Johns Hopkins’ diversity chief labels whites, males and Christians as ‘privilege

[Kron3007]

...

[marshwiggle]

I am in Canada, so my examples are from here, but we had a truth and reconciliation commission do a report in which they produced 94 calls to action.  I believe the report was released in 2015.  Since then, I think they have addressed 13.  This is from a government that claims to put DEI front and centre and launched the commission in the first place.

In Canada, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we still have hundreds of first nation communities without safe drinking water. First nation schools in Ontario receive less funding per student (funded federally) compared to non-indigenous schools (funded provincially). 

These are examples of problems that are glaringly problematic and have fairly easy solutions.  There are plenty more.  Instead of actually taking action, we just do a bunch of meaningless work and establish new administrative positions and offices to give the impression that we are doing something.  I now put a lot of time and effort into dressing my windows despite the fact that it has almost no impact and has only made me bitter and skeptical about the whole thing. 

We're pretty much in agreement on all of this.

The major issue I see is that DEI is mostly fluff and these discussions just devolve into arguments over the wording.  You will never convince Marshy and their ilk that white privilege is the problem or a suitable term. 

Not quite sure who are part of my "ilk", but is "white privilege" really THE problem?
The one kind of privilege that has the most tangible effect by far is socioeconomic; i.e. the family and environment into which you're born, but it doesn't really help the narrative because it cuts across identity lines of race, gender, etc. (How many of the wealthy DEI pushers are voluntarily giving up their wealth? That's one of the "privilege" items that actually can be voluntarily given up.)

However, almost all of them would support a system that provides equal access to opportunity for all, so the whole argument is mostly meaningless.  It is quite possible to address the problem without agreeing on the terminology, and force feeding everyone these concepts is largely counterproductive.

It's not so much about agreeing on the terminology, as focusing on the concrete actions that can be taken that don't require subtle (or not-so-subtle) disparagement of one group or other.

For the bulk of us who reside somewhere in the middle, it is hard to take DEI proponents seriously when there are so many easily remedied problems that are left unaddressed.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Wahoo Redux]

Well, at the risk of being shouted down, Golden's definition is correct. Peggy McIntosh (one of the most-cited scholars on this issue) defines white privilege as an "invisible package of unearned assets" that white people can count upon without having to think about it. She says nothing about recognition or virtue. Please read McIntosh's "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" and the brilliant critique by Gina Crosley-Corcoran, "Explaining White Privilege to a Broke White Person."
We're scholars. Do the homework.

Yes, and again yes. Reasonable people agree on all this.

But what do definitions of this type accomplish?

Or to put it another way: What Kron said.

[Kron3007]

I am in Canada, so my examples are from here, but we had a truth and reconciliation commission do a report in which they produced 94 calls to action.  I believe the report was released in 2015.  Since then, I think they have addressed 13.  This is from a government that claims to put DEI front and centre and launched the commission in the first place.

In Canada, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we still have hundreds of first nation communities without safe drinking water. First nation schools in Ontario receive less funding per student (funded federally) compared to non-indigenous schools (funded provincially). 

These are examples of problems that are glaringly problematic and have fairly easy solutions.  There are plenty more.  Instead of actually taking action, we just do a bunch of meaningless work and establish new administrative positions and offices to give the impression that we are doing something.  I now put a lot of time and effort into dressing my windows despite the fact that it has almost no impact and has only made me bitter and skeptical about the whole thing. 

We're pretty much in agreement on all of this.

The major issue I see is that DEI is mostly fluff and these discussions just devolve into arguments over the wording.  You will never convince Marshy and their ilk that white privilege is the problem or a suitable term. 

Not quite sure who are part of my "ilk", but is "white privilege" really THE problem?
The one kind of privilege that has the most tangible effect by far is socioeconomic; i.e. the family and environment into which you're born, but it doesn't really help the narrative because it cuts across identity lines of race, gender, etc. (How many of the wealthy DEI pushers are voluntarily giving up their wealth? That's one of the "privilege" items that actually can be voluntarily given up.)

