This time a white woman claiming to be Chicana (https://medium.com/@producingwhiteness/kelly-kean-sharp-chicana-54ea6a866af).
I'm in the humanities, but not ethnic studies. I've been at conferences and meetings where the theme seems to be that white people should be quiet, and let women of color speak, that I can almost see the temptation - if just saying "as a woman of color" is going to open doors, someone will do it. And we shouldn't be surprised, any system designed to level the playing field - like "diversity hires" - is going to be gamed. The people best at gaming systems tend to be those from the dominant groups. (Look at the college admissions scams).
I suspect the current dire job market teamed with universities choosing to address the racial moment with job ads for specific diverse hires is going to lead to more of these cases. Hard to see an easy solution, obviously universities and search committees don't want to set themselves the queasy task of blood quantum policing, but if they don't then someone is going to do it for them (the author of the medium piece trolled back through 70 years of census returns....which is the final element here. The nightmare job market leaving a lot of pissed off candidates with research skills who definitely will out the scammers).
"Chicana"? I think not. Now, if she had just called herself "Latinx," we would have been so impressed with the shibboleth that we never would have investigated further. Rookie move.
Quote from: bacardiandlime on October 28, 2020, 04:59:54 AM
This time a white woman claiming to be Chicana (https://medium.com/@producingwhiteness/kelly-kean-sharp-chicana-54ea6a866af).
I'm in the humanities, but not ethnic studies. I've been at conferences and meetings where the theme seems to be that white people should be quiet, and let women of color speak, that I can almost see the temptation - if just saying "as a woman of color" is going to open doors, someone will do it.
Notice her job title of "Asst prof of African American history". In the current climate, being just plain "white" wouldn't cut it for that kind of position. Some sort of "POC" cover would be necessary.
Quote
And we shouldn't be surprised, any system designed to level the playing field - like "diversity hires" - is going to be gamed. The people best at gaming systems tend to be those from the dominant groups. (Look at the college admissions scams).
At best, rather than "levelling the playing field", the current efforts are all based on the idea that for the first three quarters of the game the field was tilted in one direction, so Team A built up a huge lead, and now in the final quarter the
field has to be massively tilted in the other direction to let Team B catch up.
Quote
I suspect the current dire job market teamed with universities choosing to address the racial moment with job ads for specific diverse hires is going to lead to more of these cases. Hard to see an easy solution, obviously universities and search committees don't want to set themselves the queasy task of blood quantum policing, but if they don't then someone is going to do it for them (the author of the medium piece trolled back through 70 years of census returns....which is the final element here. The nightmare job market leaving a lot of pissed off candidates with research skills who definitely will out the scammers).
Well, maybe there are some retired experts from South Africa who could help with that.
Quote from: bacardiandlime on October 28, 2020, 04:59:54 AM
but if they don't then someone is going to do it for them (the author of the medium piece trolled back through 70 years of census returns....which is the final element here. The nightmare job market leaving a lot of pissed off candidates with research skills who definitely will out the scammers).
I'd be very careful about viewing the census as a definitive source.
First of all, the author didn't look through 70 years of census data. She looked at the 1940 census. That's the latest census publicly available. The 1950 census doesn't come out until 2022. Another problem is that race on the census isn't definitive. Sometimes it is about self identification, but it can also be based on the census takers view of someone's ethnicity. For hispanic or Chicana identity, this is particularly problematic because it is a cultural identity, not a racial one and can overlap with other racial identities. The problem is that the author of the post doesn't seem to know this.
The research in this medium post isn't good enough and the evidence falls a long way short of conclusive. The closest thing we get is that "allegedly, when some colleagues asked about her newfound identity she claimed that her paternal grandmother had been from Mexico." Sorry, but "I heard through the grapevine that she told some people her grandmother was from Mexico," isn't good enough. From there, the assumptions get even more tenuous. Her grandmother's father was from Iowa apparently, but what about her mother? The other piece of evidence is that her grandparents had some sort of live in domestic worker.. I have no idea why this is supposed to be relevant. Can people with Chicana ancestry not have maids?
I have no idea if this person has any legitimate claims to being chicano, or what would be legitimate claims. There are some things that do seem questionable. In particular, she did seem to tweet that her grandmother came from Mexico during WW2 and that doesn't seem to line up with census records. However, this is a really sloppy piece and I'd be careful about it.
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 28, 2020, 05:30:47 AM
Notice her job title of "Asst prof of African American history". In the current climate, being just plain "white" wouldn't cut it for that kind of position. Some sort of "POC" cover would be necessary.
This is demonstrably not true.
Quote from: Caracal on October 28, 2020, 06:37:29 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on October 28, 2020, 04:59:54 AM
but if they don't then someone is going to do it for them (the author of the medium piece trolled back through 70 years of census returns....which is the final element here. The nightmare job market leaving a lot of pissed off candidates with research skills who definitely will out the scammers).
I'd be very careful about viewing the census as a definitive source.
First of all, the author didn't look through 70 years of census data. She looked at the 1940 census. That's the latest census publicly available. The 1950 census doesn't come out until 2022. Another problem is that race on the census isn't definitive. Sometimes it is about self identification, but it can also be based on the census takers view of someone's ethnicity. For hispanic or Chicana identity, this is particularly problematic because it is a cultural identity, not a racial one and can overlap with other racial identities. The problem is that the author of the post doesn't seem to know this.
