News:

Welcome to the new (and now only) Fora!

Main Menu

Twitter drama: fake persona, covid, and #metoo

Started by bacardiandlime, August 03, 2020, 05:22:16 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dismal


Quote

Your original claim was that your professional life would have been much easier if you'd been Black. It's not clear to me that the mere existence of specially-designated funding opportunities would make this true, especially if it's not the case that all or the majority or a significant chunk of funding opportunities are reserved for people who aren't like you.

Quote
As a white person, I have access to the main pot of money.  As a black person, I would have access to the main pot of money (and, let's face it, the informal boosterism of the people who give it out) and a separate pot of money.  I will let others decide which is the preferable situation.

I'm surprised that the statement that someone's career would be better if they were black isn't being challenged here by more than one person or two.  There are sizeable numbers of studies that suggest ways in which race plays a role in educational attainment.  Starting in prek, Black boys are more likely to be expelled for behaviors that don't lead to expulsion for whites, Black kids are less likely to be tracked into advanced math in k-12, realtors are less likely to show Black families certain more desirable properties (that might be located near better schools.)  To say that someone's career would be more successful if they were Black seems to be ignoring a lot of accumulated evidence on the determinants of educational success.

onthefringe

I think the issue is that people who think their careers would be better if they were Black generally think they would be exactly the same person they are now, only Black, with no internalization of the fact the institutionalized inequities mean that their life experiences up to this point might be very different. I've consider weighing in several times, but have been dissuaded by the suspicion that people who insist on using the construct "B"lack are unlikely to be arguing in good faith.

Stockmann

Quote from: Hibush on August 08, 2020, 07:12:06 AM
Quote from: Stockmann on August 07, 2020, 04:04:51 PM
[
If a category is ancestry-based, and belonging to it, or not belonging to it, confers advantages (whether official or not), including related to employment, then of course people will try to game the system, from using the most tenuous connections to outright making stuff up. The census, which doesn't confer any advantages, has surely far more honest answers than college applications (and by "honest" I mean "not deliberate fabrications or exaggerations").

...College applicants need to be candid, since the organization asking has specific intentions in regard to the category and need relevant information.

In comparison, when it comes to grades colleges rely on transcripts, not candor.

QuoteOn another thread, we discussed some open-membership group allowing people to identify as they chose. They have the authority to make that decision, and get to accept the consequences of accepting the various judgements members make. I don't think there is a huge risk to the organization from this choice.

The risk is not to the organization, and in the case of an open-membership thing no-harm-no-foul probably applies. But in other instances, matters are competitive - admitting someone to college means a place that can't be offered to someone else, hiring someone means a job that can't be offered to someone else. 

Parasaurolophus

Quote from: writingprof on August 08, 2020, 05:25:38 PM

As a white person, I have access to the main pot of money.  As a black person, I would have access to the main pot of money (and, let's face it, the informal boosterism of the people who give it out) and a separate pot of money.  I will let others decide which is the preferable situation.

Yes, one and one pot of money make two pots of money, and two pots are more than one pot. But the question is whether having access to two pots of money at that point in the system makes up for the disadvantages you face elsewhere in the system (perhaps even with respect to accessing the main pot of money).

By way of analogy: Canadians have access to postdoctoral funding from the federal government, and at least in theory Canadian schools are supposed to preferentially hire Canadian candidates. If you're an American looking for a job, then it might seem like you'd be better off as a Canadian, since you'd then have access to the American market plus the Canadian perks. But when you look more closely, what you'll find is that (1) American institutions are also supposed to preferentially hire Americans, and as a preference it's as real in the US as it is in Canada (i.e. basically irrelevant for research institutions and elite SLACs, basically real for CCs, etc.), (2) Americans also have some access to government postdoctoral funding, (3) "foreign" applicants are systematically disadvantaged at a number of American institutions which can't be bothered with the VISA complications (many of these aren't even aware of TN visas!), and (4) the Canadian academic market is tiny, even for sessional work. So it's not clear you'd actually come out ahead by being Canadian, when all is said and done. You'd be better off as a dual citizen, or an American with Canadian permanent residency. But as just one or the other? The newly-minted American academic is almost certainly better off.

As Dismal and onthefringe rightly point out, you haven't properly balanced your considerations and considered all the appropriate factors:

Quote from: Dismal on August 09, 2020, 10:38:58 AM

I'm surprised that the statement that someone's career would be better if they were black isn't being challenged here by more than one person or two.  There are sizeable numbers of studies that suggest ways in which race plays a role in educational attainment.  Starting in prek, Black boys are more likely to be expelled for behaviors that don't lead to expulsion for whites, Black kids are less likely to be tracked into advanced math in k-12, realtors are less likely to show Black families certain more desirable properties (that might be located near better schools.)  To say that someone's career would be more successful if they were Black seems to be ignoring a lot of accumulated evidence on the determinants of educational success.

