and universities speak openly about wanting to recruit from certain groups: it's naive to think opportunists won't adjust their identities to suit.

As for "diversity hires" it will be interesting to see how this particular case shakes out. Since they can't legally say that being black was a job requirement, they can't fire her for not being black.

There is a video going round of her testifying to a NYC council meeting, as "Jessica La Bombera" and it is a real trip. I have no idea how anyone could have believed she was black. (If she'd gone for a weaker claim, like a Puerto Rican grandmother, she might have got away with it).

[financeguy]

"Getting away with it" doesn't mean that "others fell for it." It is much more likely that in public statements, most people (such as myself) do not say what we believe to be true but what is required to avoid getting fired. This is exacerbated when there is absolutely no upside to commenting either way. You'd have to have rocks in your head to bring up race unnecessarily as a white person in the workplace no matter how unlikely someone's claim.