The research in this medium post isn't good enough and the evidence falls a long way short of conclusive. The closest thing we get is that "allegedly, when some colleagues asked about her newfound identity she claimed that her paternal grandmother had been from Mexico." Sorry, but "I heard through the grapevine that she told some people her grandmother was from Mexico," isn't good enough. From there, the assumptions get even more tenuous. Her grandmother's father was from Iowa apparently, but what about her mother? The other piece of evidence is that her grandparents had some sort of live in domestic worker.. I have no idea why this is supposed to be relevant. Can people with Chicana ancestry not have maids?
I have no idea if this person has any legitimate claims to being chicano, or what would be legitimate claims. There are some things that do seem questionable. In particular, she did seem to tweet that her grandmother came from Mexico during WW2 and that doesn't seem to line up with census records. However, this is a really sloppy piece and I'd be careful about it.
It will be interesting to see how the academic in question responds to this. Will she make a confession of scamming, or will she make some of the points that you've made above?
It will also be interesting to see whether, if she convinces people that she did indeed have an
abuela and not a mere grandmother, there will be any questions regarding whether she is Hispanic enough to identify as such.
Quote from: apl68 on October 28, 2020, 06:51:56 AM
Quote from: Caracal on October 28, 2020, 06:37:29 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on October 28, 2020, 04:59:54 AM
but if they don't then someone is going to do it for them (the author of the medium piece trolled back through 70 years of census returns....which is the final element here. The nightmare job market leaving a lot of pissed off candidates with research skills who definitely will out the scammers).
I'd be very careful about viewing the census as a definitive source.
First of all, the author didn't look through 70 years of census data. She looked at the 1940 census. That's the latest census publicly available. The 1950 census doesn't come out until 2022. Another problem is that race on the census isn't definitive. Sometimes it is about self identification, but it can also be based on the census takers view of someone's ethnicity. For hispanic or Chicana identity, this is particularly problematic because it is a cultural identity, not a racial one and can overlap with other racial identities. The problem is that the author of the post doesn't seem to know this.
The research in this medium post isn't good enough and the evidence falls a long way short of conclusive. The closest thing we get is that "allegedly, when some colleagues asked about her newfound identity she claimed that her paternal grandmother had been from Mexico." Sorry, but "I heard through the grapevine that she told some people her grandmother was from Mexico," isn't good enough. From there, the assumptions get even more tenuous. Her grandmother's father was from Iowa apparently, but what about her mother? The other piece of evidence is that her grandparents had some sort of live in domestic worker.. I have no idea why this is supposed to be relevant. Can people with Chicana ancestry not have maids?
I have no idea if this person has any legitimate claims to being chicano, or what would be legitimate claims. There are some things that do seem questionable. In particular, she did seem to tweet that her grandmother came from Mexico during WW2 and that doesn't seem to line up with census records. However, this is a really sloppy piece and I'd be careful about it.
It will be interesting to see how the academic in question responds to this. Will she make a confession of scamming, or will she make some of the points that you've made above?
It will also be interesting to see whether, if she convinces people that she did indeed have an abuela and not a mere grandmother, there will be any questions regarding whether she is Hispanic enough to identify as such.
To be clear, I'm just commenting on the quality of research and argument in the Medium post, not the underlying questions. If you're going to publicly accuse someone of fabricating an ethnic identity, you need to do a better job than that. The writer doesn't seem to have even bothered to look at earlier census records.
Quote from: Caracal on October 28, 2020, 06:37:29 AM
First of all, the author didn't look through 70 years of census data. She looked at the 1940 census.
Fair enough - though presumably they went through other records, like ancestry.com, to find who to look for in the 1940 census (judging by Kean's age, neither of her parents would have been born then). Finding the Iowa lawyer great-grandparent would have required going back further I'd assumed.
You make a good point that it's not probative, in terms of hearsay claims. And that ethnic affiliations can be hard to pin down on the basis of government records - but that's precisely what scammers are also counting on....
And again - expect more of these cases to pop up and be contested. Especially when someone in an overcrowded humanities field suddenly "identifies" as something they hadn't been before, conveniently timed for the job market.
Quote from: Caracal on October 28, 2020, 06:37:29 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on October 28, 2020, 04:59:54 AM
but if they don't then someone is going to do it for them (the author of the medium piece trolled back through 70 years of census returns....which is the final element here. The nightmare job market leaving a lot of pissed off candidates with research skills who definitely will out the scammers).
I'd be very careful about viewing the census as a definitive source.
First of all, the author didn't look through 70 years of census data. She looked at the 1940 census. That's the latest census publicly available. The 1950 census doesn't come out until 2022. Another problem is that race on the census isn't definitive. Sometimes it is about self identification, but it can also be based on the census takers view of someone's ethnicity. For hispanic or Chicana identity, this is particularly problematic because it is a cultural identity, not a racial one and can overlap with other racial identities. The problem is that the author of the post doesn't seem to know this.
