'Whites Can Be Black if They Wish' says Lecturers' Union

[dismalist]

There's nothing logically or metaphysically impossible there.

The statement that anything is possible is correct. It just isn't helpful.

[Parasaurolophus]

There's nothing logically or metaphysically impossible there.

The statement that anything is possible is correct. It just isn't helpful.

I mean, I've talked about some of the mechanisms that lead to shifts in the extensions of social kinds. I don't know what kind of help you want that you're not getting.

(And, while we're at it, bare talk of possibility isn't especially helpful. Do you mean epistemic, physical, logical, or metaphysical possibility, or something else? There are a lot of different senses. Modality is hard.)

[dismalist]

That's not even wrong. :-)

[mahagonny]

Whether one can change one's race will not be determined on this thread.  It will be determined on Twitter and, to a lesser extent, in the media.  If it's determined that one can, then most of the people on the left who say now that such a thing is ridiculous will instantly change their tune, deny that they ever believed otherwise, and launch a campaign of persecution against any holdouts.  (What's the race equivalent of calling someone a "TERF"?)

In any case, attempts on this thread to sort out the logic of the proposition are so sweetly naive that they make my heart hurt.

But, cheer up, writingprof: if it is determined that one can pick his own race, there is something in it for everyone. Even us bigots. For example, my reaction would be to say I'm black. Effective now, you will recognize that I am black. This means, of all the white people who enjoy walking around every day feeling terrible about themselves, and all the black people who enjoy telling them what they can do about it, and what they must not do about it, so gingerly, even though there is no resolution coming, (see quotation below) y'all can play without me. I'm like Groucho Marx after having been handed the check in a restaurant. As he hands it to the guy sitting next to him he says 'this bill is outrageous. I wouldn't pay it if I were you.'

Here's an example of my idea of the kind of really stupid writing that has come into fashion. Of course, it's not entirely stupid if you remember that people are requesting it.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/16/opinions/black-lives-matter-usa-race-irving/index.html

"Most importantly, this is not a game you can win. Doing better means actively enjoying the process of learning how to be better. There's no finish line. You must fall in love with the process of becoming anti-racist. It's a journey, not a race."

It's not that it isn't a game you can win. It's that it isn't a game where everyone playing it loses. It's not good for blacks, whites, anyone. It's become a fixation, a religious sacrament.

and

"It's a moment of endless questions on how to be a better ally or anti-racist -- well-meaning yet overwhelming."

This is not, like, 'tips for how to get better service in a restaurant' 'everyday etiquette in the workplace' or other practical advice. It's the language of religion -- awe- inspiring. Soul searching. Trying to comprehend the size of the universe.

(sorry, I overdid it with the bold type. don't know how to reverse it.)

:edit: fix bold

[polly_mer]

What should be bolded?

[Caracal]

I don't really grasp the analogy. My point is that it's understandable that racists would want to make racial distinctions; it seems bizzare to me that so-called "anti-racists" still want to make racial distinctions, just for different objectives.

There really is a fundamental inability or, unwillingness, too understand. What people might object to is your blithe assertion that these racial distinctions can all just be ignored happily. You want to be outraged because some people  point out that it doesn't really matter if you renounce your white identity, you'll still get the benefits of that. It isn't generally going to work that way the other way.

[Caracal]

But, cheer up, writingprof: if it is determined that one can pick his own race, there is something in it for everyone. Even us bigots. For example, my reaction would be to say I'm black. Effective now, you will recognize that I am black. This means, of all the white people who enjoy walking around every day feeling terrible about themselves, and all the black people who enjoy telling them what they can do about it, and what they must not do about it, so gingerly, even though there is no resolution coming, (see quotation below) y'all can play without me. I'm like Groucho Marx after having been handed the check in a restaurant. As he hands it to the guy sitting next to him he says 'this bill is outrageous. I wouldn't pay it if I were you.'

:edit: fix bold

This is not a particularly productive conversation, but at various points in my life I've had this sort of reaction. What I've ended up realizing is that nobody is actually yelling at you, nobody cares if you feel guilty, and nobody actually gives a crap about you. You're complaining about white guilt, while participating in the exact same exhausting discourse that makes it all about you and your feelings.

Nobody is walking into your work and telling you you should quit and give your job to a person of color. Nobody wakes up every morning and demands you put on your hair shirt. You're right, you actually don't have to participate. That's what being white in the United States means. You're mostly mad because you read some articles in the paper you didn't like.  So, why are you on here yelling about how you're going to take your ball and go home. Great. Nobody is actually all that interested.

:edit: fix bold in quote

[polly_mer]

Nobody is walking into your work and telling you you should quit and give your job to a person of color. Nobody wakes up every morning and demands you put on your hair shirt.

Caracal, you don't get out enough if that's a true statement where you live.  Words to that effect have been used multiple times in the past decade in various places in IHE and CHE, particularly when people ask what they can do to help adjuncts.  Those calls have increased in the past few years.