However, almost all of them would support a system that provides equal access to opportunity for all, so the whole argument is mostly meaningless.  It is quite possible to address the problem without agreeing on the terminology, and force feeding everyone these concepts is largely counterproductive.

It's not so much about agreeing on the terminology, as focusing on the concrete actions that can be taken that don't require subtle (or not-so-subtle) disparagement of one group or other.

For the bulk of us who reside somewhere in the middle, it is hard to take DEI proponents seriously when there are so many easily remedied problems that are left unaddressed.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Your ilk are people arguing about the definitions and/or existence of white privilege on the internet I suppose. 

As noted, we actually agree on most of this topic, but could squabble about the underlying causes and definitions. This is not very productive, so I will no be doing that.

[marshwiggle]

Your ilk are people arguing about the definitions and/or existence of white privilege on the internet I suppose. 

As noted, we actually agree on most of this topic, but could squabble about the underlying causes and definitions. This is not very productive, so I will no be doing that.

I've never said white privilege (or male privilege) don't exist; but like all kinds of other privilege, framing problems in those terms is largely pointless in practical terms, and it's divisive in principle.

I honestly don't see how, as Golden said, she could see it as a way to "inform and support an inclusive community". In what universe does telling people they are fundamentally different make them all feel included?

[Wahoo Redux]

Your ilk are people arguing about the definitions and/or existence of white privilege on the internet I suppose. 

As noted, we actually agree on most of this topic, but could squabble about the underlying causes and definitions. This is not very productive, so I will no be doing that.

I've never said white privilege (or male privilege) don't exist; but like all kinds of other privilege, framing problems in those terms is largely pointless in practical terms, and it's divisive in principle.

I honestly don't see how, as Golden said, she could see it as a way to "inform and support an inclusive community". In what universe does telling people they are fundamentally different make them all feel included?

You probably need to concede that socioeconomic class is definitely tied to race and history in the Americas, Marshy.  It is kind of fact.

Peggy McIntosh makes a very good case and she writes beautifully. I would find it hard to argue against her commonsense observations.  Then it is kind of clear, in a general sort of way, about how she would resolve this big conundrum. 

They may say they will work to improve women's status, in the society, the university, or the curriculum, but they can't or won't support the idea of lessening men's.

<snip>

As we in Women's Studies work to reveal male privilege and ask men to give up some of their power...

This is where I dig in my heels, and I find the attitude saturating DEI.  We've seen it on these boards.  If it were 1865 and we were in Mississippi, particularly on one of the big plantations, I could understand.  But we are not.  There are big white male pigs----and then there are the rest of us.

Don't turn awkward allies into targets, hence awkward adversaries.

[marshwiggle]

You probably need to concede that socioeconomic class is definitely tied to race and history in the Americas, Marshy.  It is kind of fact.

Peggy McIntosh makes a very good case and she writes beautifully. I would find it hard to argue against her commonsense observations.  Then it is kind of clear, in a general sort of way, about how she would resolve this big conundrum. 

They may say they will work to improve women's status, in the society, the university, or the curriculum, but they can't or won't support the idea of lessening men's.

<snip>

As we in Women's Studies work to reveal male privilege and ask men to give up some of their power...

This is where I dig in my heels, and I find the attitude saturating DEI.  We've seen it on these boards.  If it were 1865 and we were in Mississippi, particularly on one of the big plantations, I could understand.  But we are not.  There are big white male pigs----and then there are the rest of us.

Don't turn awkward allies into targets, hence awkward adversaries.

So Wahoo, if you were appointed as DEI director at some institution, what's an example of a  measure you would put in place that would achieve something that isn't accomplished by the normal anti-discrimination policies, but that doesn't "turn awkward allies into targets, hence awkward adversaries", and what language would you use to explain the need for it?

[ciao_yall]

They may say they will work to improve women's status, in the society, the university, or the curriculum, but they can't or won't support the idea of lessening men's.

<snip>

As we in Women's Studies work to reveal male privilege and ask men to give up some of their power...