The research in this medium post isn't good enough and the evidence falls a long way short of conclusive. The closest thing we get is that "allegedly, when some colleagues asked about her newfound identity she claimed that her paternal grandmother had been from Mexico." Sorry, but "I heard through the grapevine that she told some people her grandmother was from Mexico," isn't good enough. From there, the assumptions get even more tenuous. Her grandmother's father was from Iowa apparently, but what about her mother? The other piece of evidence is that her grandparents had some sort of live in domestic worker.. I have no idea why this is supposed to be relevant. Can people with Chicana ancestry not have maids?
I have no idea if this person has any legitimate claims to being chicano, or what would be legitimate claims. There are some things that do seem questionable. In particular, she did seem to tweet that her grandmother came from Mexico during WW2 and that doesn't seem to line up with census records. However, this is a really sloppy piece and I'd be careful about it.
And coming from Mexico, in and of itself, doesn't mean much. You can be Caucasian, Spanish, Chican@, Latin@...and still be Mexican. Mexican is not nationality, not a single ethnicity.
A friend from Brazil, whose family came to Brazil from the Middle East, came to the United States and was floored to discover she was now a "woman of color."
I think she identifies now as Latinx because everyone thinks she is, anyway. She speaks Portugese, not Spanish. Her last name is actually of Middle Eastern origin but sounds as though it could be Hispanic.
Quote from: bacardiandlime on October 28, 2020, 08:40:51 AM
And again - expect more of these cases to pop up and be contested. Especially when someone in an overcrowded humanities field suddenly "identifies" as something they hadn't been before, conveniently timed for the job market.
According to Caracal, that's not really a thing.
Quote from: Caracal on October 28, 2020, 06:38:44 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 28, 2020, 05:30:47 AM
Notice her job title of "Asst prof of African American history". In the current climate, being just plain "white" wouldn't cut it for that kind of position. Some sort of "POC" cover would be necessary.
This is demonstrably not true.
Quote from: ciao_yall on October 28, 2020, 08:47:52 AM
A friend from Brazil, whose family came to Brazil from the Middle East, came to the United States and was floored to discover she was now a "woman of color."
That's another thing about Latin America's diversity that gets lost too.
Is Alberto Fujimori Hispanic?
Is Giselle Bündchen a "woman of color"? (is she Latina?).
Quote from: sonoamused on October 28, 2020, 08:44:06 AM
Quote from: Caracal on October 28, 2020, 06:37:29 AM
Quote from: bacardiandlime on October 28, 2020, 04:59:54 AM
but if they don't then someone is going to do it for them (the author of the medium piece trolled back through 70 years of census returns....which is the final element here. The nightmare job market leaving a lot of pissed off candidates with research skills who definitely will out the scammers).
I'd be very careful about viewing the census as a definitive source.
First of all, the author didn't look through 70 years of census data. She looked at the 1940 census. That's the latest census publicly available. The 1950 census doesn't come out until 2022. Another problem is that race on the census isn't definitive. Sometimes it is about self identification, but it can also be based on the census takers view of someone's ethnicity. For hispanic or Chicana identity, this is particularly problematic because it is a cultural identity, not a racial one and can overlap with other racial identities. The problem is that the author of the post doesn't seem to know this.
The research in this medium post isn't good enough and the evidence falls a long way short of conclusive. The closest thing we get is that "allegedly, when some colleagues asked about her newfound identity she claimed that her paternal grandmother had been from Mexico." Sorry, but "I heard through the grapevine that she told some people her grandmother was from Mexico," isn't good enough. From there, the assumptions get even more tenuous. Her grandmother's father was from Iowa apparently, but what about her mother? The other piece of evidence is that her grandparents had some sort of live in domestic worker.. I have no idea why this is supposed to be relevant. Can people with Chicana ancestry not have maids?
I have no idea if this person has any legitimate claims to being chicano, or what would be legitimate claims. There are some things that do seem questionable. In particular, she did seem to tweet that her grandmother came from Mexico during WW2 and that doesn't seem to line up with census records. However, this is a really sloppy piece and I'd be careful about it.
And coming from Mexico, in and of itself, doesn't mean much. You can be Caucasian, Spanish, Chican@, Latin@...and still be Mexican. Mexican is not nationality, not a single ethnicity.
And not everybody in Mexico has surnames of Iberian origin. A branch of my mother's family relocated to Mexico from the U.S. many years ago. They're Mexican now. Caracal's right about the danger of jumping to conclusions from superficial research.
Quote from: apl68 on October 28, 2020, 10:07:55 AM
Quote from: sonoamused on October 28, 2020, 08:44:06 AM
And coming from Mexico, in and of itself, doesn't mean much. You can be Caucasian, Spanish, Chican@, Latin@...and still be Mexican. Mexican is not nationality, not a single ethnicity.
And not everybody in Mexico has surnames of Iberian origin. A branch of my mother's family relocated to Mexico from the U.S. many years ago. They're Mexican now. Caracal's right about the danger of jumping to conclusions from superficial research.
In the early 20th century, a lot of Mennonites from Russia relocated to Mexico (and South America). So you have "Mexicans" who are German* speaking, of Russian ancestry.
*"low" German, for those who want to be specific
Sad, but fascinating. If you go to comments, there is a link to this, which allegedly has obituaries of her grandparents:
https://marycumminsmarycummins.blogspot.com/2020/10/who-is-kelly-kean-sharp-she-appears-to.html
Obviously Mexico is a diverse country with, e.g., a quarter million people of Asian descent and a sizeable fraction of white people with non-Spanish names. But for someone purportedly using Chicana identity to their professional advantage, her story doesn't add up. Also the reaction (shutting down twitter, website, no response, etc.) looks real bad. My money is on her being a faker.