Those exact words aren't used in meetings and email lists at my non-academic employer, but it's pretty clear the sentiment in some quarters at my work is we shouldn't hire any more white, cis, het men if any qualified other people are in the pool.  The hiring trend recently indicates that any qualified woman and/or underrepresented minority who doesn't blow the interview will be hired.

The words were used indicating that the small numbers of African Americans, in particular, at our workplace was due to all those racist white males (>80% of relevant job categories) doing the hiring and then being the norm in the workplace.  The case was made using data from national groups that are advocates with varying degrees of neutral scientific rigor and in-your-face calls for change.


Assertions have been made and continue to be made that we should force retirement on many white men so we could replace them with a more diverse workforce.  All attempts at pointing out that the national pool for those positions have almost no African Americans (e.g., at 1.5% we're actually representative of the qualified people and overrepresentative of our local community) are ignored.

Many attempts, including those by the handful of African Americans we have, to point out our specific efforts as an institution would be better spent helping the poor kids of color in the communities around us become qualified are met with outrage that we're saying Black lives don't matter in favor of all lives matter.  I was particularly amused last month as the Native American male who wrote a data-filled email with pointers to paid outreach activities supported by our institution was quietly ignored because it wasn't what that diversity group wanted to read.

In June, there was a group of employees who were angry with our institution's official statement released as part of the wave after the riots.  The African American employee group worked with the administration to write the statement. The outraged people were mostly those angry that the explicit words of Black lives matter did not appear and instead the focus was on our efforts at diversity of thought to produce the best science and engineering to support the nation along with our inclusion/outreach efforts to ensure a great pipeline of future scientists and engineers.

Usually, when it becomes clear that some people are against white, cis, het males instead of being in favor of inclusion, the diversity and inclusion groups here marginalize the people who are outraged on behalf of African Americans who are far away and the groups go back to doing something useful for our region.  We haven't swung back yet this cycle.  We're still in the phase of calling for retirement or making the possible furlough lists that are heavy on white men.

Thus, it's pretty clear there are people who wake up every morning out to get specific groups of white men fired and insist those guys should be wearing hair shirts even if they are ready to quit.  If it wouldn't out me, I could give names and it's a list of more than a handful.

[mahagonny]

But, cheer up, writingprof: if it is determined that one can pick his own race, there is something in it for everyone. Even us bigots. For example, my reaction would be to say I'm black. Effective now, you will recognize that I am black. This means, of all the white people who enjoy walking around every day feeling terrible about themselves, and all the black people who enjoy telling them what they can do about it, and what they must not do about it, so gingerly, even though there is no resolution coming, (see quotation below) y'all can play without me. I'm like Groucho Marx after having been handed the check in a restaurant. As he hands it to the guy sitting next to him he says 'this bill is outrageous. I wouldn't pay it if I were you.'

:edit: fix bold

This is not a particularly productive conversation, but at various points in my life I've had this sort of reaction. What I've ended up realizing is that nobody is actually yelling at you, nobody cares if you feel guilty, and nobody actually gives a crap about you. You're complaining about white guilt, while participating in the exact same exhausting discourse that makes it all about you and your feelings.

Nobody is walking into your work and telling you you should quit and give your job to a person of color. Nobody wakes up every morning and demands you put on your hair shirt. You're right, you actually don't have to participate. That's what being white in the United States means. You're mostly mad because you read some articles in the paper you didn't like.  So, why are you on here yelling about how you're going to take your ball and go home. Great. Nobody is actually all that interested.

OK, I knew this kind of scolding was coming. I'll take it. It's not that I'm angry and want to complain so much as that I'm reading these pieces where they advise us on how to be anti-racist and I think they're dumb. Here's another, fresh off the press. They're virtually identical.  https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2020/07/16/race-black-friend-racism-george-floyd-injustice-column/5442278002/

Something that I would like to complain about  is 104 people shot over father's day weekend. Most of the victims black and most of the shooters black. This doesn't make me angry. It makes be sad and sick to my stomach. The police didn't do this. White supremacy didn't do this. Not all of it. link: https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2020/6/20/21297470/chicago-fathers-day-weekend-shootings-homicide-gun-violence-june-19-22-104-shot

Speaking of people who should just go away and not participate because no one really cares about them, perhaps Barack Obama is another one. I wonder how he feels reading the news now. As POTUS, he explained, patiently, not angrily, how the lack of a father in the home is statistically related to strikingly poorer levels of health, success, adjustment, freedom from legal trouble. And it doesn't appear that what he said had much effect.

What should be bolded?

Just those few words that were also italicized.

Caracal, you don't get out enough if that's a true statement where you live.  Words to that effect have been used multiple times in the past decade in various places in IHE and CHE, particularly when people ask what they can do to help adjuncts.  Those calls have increased in the past few years.

Longer than that. Twenty years ago I had dinner with a bunch of new friends including adjunct Phil and his chair. The drinks were coming at a steady pace. Before the night was over the chair told me 'Phil is outstanding, PhD, well liked, but I can't offer another full time job to a white man at this time.'
Another guy I hung out with had become the provost at my other school, briefly He was going on abut how the conversions to full time were such a great success because so many were women and people of color.
It's not that we don't like to see these good things to good people. But you can't claim they don't make it harder than it would have been for a white man to move up.

