How One Liberal 'Proves' Republicans Are Racist

[mahagonny]

But if you believe all of the "unconscious bias" stuff, then we have to "live with it" because at the microscopic level it can't be

Here's a partial answer to your question 'what is the value in seeing people who disagree with you as evil enemies.' As Al Gore said, you can't sell people a solution until you've convinced them there's a problem. So, the unconscious bias concern prompts the need for  research, publications that produce tenure track promotions and income, diversity training, diversity and inclusion staff, new departments in the university, expensive hired consultants (Robin D'Angelo getting $20,000 for an appearance on a college campus), government bloat. Of course, this being the problem that simultaneously seeks a solution while saying there is none, it's the gift that keeps on giving.

It wouldn't be so hard to take some of these costly effects if the discussion could also include what people can do to improve their lives that doesn't require others to change what they are doing, thinking, or saying.

[Sun_Worshiper]

I think that white, professional Democrats see people "of color" as votes.  (I also think Donald Trump sees "evangelical" Christians as votes.)  In both cases, the targeted group is valued in the abstract rather than the particular, which is why gentry liberals continue to send their children to private schools.

In short: Democrats are racist.  So are Republicans.  So are white people.  So are "B"lack people.  Live with it.

False equivalency, but beyond that I'd rather not live in a world where our response to racism is to "live with it"

And I'd rather not live in a world in which our response to racism is to come up with elaborate theoretical constructs ("systemic racism!" "white privilege!") that make no difference in the life of any actual human being.  I suppose we'll both be committing suicide.

Theoretical constructs don't seem like bad things to me, nor does seeking to understand racism and how it is embedded in our society.  Developing such an understanding of racism is a prerequisite to developing strategies to reduce it, which will of course make differences in the lives of many people.  For example, if we find that there is a pay gap that exists between blacks and other Americans, even while holding other variables constant, then we will have identified an area where policy or normative interventions can be used to address the problem - for example by encouraging companies to share salary data with the department of labor (just an illustrative idea and example, not necessarily saying this would be the right policy or that the data would identify a relationship between race and salary).

I guess it is easier to throw our hands up and say "everyone is equally guilty so let's not talk or think about it," but that also doesn't seem like it will help make a difference in the life of any actual human being.

I think that white, professional Democrats see people "of color" as votes.  (I also think Donald Trump sees "evangelical" Christians as votes.)  In both cases, the targeted group is valued in the abstract rather than the particular, which is why gentry liberals continue to send their children to private schools.

In short: Democrats are racist.  So are Republicans.  So are white people.  So are "B"lack people.  Live with it.

False equivalency, but beyond that I'd rather not live in a world where our response to racism is to "live with it"

But if you believe all of the "unconscious bias" stuff, then we have to "live with it" because at the microscopic level it can't be eradicated!!!!!

The people who believe racism can be, (and to a great degree, has been), eradicated are the only ones who believe there is an alternative to "living with it".

Who says that an unconscious bias is immovable?  There are lots of ways to change the way that people think for better (or for worse, unfortunately).

I will add that whether unconscious bias exists should be based on empirical evidence, not belief.

[writingprof]

For example, if we find that there is a pay gap that exists between blacks and other Americans, even while holding other variables constant, then we will have identified an area where policy or normative interventions can be used to address the problem.

Good luck holding other variables constant.  Even the attempt to identify those variables is "racist," as Charles Murray et al. can attest.

[Sun_Worshiper]

For example, if we find that there is a pay gap that exists between blacks and other Americans, even while holding other variables constant, then we will have identified an area where policy or normative interventions can be used to address the problem.

Good luck holding other variables constant.  Even the attempt to identify those variables is "racist," as Charles Murray et al. can attest.

There are literally hundreds of studies in sociology that do just that: develop a theory related to race, analyze data (with control variables included in the model), and publish it in journals and books that can, in turn, inform policy.  It isn't impossible for them to do it and, although I suppose you can find an instance or two when it proved controversial, they generally don't face any blowback from their research.