Quote from: fizzycist on October 28, 2020, 11:43:52 AM
Also the reaction (shutting down twitter, website, no response, etc.) looks real bad. My money is on her being a faker.
My thoughts too.
Sooner or later, an interesting scenario is going to happen:
Person is told of their <whatever non-white> *ancestry. Person embraces that "identity", and ultimately gets hired as an academic based on that identity, and uses it as a basis for their outlook, including that of a person with a legacy of oppression. Eventually, evidence comes out which proves conclusively that the claim about ancestry was incorrect. Since the person honestly believed what they had been told, they never knowingly lied.
Was the person actually "oppressed"?
Should the person recant anything they have said based on their incorrect perception of themself as a "victim of oppression"?
Should they retain any position(s), award(s), etc. based somewhat on their perceived status?
This will **eventually happen, and it will be interesting to see how it goes.
*probably some great- or great-great-grandparent.
**Elizabeth Warren to a higher degree????
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 28, 2020, 12:42:49 PM
Sooner or later, an interesting scenario is going to happen:
Person is told of their <whatever non-white> *ancestry. Person embraces that "identity", and ultimately gets hired as an academic based on that identity, and uses it as a basis for their outlook, including that of a person with a legacy of oppression. Eventually, evidence comes out which proves conclusively that the claim about ancestry was incorrect. Since the person honestly believed what they had been told, they never knowingly lied.
Was the person actually "oppressed"?
Should the person recant anything they have said based on their incorrect perception of themself as a "victim of oppression"?
Should they retain any position(s), award(s), etc. based somewhat on their perceived status?
This will **eventually happen, and it will be interesting to see how it goes.
*probably some great- or great-great-grandparent.
**Elizabeth Warren to a higher degree????
The "first woman of color" on Harvard Law's faculty....
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 28, 2020, 12:42:49 PM
Sooner or later, an interesting scenario is going to happen:
Person is told of their <whatever non-white> *ancestry. Person embraces that "identity", and ultimately gets hired as an academic based on that identity, and uses it as a basis for their outlook, including that of a person with a legacy of oppression. Eventually, evidence comes out which proves conclusively that the claim about ancestry was incorrect. Since the person honestly believed what they had been told, they never knowingly lied.
Was the person actually "oppressed"?
Should the person recant anything they have said based on their incorrect perception of themself as a "victim of oppression"?
Should they retain any position(s), award(s), etc. based somewhat on their perceived status?
This will **eventually happen, and it will be interesting to see how it goes.
*probably some great- or great-great-grandparent.
**Elizabeth Warren to a higher degree????
Seems pretty unlikely that this scenario could proceed entirely in good faith. If a person is interested in embracing their identity and eventually get to the point of using it for professional gain, then acting in good faith would presumably imply that they do due diligence to verify what is exactly their connection.
Well, we could institute a sort of Aryan Certificate, run in reverse of course. Ancestry would be checked several generations back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_certificate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_certificate)
We could call it the Opressed People's Certificate.
Quote from: fizzycist on October 28, 2020, 01:55:42 PM
Seems pretty unlikely that this scenario could proceed entirely in good faith. If a person is interested in embracing their identity and eventually get to the point of using it for professional gain, then acting in good faith would presumably imply that they do due diligence to verify what is exactly their connection.
Due diligence of what? I know someone whose grandmother was adopted. Rumored to be of mixed race. Looking at my friend's family, it's plausible. But what "diligence" could he do? An orphanage in the 1930s was not going to have accurate genealogical records of abandoned or stolen kids. (And when it comes to indigenous heritage, adoption out of the culture is a big thing).
The DNA test route looks even more dodgy. Many of us would show up as having a small percentage of something (often so small I'd call it "margin of error", not "ethnicity"...).
Quote from: dismalist on October 28, 2020, 02:05:45 PM
Well, we could institute a sort of Aryan Certificate, run in reverse of course. Ancestry would be checked several generations back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_certificate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_certificate)
We could call it the Opressed People's Certificate.
Oh, please, please let "oppressed" be misspelled on the certificate!
Quote from: bacardiandlime on October 28, 2020, 04:34:33 PM
Quote from: fizzycist on October 28, 2020, 01:55:42 PM
Seems pretty unlikely that this scenario could proceed entirely in good faith. If a person is interested in embracing their identity and eventually get to the point of using it for professional gain, then acting in good faith would presumably imply that they do due diligence to verify what is exactly their connection.
Due diligence of what? I know someone whose grandmother was adopted. Rumored to be of mixed race. Looking at my friend's family, it's plausible. But what "diligence" could he do? An orphanage in the 1930s was not going to have accurate genealogical records of abandoned or stolen kids. (And when it comes to indigenous heritage, adoption out of the culture is a big thing).
The DNA test route looks even more dodgy. Many of us would show up as having a small percentage of something (often so small I'd call it "margin of error", not "ethnicity"...).
If your friend has one grandma who might have a different ethnicity/race, but your friend can't verify or identify what the race/ethnicity even is, then what is there to embrace?