Quote from: onthefringe on August 09, 2020, 10:56:12 AM
I think the issue is that people who think their careers would be better if they were Black generally think they would be exactly the same person they are now, only Black, with no internalization of the fact the institutionalized inequities mean that their life experiences up to this point might be very different. I've consider weighing in several times, but have been dissuaded by the suspicion that people who insist on using the construct "B"lack are unlikely to be arguing in good faith.
I know it's a genus.

marshwiggle

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 09, 2020, 11:37:52 AM
.

By way of analogy: Canadians have access to postdoctoral funding from the federal government, and at least in theory Canadian schools are supposed to preferentially hire Canadian candidates. If you're an American looking for a job, then it might seem like you'd be better off as a Canadian, since you'd then have access to the American market plus the Canadian perks. But when you look more closely, what you'll find is that (1) American institutions are also supposed to preferentially hire Americans, and as a preference it's as real in the US as it is in Canada (i.e. basically irrelevant for research institutions and elite SLACs, basically real for CCs, etc.),


This is a good illustration of the idea that "privilege" is context-specific.
It takes so little to be above average.

kaysixteen

Back in the day, the Chronicle fora used to have an ongoing thread on 'Anti-Affirmative Action', or something like that, but it did not really survive the change to the newer tech in 2006, largely because, ahem, the reaction to those criticizing AA was, ahem, consistently, ah, er, well.... let's just say 'unedifying'.   Heck, it was only somewhat less unedifying when people like me said that we ought to junk all existing AA formulae and replace them with a strictly class-based AA instead.   Like it or not, AA exists, and it is not based on class, but rather on inborn characteristics, one of which is not 'white male'.   As long as this remains the case, well, it remains unambiguously true that white males in academia face a hurdle that, well, no one else has to cross.   I do not like this, especially because, well, I would largely have qualified for a class-based AA as a younger man/ grad student, etc., and certainly would now, but whether I like it or not, it is the case nonetheless.  And it will not do to criticize those who point this out, even if, as occasionally has been the case here, those doing so do it inartfully, or even obnoxiously.

Parasaurolophus

Quote from: marshwiggle on August 09, 2020, 12:54:48 PM


This is a good illustration of the idea that "privilege" is context-specific.

I think you'll find that explitily acknowledged in the literature on social privilege. Peggy McIntosh, for one, was pretty clear about it in her touchstone essay. The discussion grew up closely intertwined with the discussion on intersectionality.
I know it's a genus.

dismalist

#82
Taking intersectionality seriously leads inexorably to individualism! :-)
That's not even wrong!
--Wolfgang Pauli

financeguy

kaysixteen, I have no problem with white males being as obnoxious as possible in pointing out that this is AA is an inherently racist policy. The only way to get it to go away is to impose such reputational cost on the policy that no one would want to be perceived as even potentially benefiting from it. You're not even allowed to point out factual aspects of AA affecting admissions decisions in many venues. At least a couple forums (many college related on reddit and at top-law-schools.com) have policies that automatically block someone if critiquing AA.

writingprof

Quote from: onthefringe on August 09, 2020, 10:56:12 AM
I think the issue is that people who think their careers would be better if they were Black generally think they would be exactly the same person they are now, only Black, with no internalization of the fact the institutionalized inequities mean that their life experiences up to this point might be very different.

I openly admit this.  Many "B"lack people in academe traveled a harder road to get here.  I grant it.  However, those who made it are now granted opportunities that I am denied, at my expense, at every step.  Furthermore, "B"lack people whose upbringing was similar to mine (two-parent home, upper-middle class) are among the luckiest people in the history of the world, receiving, as they do, all the benefits of reverse-racism and none of the disadvantages it's meant to counter.

marshwiggle

Quote from: writingprof on August 10, 2020, 06:07:37 AM
Quote from: onthefringe on August 09, 2020, 10:56:12 AM
I think the issue is that people who think their careers would be better if they were Black generally think they would be exactly the same person they are now, only Black, with no internalization of the fact the institutionalized inequities mean that their life experiences up to this point might be very different.

I openly admit this.  Many "B"lack people in academe traveled a harder road to get here.  I grant it.  However, those who made it are now granted opportunities that I am denied, at my expense, at every step.  Furthermore, "B"lack people whose upbringing was similar to mine (two-parent home, upper-middle class) are among the luckiest people in the history of the world, receiving, as they do, all the benefits of reverse-racism and none of the disadvantages it's meant to counter.

It's interesting that many of the people who argue strongly against research on characteristics like IQ , crime rate, etc. when the results are broken down by identity groups on the grounds that group averages don't indicate individual characteristics, (which is of course absolutely correct), are the same people advocating for things like AA on the grounds that the suffering experienced by members of groups is universal enough that individual variations are irrelevant (which, as pointed out above, is ridiculous).
It takes so little to be above average.

financeguy

We want everyone to be treated as an individual, until it comes time to judge a double murderer or pick a VP, then identity goes into overdrive.

writingprof

Quote from: financeguy on August 10, 2020, 12:28:28 PM
We want everyone to be treated as an individual, until it comes time to judge a double murderer or pick a VP, then identity goes into overdrive.

If affirmative action were limited to those categories, I would happily accept it.