[marshwiggle]

I don't really grasp the analogy. My point is that it's understandable that racists would want to make racial distinctions; it seems bizzare to me that so-called "anti-racists" still want to make racial distinctions, just for different objectives.

There really is a fundamental inability or, unwillingness, too understand. What people might object to is your blithe assertion that these racial distinctions can all just be ignored happily. You want to be outraged because some people  point out that it doesn't really matter if you renounce your white identity, you'll still get the benefits of that. It isn't generally going to work that way the other way.

The vast majority of inequality is related to class, not race. Malia and Sasha Obama will be able to write their own tickets in life. Being "women of colour" won't be a problem because of their socioeconomic status. Meanwhile, some kid who grew up in a trailer park in a rural community with 80% unemployment is not going to see any perceived benefits  of "privilege".

[polly_mer]

I don't really grasp the analogy. My point is that it's understandable that racists would want to make racial distinctions; it seems bizzare to me that so-called "anti-racists" still want to make racial distinctions, just for different objectives.

There really is a fundamental inability or, unwillingness, too understand. What people might object to is your blithe assertion that these racial distinctions can all just be ignored happily. You want to be outraged because some people  point out that it doesn't really matter if you renounce your white identity, you'll still get the benefits of that. It isn't generally going to work that way the other way.

The vast majority of inequality is related to class, not race. Malia and Sasha Obama will be able to write their own tickets in life. Being "women of colour" won't be a problem because of their socioeconomic status. Meanwhile, some kid who grew up in a trailer park in a rural community with 80% unemployment is not going to see any perceived benefits  of "privilege".

That was the frustration where I grew up and where I currently live.  There's no privilege in skin tone when it's so clear that one's socioeconomic status is low.  New clothes aren't enough to erase the obvious signs in behavior and other parts of appearance like access to cosmetic dental care.

The African Americans in town here moved for the high-paying, graduate-degree-required jobs.  The poor kids here are not Black.


My home town had exactly two Black families when I was growing up: the hospital administrator and a minister.  While money might have been tight for the minister's family, the poor kids in town who weren't going to college and really didn't have a good future of any kind were very pale.

[Caracal]

Those exact words aren't used in meetings and email lists at my non-academic employer, but it's pretty clear the sentiment in some quarters at my work is we shouldn't hire any more white, cis, het men if any qualified other people are in the pool.  The hiring trend recently indicates that any qualified woman and/or underrepresented minority who doesn't blow the interview will be hired.

Yes, that's why you just don't see any more white men get hired anymore in academia.

[marshwiggle]

Those exact words aren't used in meetings and email lists at my non-academic employer, but it's pretty clear the sentiment in some quarters at my work is we shouldn't hire any more white, cis, het men if any qualified other people are in the pool.  The hiring trend recently indicates that any qualified woman and/or underrepresented minority who doesn't blow the interview will be hired.

Yes, that's why you just don't see any more white men get hired anymore in academia.

So if no black men get killed by police in my community it doesn't matter that it happens somwehere else?

[Caracal]

Some samples from a few studies.,

"Of all full-time faculty in degree-granting postsecondary institutions in fall 2017, 41 percent were White males; 35 percent were White females; 6 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander males; 5 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander females; and 3 percent each were Black males, Black females, Hispanic males, and Hispanic females.1 Those who were American Indian/Alaska Native and those who were of Two or more races each made up 1 percent or less of full-time faculty."

"Diversity issues were shown to be particularly prevalent at doctoral-status institutions, a category representing universities with the heaviest research focus, where the number of black tenured faculty members grew by only one-tenth of a percent from 2013 to 2017, to comprise 4 percent of the total tenured faculty. The number of Hispanic and Latino tenured faculty members also grew by less than 1 percent (0.65 percent) in that time, and in 2017 was 4.6 percent of tenured faculty. Faculty positions filled by Asian Americans saw the largest amount of growth at doctoral-status institutions, with a 1.2 percent increase to make up 12.8 percent of all tenured faculty.
At master's-level institutions, black faculty members made up a larger percentage at 5.6 percent of tenured faculty. But the group saw smaller growth during the years studied, with an increase of less than a tenth of a percent (0.07 percent). Hispanics and Latinos, who were 5 percent of tenured faculty at these institutions, in 2017 saw a 0.64 percent increase."

You can try all you want, but there's no way to square this data with these claims about how difficult it is for white people to get jobs.

[Caracal]

Those exact words aren't used in meetings and email lists at my non-academic employer, but it's pretty clear the sentiment in some quarters at my work is we shouldn't hire any more white, cis, het men if any qualified other people are in the pool.  The hiring trend recently indicates that any qualified woman and/or underrepresented minority who doesn't blow the interview will be hired.

Yes, that's why you just don't see any more white men get hired anymore in academia.

So if no black men get killed by police in my community it doesn't matter that it happens somwehere else?

???????