In this case claiming that they were anything in particular (aside from whatever the rest of the family is) and using it for professional gain would not be acting in good faith, IMO.
I don't think that scenario is even particularly close. A closer call might be: what if someone born in the US has one great grandparent who was full-blooded African, can they reasonably "embrace" being African American? I would say no, but maybe others feel differently.
Maybe we could make ancestor certificates tradable.
Random observations:
1) what exactly does 'Chicano/a' mean, etymologically, and is its Webster's English definition different from this?
2) Is Patti Jinich Chicana?
3) WRT using commercial DNA testing services to ascertain one's ethnic origins, I have never been impressed. Recall the commercial with the dude with the NY accent who said that he growing up had always been told his ancestry was German, only to take the test and discover it was not German, but predominately Scottish, motivating him to swap his lederhosen for a kilt. Exactly what is 'Scottish' or 'German' DNA, and how can these things be ascertained by a DNA test?
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 28, 2020, 05:30:47 AM
Notice her job title of "Asst prof of African American history". In the current climate, being just plain "white" wouldn't cut it for that kind of position. Some sort of "POC" cover would be necessary.
Yes, demonstrably untrue. My own department has two assistant professors of African-American literature, both of whom are "just plain white."
I have to say that this whole exercise of doing (sort of) genealogical research on somebody to prove or disprove their ethnicity seems macabre and grotesque, and reminds me of South Africa or Nazi Germany. First, the anonymous post seems to be based on her twitter account. The CV she has posted on her website does not say anything about her ethnicity. (It says she speaks Spanish, which is not the same, obviously.)
Second, this whole exercise seems to have a rather ignorant conception of what "Chicana" means. Yes, she has light skin and, yes, she has an Anglo name. Neither of this means very much. Linda Ronstadt is Chicano, and Vicente Fox is Mexican. The mayor of Mexico City is Sheinbaum. Previous mayors of Bogotá include Paul Bromberg and Antanas Mockus. One of the leading Mexican American politicians in Bill Richardson. The richest Mexican is probably Carlos Slim. If you hang out in Santa Fe or Polanco in Mexico City, or San Pedro Garza García in Nuevo León, you will probably see lots of people who are white with non-Spanish names. Not many of these people would consider themselves "Chicanos" (the term actually has a negative connotation in much of Mexico) but they are certainly Mexicans.
Personally, I think there are some good Spanish terms to describe people who want to dig into other people's family history to make a half-baked political point. Two that come to mind are metiche or hablardora.
Quote from: jerseyjay on October 28, 2020, 10:46:56 PM
I have to say that this whole exercise of doing (sort of) genealogical research on somebody to prove or disprove their ethnicity seems macabre and grotesque, and reminds me of South Africa or Nazi Germany. First, the anonymous post seems to be based on her twitter account. The CV she has posted on her website does not say anything about her ethnicity. (It says she speaks Spanish, which is not the same, obviously.)
Second, this whole exercise seems to have a rather ignorant conception of what "Chicana" means. Yes, she has light skin and, yes, she has an Anglo name. Neither of this means very much. Linda Ronstadt is Chicano, and Vicente Fox is Mexican. The mayor of Mexico City is Sheinbaum. Previous mayors of Bogotá include Paul Bromberg and Antanas Mockus. One of the leading Mexican American politicians in Bill Richardson. The richest Mexican is probably Carlos Slim. If you hang out in Santa Fe or Polanco in Mexico City, or San Pedro Garza García in Nuevo León, you will probably see lots of people who are white with non-Spanish names. Not many of these people would consider themselves "Chicanos" (the term actually has a negative connotation in much of Mexico) but they are certainly Mexicans.
Personally, I think there are some good Spanish terms to describe people who want to dig into other people's family history to make a half-baked political point. Two that come to mind are metiche or hablardora.
Looking at DNA to show ethnicity seems inappropriate. My niece's DNA would indicate Southern Chinese ancestry, but she was adopted as an infant and grew up in an upper middle class, small town, southern American home with parents whose DNA indicates Western European ancestry. Her DNA may be Asian, but she's a cornbread today, quiche tomorrow, pizza for breakfast American girl.
These comments show that there are many people who are prepared to be the arbiters of what constitutes an authentic claim to an ethnicity. If we accept that situation as normal and acceptable, then the question changes to who is the appropriate arbiter for a specific situation. The Caledonian Club of Glasgow may have different criteria for Scotsmanship than the University of Munich's diversity committee. Is there anything wrong with that disparity?
When is it appropriate to have a specific ethnicity as a criterion for a faculty position? In those cases, who appropriately decides on the criteria for qualifying?
I don't have an answer for either of those questions in regard to faculty hiring in my field.
Quote from: Hibush on October 29, 2020, 05:14:26 AM
These comments show that there are many people who are prepared to be the arbiters of what constitutes an authentic claim to an ethnicity. If we accept that situation as normal and acceptable, then the question changes to who is the appropriate arbiter for a specific situation. The Caledonian Club of Glasgow may have different criteria for Scotsmanship than the University of Munich's diversity committee. Is there anything wrong with that disparity?
When is it appropriate to have a specific ethnicity as a criterion for a faculty position? In those cases, who appropriately decides on the criteria for qualifying?