More generally it seems odd that an academic (such as yourself) would reject theory and empirics as ways to develop strategies to address problems.

[mahagonny]

Re: hypocrisy
You can always pay people different amounts for identical service. Just use different job titles. Society endorses this, and no one more extensively than higher education. Today I will be teaching a course for 1/2 (excluding the no benefits/benefits difference - that's big $ too)  pay that my 'colleagues' get for the same work. 'Pay equity' is a concept that our business pointedly rejects. To say it should be enforced only where race is involved would be arbitrary.

[marshwiggle]

Who says that an unconscious bias is immovable?  There are lots of ways to change the way that people think for better (or for worse, unfortunately).

I will add that whether unconscious bias exists should be based on empirical evidence, not belief.

So does the Implicit Association Test count as "empirical evidence" for unconscious bias? And if so, is there "empirical evidence" that it can be removed by any sort of intervention?

[Sun_Worshiper]

Re: hypocrisy
You can always pay people different amounts for identical service. Society endorses this, and no one more extensively than higher education. Today I will be teaching a two hour course for 1/2 (excluding the no benefits/benefits difference)  pay that my 'colleagues' get for the same work. 'Pay equity' is a concept that our business pointedly rejects. To say it should be enforced only where race is involved would be arbitrary.

Actually you cannot always pay people different amounts for identical service, at least not legally in the US (e.g. the Equal Pay Act). 

I'm disturbed by academia's reliance on and exploitation of adjunct labor, and I think it should be changed. However, it must also be said that adjuncts do not have identical job requirements to full time faculty: They don't have to do research, sit on committees, etc.

Who says that an unconscious bias is immovable?  There are lots of ways to change the way that people think for better (or for worse, unfortunately).

I will add that whether unconscious bias exists should be based on empirical evidence, not belief.

So does the Implicit Association Test count as "empirical evidence" for unconscious bias? And if so, is there "empirical evidence" that it can be removed by any sort of intervention?

I don't have the answer to that specific question.  I'd probably look at a review article from the world of race, class, and gender to get a sense of what the well regarded scholarship has to say about this.

[mahagonny]

Re: hypocrisy
You can always pay people different amounts for identical service. Society endorses this, and no one more extensively than higher education. Today I will be teaching a two hour course for 1/2 (excluding the no benefits/benefits difference)  pay that my 'colleagues' get for the same work. 'Pay equity' is a concept that our business pointedly rejects. To say it should be enforced only where race is involved would be arbitrary.

Actually you cannot always pay people different amounts for identical service, at least not legally in the US (e.g. the Equal Pay Act). 

However, it must also be said that adjuncts do not have identical job requirements to full time faculty: They don't have to do research, sit on committees, etc.

Full time faculty do not have the same requirements as adjunct faculty either. They are not asked to have enough money to live on independent of the teaching job already.

I'm disturbed by academia's reliance on and exploitation of adjunct labor, and I think it should be changed.

I doubt it. When the adjunct unions protest or demonstrate, are you there with them? Do you use your academic freedom protection to write against exploitation?

[Sun_Worshiper]

Re: hypocrisy
You can always pay people different amounts for identical service. Society endorses this, and no one more extensively than higher education. Today I will be teaching a two hour course for 1/2 (excluding the no benefits/benefits difference)  pay that my 'colleagues' get for the same work. 'Pay equity' is a concept that our business pointedly rejects. To say it should be enforced only where race is involved would be arbitrary.

Actually you cannot always pay people different amounts for identical service, at least not legally in the US (e.g. the Equal Pay Act). 

However, it must also be said that adjuncts do not have identical job requirements to full time faculty: They don't have to do research, sit on committees, etc.

Full time faculty do not have the same requirements as adjunct faculty either. They are not asked to have enough money to live on independent of the teaching job already.

I'm disturbed by academia's reliance on and exploitation of adjunct labor, and I think it should be changed.

I doubt it. When the adjunct unions protest or demonstrate, are you there with them? Do you use your academic freedom protection to write against exploitation?