This is where I dig in my heels, and I find the attitude saturating DEI.  We've seen it on these boards.  If it were 1865 and we were in Mississippi, particularly on one of the big plantations, I could understand.  But we are not.  There are big white male pigs----and then there are the rest of us.

Don't turn awkward allies into targets, hence awkward adversaries.

More rights for one group does not mean less rights for another.

It's not pie.

[Kron3007]

They may say they will work to improve women's status, in the society, the university, or the curriculum, but they can't or won't support the idea of lessening men's.

<snip>

As we in Women's Studies work to reveal male privilege and ask men to give up some of their power...

This is where I dig in my heels, and I find the attitude saturating DEI.  We've seen it on these boards.  If it were 1865 and we were in Mississippi, particularly on one of the big plantations, I could understand.  But we are not.  There are big white male pigs----and then there are the rest of us.

Don't turn awkward allies into targets, hence awkward adversaries.

More rights for one group does not mean less rights for another.

It's not pie.

True, but I see a lot of diversity hires currently.  In this case, that position really does mean less for others.  I'm not saying I am 100% against them, I have mixed feelings.

[Wahoo Redux]

They may say they will work to improve women's status, in the society, the university, or the curriculum, but they can't or won't support the idea of lessening men's.

<snip>

As we in Women's Studies work to reveal male privilege and ask men to give up some of their power...

This is where I dig in my heels, and I find the attitude saturating DEI.  We've seen it on these boards.  If it were 1865 and we were in Mississippi, particularly on one of the big plantations, I could understand.  But we are not.  There are big white male pigs----and then there are the rest of us.

Don't turn awkward allies into targets, hence awkward adversaries.

More rights for one group does not mean less rights for another.

It's not pie.

No, nope, no.  Be fair.  Don't strawman.

That's not what I was saying.  You are very smart, ciao, and should know that.

And what McIntosh was saying was pretty much that: give up your "power," boys.

The same rights for everyone is what we are after. 

And whamo!  This is what I was talking about.  Suddenly I am an awkward adversary, not an awkward ally.  And it is not my doing.

And again: What Kron said.

[Wahoo Redux]

So Wahoo, if you were appointed as DEI director at some institution, what's an example of a  measure you would put in place that would achieve something that isn't accomplished by the normal anti-discrimination policies, but that doesn't "turn awkward allies into targets, hence awkward adversaries", and what language would you use to explain the need for it?

Honestly, Marshy, I don't know.  There is no magic for big historical dilemmas. The best thing might be to let the culture heal naturally.

We have had progress----we have women and minority Nobel Prize winners; we have women, gay, and people of color in high political positions; we have had our first African-American president; we have women and people of color as college presidents (I've actually worked under an African-American chancellor, and three levels of my bosses were all women); the entertainment industry is full of people of color, etc.  So perhaps we simply need to follow the invisible hand as it sweeps changes into our lives.

The one thing I would enforce are strict rules regarding overt racial, homophobic, or gendered violent or threatening actions----but I think these are already prohibited by law.  And I would mandate any open dialogue about race, gender, etc.  as long as it was not violent or threatening.

Why are you asking me----someone who is dubious of DEI----what I would do if I were "in charge" of DEI?

[bio-nonymous]

You probably need to concede that socioeconomic class is definitely tied to race and history in the Americas, Marshy.  It is kind of fact.

I hate to get involved in these types of arguments but it is a FACT according to the US census (Table A3 from https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-280.html) that there are more than 3.4x as many whites (26 million) than blacks (7.626 million) under the poverty level. It is true however that whites have a lower percentage (10.5%) than blacks (17.1%) of their total population under the poverty level. But you cannot negate the suffering of those 10.5% for political purposes and claim they are a privileged class with respect to socioeconomic factors. Poor is poor, and hard, no matter what your race, religion, creed, ethnicity, gender, age, or sexual identity. My belief is that in this day and age socioeconomic privilege has a greater impact on someone's daily life and future prospects than the other factors listed in the last sentence.