I don't have an answer for either of those questions in regard to faculty hiring in my field.
I have an answer for each of those.
Never.
No one.
I think MLK might back me up on that.
Quote from: Hibush on October 29, 2020, 05:14:26 AM
These comments show that there are many people who are prepared to be the arbiters of what constitutes an authentic claim to an ethnicity. If we accept that situation as normal and acceptable, then the question changes to who is the appropriate arbiter for a specific situation. The Caledonian Club of Glasgow may have different criteria for Scotsmanship than the University of Munich's diversity committee. Is there anything wrong with that disparity?
When is it appropriate to have a specific ethnicity as a criterion for a faculty position? In those cases, who appropriately decides on the criteria for qualifying?
I don't have an answer for either of those questions in regard to faculty hiring in my field.
You state the problem nicely. Ethnicity is not easy to define precisely -- probably impossible. For some there may be clear paradigms but for others the whole concept is a mixture of disparate elements. They might be useful categories in sociological analysis but far less useful in individual application.
The whole process of assessing a candidate's suitability for a position is full of uncertainty -- predicting future performance. But using any other criteria than a candidate's skills is prima facie problematic, and there needs to be a very strong reason to include that in the job description.
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 29, 2020, 05:31:37 AM
Quote from: Hibush on October 29, 2020, 05:14:26 AM
These comments show that there are many people who are prepared to be the arbiters of what constitutes an authentic claim to an ethnicity. If we accept that situation as normal and acceptable, then the question changes to who is the appropriate arbiter for a specific situation. The Caledonian Club of Glasgow may have different criteria for Scotsmanship than the University of Munich's diversity committee. Is there anything wrong with that disparity?
When is it appropriate to have a specific ethnicity as a criterion for a faculty position? In those cases, who appropriately decides on the criteria for qualifying?
I don't have an answer for either of those questions in regard to faculty hiring in my field.
I have an answer for each of those.
Never.
No one.
I think MLK might back me up on that.
Probably not. He supported affirmative action by the mid 1960s.
Quote from: Vkw10 on October 29, 2020, 01:39:28 AM
Quote from: jerseyjay on October 28, 2020, 10:46:56 PM
I have to say that this whole exercise of doing (sort of) genealogical research on somebody to prove or disprove their ethnicity seems macabre and grotesque, and reminds me of South Africa or Nazi Germany. First, the anonymous post seems to be based on her twitter account. The CV she has posted on her website does not say anything about her ethnicity. (It says she speaks Spanish, which is not the same, obviously.)
Second, this whole exercise seems to have a rather ignorant conception of what "Chicana" means. Yes, she has light skin and, yes, she has an Anglo name. Neither of this means very much. Linda Ronstadt is Chicano, and Vicente Fox is Mexican. The mayor of Mexico City is Sheinbaum. Previous mayors of Bogotá include Paul Bromberg and Antanas Mockus. One of the leading Mexican American politicians in Bill Richardson. The richest Mexican is probably Carlos Slim. If you hang out in Santa Fe or Polanco in Mexico City, or San Pedro Garza García in Nuevo León, you will probably see lots of people who are white with non-Spanish names. Not many of these people would consider themselves "Chicanos" (the term actually has a negative connotation in much of Mexico) but they are certainly Mexicans.
Personally, I think there are some good Spanish terms to describe people who want to dig into other people's family history to make a half-baked political point. Two that come to mind are metiche or hablardora.
Looking at DNA to show ethnicity seems inappropriate. My niece's DNA would indicate Southern Chinese ancestry, but she was adopted as an infant and grew up in an upper middle class, small town, southern American home with parents whose DNA indicates Western European ancestry. Her DNA may be Asian, but she's a cornbread today, quiche tomorrow, pizza for breakfast American girl.
I agree with all of this. I do a fair amount of work with historical census records and the research in the post was so bad I was tempted to go see if I could do better. Obviously this is partly a bad idea because its a form of academic procrastination. But, it also just feels gross.
Without getting into the specifics, which aren't clear, there's no objective standard for being able to claim an identity or background.
I can imagine a number of public contexts in which I might identify as Jewish. I certainly think of myself as Jewish. I'm not required to tell everyone that my father was born Jewish but my mother converted, but she actually converted in a reform ceremony, so Orthodox Jews wouldn't recognize it, but actually that doesn't matter in my case because...
You see the point, I'm allowed to claim an identity without explaining everything about it. On the other hand there is a point where claims can become clearly dishonest or misleading. If I were to discover that I had a great grandparent who was black and suddenly started referring to myself as a black person, I think most people would find that distasteful. It wouldn't be about the amount of ancestry-there are lots of people who consider themselves black who have a lot of white ancestors-the issue would be that I would be adopting an identity that had nothing to do with my experience of the world.
Most people don't actually have any desire to do that kind of thing. There's a reason why the egregious cases involve people who seem unbalanced.
Quote from: Caracal on October 29, 2020, 10:48:04 AM
You see the point, I'm allowed to claim an identity without explaining everything about it. On the other hand there is a point where claims can become clearly dishonest or misleading. If I were to discover that I had a great grandparent who was black and suddenly started referring to myself as a black person, I think most people would find that distasteful. It wouldn't be about the amount of ancestry-there are lots of people who consider themselves black who have a lot of white ancestors-the issue would be that I would be adopting an identity that had nothing to do with my experience of the world.