I'd be happy to protest with adjuncts for fairer wages or benefits, although I'm not aware of any such protests or demonstrations at my campus (we have no faculty union; not sure if adjuncts have some stand-alone union). 

I've also never written against exploitation of adjunct workers, but it is something to think about post-tenure (pre-tenure, academic freedom doesn't exist in de facto terms).  I don't do research on education, however, so it would be pretty left-field and I don't have credibility in that area.

That said, none of your points make race-based discrimination acceptable, either legally or ethically, nor is there a clear parallel between adjunct pay gap and race-based pay gap since, as I noted, the job requirements for adjuncts and full time faculty are not the same. 

[mahagonny]

I've also never written against exploitation of adjunct workers, but it is something to think about post-tenure (pre-tenure, academic freedom doesn't exist in de facto terms).  I don't do research on education, however, so it would be pretty left-field and I don't have credibility in that area.

Never mind. You won't want to by then anyway. Not that not being in the education or labor field should be an impediment anyway.
By the time you get tenure, you'll be continuing to love the race and gender oh-so-unfair mantras because they make wealth for the tenured community  and you'll be on board with  adjunctification for the same reason. And you won't even have to say you like it. You can blame it on others.

That said, none of your points make race-based discrimination acceptable, either legally or ethically, nor is there a clear parallel between adjunct pay gap and race-based pay gap since, as I noted, the job requirements for adjuncts and full time faculty are not the same.

Speaking of job requirements, I'm expecting as soon as the pandemic is over, for those who still have a job, there will be a new round of required diversity training for us, where we will be pressured to make confessions about white privilege and such to people with 'full time', salaried and permanent benefitted jobs and lavishly paid outside consultants. This makes me snicker.

[rhetoricae]

I'm disturbed by academia's reliance on and exploitation of adjunct labor, and I think it should be changed.

I doubt it. When the adjunct unions protest or demonstrate, are you there with them? Do you use your academic freedom protection to write against exploitation?

It's interesting that whenever these issues come up (which, of course, is very often), you default to the assumption that anyone who is FT faculty, tenured or not, does not do these things. Or, at a minimum, you take pains to make statements which imply that that's the "default setting" for FT faculty.

MANY of us actually do all of these things. Some of us have even presented at national conferences on these issues, and engage actively in advocacy. The continual insistence/implication that FT have it so good that they most likely either don't care or actively work against equity for ALL faculty, contingent or not, is really tiresome.   Huh -- it's almost as tiresome as someone making judgments or inferences about one's core beliefs on the basis of party identification. Fancy that.

[mahagonny]

I'm disturbed by academia's reliance on and exploitation of adjunct labor, and I think it should be changed.

I doubt it. When the adjunct unions protest or demonstrate, are you there with them? Do you use your academic freedom protection to write against exploitation?

It's interesting that whenever these issues come up (which, of course, is very often), you default to the assumption that anyone who is FT faculty, tenured or not, does not do these things. Or, at a minimum, you take pains to make statements which imply that that's the "default setting" for FT faculty.

MANY of us actually do all of these things. Some of us have even presented at national conferences on these issues, and engage actively in advocacy. The continual insistence/implication that FT have it so good that they most likely either don't care or actively work against equity for ALL faculty, contingent or not, is really tiresome.   Huh -- it's almost as tiresome as someone making judgments or inferences about one's core beliefs on the basis of party identification. Fancy that.

But the advocacy is almost always for a little more shifting of the balance towards more tenure track positions, which, were it to happen, would still involve the  segmented workforce. It's never plausibly for all tenure track workforce, since everyone knows that isn't going to happen. In other words, still regular use of leftover-crumbs-from-the-banquet teaching jobs. And it's never for the obvious solution, an overhaul of the system, with everything on the table, including drastic tenure reform, with the approach that all jobs should be real jobs that are plausibly recommendable to students who would get themselves trained to become teachers.
That's why your kind of comment is so awfully tiresome.
And many more claim to are deeply about pay equity, but do not. and with typical preening, ask us to believe they go around all day fretting about wealth disparity among races.