Most people don't actually have any desire to do that kind of thing. There's a reason why the egregious cases involve people who seem unbalanced.
As long as "identity" is treated as an all-or-nothing bulldozer that can be used by those who "have" it against those who don't then scammers will be incentivized. The best way to avoid that is stop granting so much power on the basis of something which, as numerous examples on here have shown, is much more nuanced and complex than the identitarians would like to admit.
There's no reason that any two people in any identity "category" have any specific experience, belief, or preference in common. And no one gets to speak for the entire group.
Quote from: Caracal on October 29, 2020, 10:48:04 AM
...
You see the point, I'm allowed to claim an identity without explaining everything about it. On the other hand there is a point where claims can become clearly dishonest or misleading. If I were to discover that I had a great grandparent who was black and suddenly started referring to myself as a black person, I think most people would find that distasteful. It wouldn't be about the amount of ancestry-there are lots of people who consider themselves black who have a lot of white ancestors-the issue would be that I would be adopting an identity that had nothing to do with my experience of the world.
Most people don't actually have any desire to do that kind of thing. There's a reason why the egregious cases involve people who seem unbalanced.
Caracal is the only one making sense to me in this thread.
Hibush's questions might be interesting rhetorically, but it rarely comes up in practice.
There is a boundary somewhere when it comes to ethinicity/race/heritage claims. Nobody will agree exactly where is the line, but we all know approximately where it is. Vast majority stay away from the boundary because going too close is uncomfortable.
In this case she already got close to the boundary. Claims for familiarity with antebellum South from growing up in Encinitas? Publically and vocally identifying as Chicana in professional context based on vague claims of one grandparent from Mexico.
It opened her up to scrutiny and turns out she was a faker. I read somewhere she resigned today from her Uni. Evidently the consequences for this behavior are severe, and while a few cases may be highly visible I bet fakery represents a miniscule fraction of ethnicity claims, like 10^-4 or something.
Quote from: fizzycist on October 29, 2020, 11:21:46 AM
I read somewhere she resigned today from her Uni.
IHE link (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/10/29/unmasking-another-white-professor-allegedly-posing-person-color).
Couple thoughts...
First, I'm really tired of the idea that MLK (or JFK or anyone else) having said something is an ironclad indication that I or anyone else should agree. He was a human who f'ed up a few times like anyone, including some "biggies" like boinking around on your wife as a reverend and plagiarizing material including several unattributed pages of a dissertation. Worthy of significant respect? Obviously. Walking on water? Not really.
Second, I've just been notified recently that a role at an institution I previously attended had earmarked a role that recently was filled to a woman. This was in part due to an on-campus gender controversy so of course the easiest was is pull the old black police chief move. If the person who will be responding to the issue is a member of the grievance class, it will dampen the blowback. This is just getting exhausting.
Third, I'm glad to see a role either earmarked or even "tilted" toward a particular ethnic hire blow up in everyone's face. I'm tired of these existing at all so hopefully everyone does likewise and simply starts examining the validity of ethic claims so much that the work points received for making the hire are exceeded by the controversy over legitimacy afterward. Whatever needs to be done to take this process down in general is fine with me.
Quote from: fizzycist on October 29, 2020, 11:21:46 AM
There is a boundary somewhere when it comes to ethinicity/race/heritage claims. Nobody will agree exactly where is the line, but we all know approximately where it is. Vast majority stay away from the boundary because going too close is uncomfortable.
In this case she already got close to the boundary. Claims for familiarity with antebellum South from growing up in Encinitas? Publically and vocally identifying as Chicana in professional context based on vague claims of one grandparent from Mexico.
It opened her up to scrutiny and turns out she was a faker. I read somewhere she resigned today from her Uni. Evidently the consequences for this behavior are severe, and while a few cases may be highly visible I bet fakery represents a miniscule fraction of ethnicity claims, like 10^-4 or something.
So if the "vague claims of one grandparent from Mexico" turned out to be true, then there'd be no problem claiming and benefitting from that identity? Even with no supporting evidence of how (or whether) that influenced her life?
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 29, 2020, 12:04:49 PM
Quote from: fizzycist on October 29, 2020, 11:21:46 AM
There is a boundary somewhere when it comes to ethinicity/race/heritage claims. Nobody will agree exactly where is the line, but we all know approximately where it is. Vast majority stay away from the boundary because going too close is uncomfortable.
In this case she already got close to the boundary. Claims for familiarity with antebellum South from growing up in Encinitas? Publically and vocally identifying as Chicana in professional context based on vague claims of one grandparent from Mexico.
It opened her up to scrutiny and turns out she was a faker. I read somewhere she resigned today from her Uni. Evidently the consequences for this behavior are severe, and while a few cases may be highly visible I bet fakery represents a miniscule fraction of ethnicity claims, like 10^-4 or something.
So if the "vague claims of one grandparent from Mexico" turned out to be true, then there'd be no problem claiming and benefitting from that identity? Even with no supporting evidence of how (or whether) that influenced her life?
Pretty sure you already know the answer to that, but... Some ppl would still be skeptical. Others would look at her advocacy and good things she was doing and be fine with it. Either way she'd still have her job and we wouldn't be talking about her.