[Sun_Worshiper]

I've also never written against exploitation of adjunct workers, but it is something to think about post-tenure (pre-tenure, academic freedom doesn't exist in de facto terms).  I don't do research on education, however, so it would be pretty left-field and I don't have credibility in that area.

Never mind. You won't want to by then anyway. Not that not being in the education or labor field should be an impediment anyway.
By the time you get tenure, you'll be continuing to love the race and gender oh-so-unfair mantras because they make wealth for the tenured community  and you'll be on board with  adjunctification for the same reason. And you won't even have to say you like it. You can blame it on others.

That said, none of your points make race-based discrimination acceptable, either legally or ethically, nor is there a clear parallel between adjunct pay gap and race-based pay gap since, as I noted, the job requirements for adjuncts and full time faculty are not the same.

Speaking of job requirements, I'm expecting as soon as the pandemic is over, for those who still have a job, there will be a new round of required diversity training for us, where we will be pressured to make confessions about white privilege and such to people with 'full time', salaried and permanent benefitted jobs and lavishly paid outside consultants. This makes me snicker.

You don't know me at all, so not sure why you're so sure how I'll behave or what I'll think in the future. I've been an adjunct before, prior to doing a PhD and as a PhD student. I understand what it is like just as much as you do.

The diversity training at my university is nothing like what you describe. It is an online video followed by a few multiple choice questions. The point is to show the user how not to commit discriminatory offenses that will make the workplace hostile to minorities and will potentially lead to penalties (i.e. getting fired from your job).

The race/gender mantra, whatever that means, doesn't bring me wealth or consulting or whatever else you think. My pay and any merit raises that come my way are based on publications, with teaching and service also factoring in at the margins.

[rhetoricae]

I'm disturbed by academia's reliance on and exploitation of adjunct labor, and I think it should be changed.

I doubt it. When the adjunct unions protest or demonstrate, are you there with them? Do you use your academic freedom protection to write against exploitation?

It's interesting that whenever these issues come up (which, of course, is very often), you default to the assumption that anyone who is FT faculty, tenured or not, does not do these things. Or, at a minimum, you take pains to make statements which imply that that's the "default setting" for FT faculty.

MANY of us actually do all of these things. Some of us have even presented at national conferences on these issues, and engage actively in advocacy. The continual insistence/implication that FT have it so good that they most likely either don't care or actively work against equity for ALL faculty, contingent or not, is really tiresome.   Huh -- it's almost as tiresome as someone making judgments or inferences about one's core beliefs on the basis of party identification. Fancy that.

But the advocacy is almost always for a little more shifting of the balance towards more tenure track positions, which, were it to happen, would still involve the  segmented workforce. It's never plausibly for all tenure track workforce, since everyone knows that isn't going to happen. In other words, still regular use of leftover-crumbs-from-the-banquet teaching jobs. And it's never for the obvious solution, an overhaul of the system, with everything on the table, including drastic tenure reform, with the approach that all jobs should be real jobs that are plausibly recommendable to students who would get themselves trained to become teachers.
That's why your kind of comment is so awfully tiresome.
And many more claim to are deeply about pay equity, but do not. and with typical preening, ask us to believe they go around all day fretting about wealth disparity among races.

I'll just say that you actually (demonstrably) know nothing about the advocacy work or positions of myself, my peers, or my discipline. You might have a point that such advocacy "almost always" doesn't go too far enough. But your categorical statements about advocacy, support, or reform efforts amongst FT faculty (in my discipline, at least) are, quite simply, both false and pretty offensive.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[writingprof]

The fact that this thread has been hijacked by adjunct grievances is illustrative of the point that none of this will ever be solved.  The issue really is class, not race.  The issue really is race, not class.  Argue amongst yourselves.  I'm going to go roll around on top of a pile of cash, then talk my way out of a speeding ticket.