If she was honest about the nature of her identity from the beginning, then I don't see how it would be right to deny her anything now. These are the slippery slopes you walk upon when you attach identity to academics.
Quote from: Ruralguy on October 29, 2020, 12:28:00 PM
If she was honest about the nature of her identity from the beginning, then I don't see how it would be right to deny her anything now. These are the slippery slopes you walk upon when you attach identity to academics.
If search commitees are expected to verify candidates' degrees, references, etc., then it makes sense that if ethnicity is explicitly attached to a position, they should have a similarly rigorous process to vet that as well. Which would require at the very least that any claims made are specific enough to be verified.
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 29, 2020, 12:47:14 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on October 29, 2020, 12:28:00 PM
If she was honest about the nature of her identity from the beginning, then I don't see how it would be right to deny her anything now. These are the slippery slopes you walk upon when you attach identity to academics.
If search commitees are expected to verify candidates' degrees, references, etc., then it makes sense that if ethnicity is explicitly attached to a position, they should have a similarly rigorous process to vet that as well. Which would require at the very least that any claims made are specific enough to be verified.
Even if they were allowed to attach an ethnicity to the position (which seems unlikely), is it appropriate for them to change the criteria for ethnic qualification from the ones they used at hiring to the ones insisted on by an anonymous blogger a year or two later?
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 29, 2020, 12:47:14 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on October 29, 2020, 12:28:00 PM
If she was honest about the nature of her identity from the beginning, then I don't see how it would be right to deny her anything now. These are the slippery slopes you walk upon when you attach identity to academics.
If search commitees are expected to verify candidates' degrees, references, etc., then it makes sense that if ethnicity is explicitly attached to a position, they should have a similarly rigorous process to vet that as well. Which would require at the very least that any claims made are specific enough to be verified.
Degrees and references are the wrong parallel. It is more like some detail from a candidates background. It might be considered a plus if someone was from the local area, for example, but a search committee isn't likely to go look at the birth certificate. You would just assume someone isn't going to lie about something like that, because they are likely to be found out eventually.
Some people on here seem convinced this is a very common problem, but this seems like a classic example of confirmation bias. There was a high profile case and as a result people who knew someone who had some story about their background that always seemed a little weird went digging. There are a lot of academics. Like all people, some of them are liars and scammers. It doesn't mean that there's an epidemic of this kind of stuff.
Quote from: Caracal on October 29, 2020, 03:04:39 PM
Some people on here seem convinced this is a very common problem, but this seems like a classic example of confirmation bias. There was a high profile case and as a result people who knew someone who had some story about their background that always seemed a little weird went digging. There are a lot of academics. Like all people, some of them are liars and scammers. It doesn't mean that there's an epidemic of this kind of stuff.
For decades, the concept of people "passing" as white has been a thing, because there were advantages to being white. Now, as the number of situations increases where being "non-white" is an advantage, there will be more people "passing" as non-white. Any behavior which is incentivized will increase.
Whatever happened to the one-drop rule?
https://insidehighered.com/news/2020/10/29/unmasking-another-white-professor-allegedly-posing-person-color
Some interesting details here including how recently the professor claimed to be Chicana.
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 29, 2020, 03:19:45 PM
Quote from: Caracal on October 29, 2020, 03:04:39 PM
Some people on here seem convinced this is a very common problem, but this seems like a classic example of confirmation bias. There was a high profile case and as a result people who knew someone who had some story about their background that always seemed a little weird went digging. There are a lot of academics. Like all people, some of them are liars and scammers. It doesn't mean that there's an epidemic of this kind of stuff.
For decades, the concept of people "passing" as white has been a thing, because there were advantages to being white. Now, as the number of situations increases where being "non-white" is an advantage, there will be more people "passing" as non-white. Any behavior which is incentivized will increase.
OTOH I always thought I was a Basic White Girl until I moved to North Carolina and got the stares. "What are you?" Um... what do you mean?
"Like... are you Indian or something?" No, just an olive-skinned girl of French and Eastern European descent.
And then they would see my last name.
"Are you...
jewish?"
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 28, 2020, 10:45:51 AM
Quote from: apl68 on October 28, 2020, 10:07:55 AM
Quote from: sonoamused on October 28, 2020, 08:44:06 AM
And coming from Mexico, in and of itself, doesn't mean much. You can be Caucasian, Spanish, Chican@, Latin@...and still be Mexican. Mexican is not nationality, not a single ethnicity.
And not everybody in Mexico has surnames of Iberian origin. A branch of my mother's family relocated to Mexico from the U.S. many years ago. They're Mexican now. Caracal's right about the danger of jumping to conclusions from superficial research.
I want to know why Romney was not identified as the first Mexican American presidential candidate.
I recall applying for job with a major corporation. When they asked for my race for EEOC purposes they got very detailed about the meanings. So, Fujimori could not call himself Hispanic according to their rules. Obviously people have already tried to game the system.
Quote from: fizzycist on October 28, 2020, 11:43:52 AM
. Also the reaction (shutting down twitter, website, no response, etc.) looks real bad. My money is on her being a faker.
Shutting down social media and personal website is a common strategy when being harassed by trolls and receiving threats, as I am certain is happening to her. The ugliness and sheer quantity is hard to comprehend if one hasn't seen it.