[Wahoo Redux]

You probably need to concede that socioeconomic class is definitely tied to race and history in the Americas, Marshy.  It is kind of fact.

I hate to get involved in these types of arguments but it is a FACT according to the US census (Table A3 from https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-280.html) that there are more than 3.4x as many whites (26 million) than blacks (7.626 million) under the poverty level. It is true however that whites have a lower percentage (10.5%) than blacks (17.1%) of their total population under the poverty level. But you cannot negate the suffering of those 10.5% for political purposes and claim they are a privileged class with respect to socioeconomic factors. Poor is poor, and hard, no matter what your race, religion, creed, ethnicity, gender, age, or sexual identity. My belief is that in this day and age socioeconomic privilege has a greater impact on someone's daily life and future prospects than the other factors listed in the last sentence.

Fine.  Okay.  I made no claims about any of that.

But racism within living memory has played an outsized role in Black poverty. We can't pretend that it hasn't.  That was my point.   

It is fine with me if we shift our attentions to socioeconomic factors, although I suspect it will create more of the same conundrum that we have now just with a different complexion (no play on words).

[Langue_doc]

DEI programs seem to be more about virtue signalling than accomplishing concrete goals. The JHM Equity Statement doesn't address what concrete steps need to be taken to achieve the outcomes stated.

At Johns Hopkins Medicine, we believe that everyone has a role in promoting diversity, inclusion, and equity in health care, research, and education.

We must acknowledge, actively address and work toward effectively managing our negative biases, so that we collectively make decisions that improve the lives of our patients, our colleagues, our learners, and our community.

We stand against discrimination and oppression in all their forms.

It is vital that we achieve equity for all, including those who are most vulnerable.

It isn't clear if the Chief Diversity Officer does anything other than send memos that defy logic and common sense. The memo under discussion lists as privileged (i) able-bodied, (ii) heterosexuals, (iii) cisgender, (iv), middle aged, (v) middle or owning class people, (vi), males, in addition to other clearly disadvantaged groups.

DEI programs would have far more credibility if they were to show how their programs/efforts helped students graduate by providing support such as mentoring, tutoring, help with tuition, and the like which are far more useful and tangible than vague statements using buzz words that don't mean anything. These programs would also be helping the disadvantaged students if they were to waive tuition based on parental income regardles of skin color. The salary that goes to the diversity officers could be used to fund at least 10-15 students in any given year.

Here in the city, our immigrant students from Asia, for example, who have dark skins and whose parents work in menial jobs are considered privileged by virtue of identifying as Asian.

Too many DEI programs are used as weapons as in the case of the ASU incident where two proponents of DEI harassed a couple of white students for having certain stikcers on either their computers or their tshirts. The students with the offending stickers were studying for a test in a very large "multicultural" room which, according to the DEI activists was for the exclusive use of non-white students.

End of rant.

[Kron3007]

You probably need to concede that socioeconomic class is definitely tied to race and history in the Americas, Marshy.  It is kind of fact.

I hate to get involved in these types of arguments but it is a FACT according to the US census (Table A3 from https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-280.html) that there are more than 3.4x as many whites (26 million) than blacks (7.626 million) under the poverty level. It is true however that whites have a lower percentage (10.5%) than blacks (17.1%) of their total population under the poverty level. But you cannot negate the suffering of those 10.5% for political purposes and claim they are a privileged class with respect to socioeconomic factors. Poor is poor, and hard, no matter what your race, religion, creed, ethnicity, gender, age, or sexual identity. My belief is that in this day and age socioeconomic privilege has a greater impact on someone's daily life and future prospects than the other factors listed in the last sentence.

You can easily recognize white privilege while also acknowledging other issues.  It's true there are plenty of poor white people, but there is still white privilege.  For example, if a poor white person and a poor black person committed the same crime, the black person is likely to receive a longer sentence.  So, even poor whites benefit from the system (or it penalized others), although I do think the term is problematic.

Recently, I saw a DEI question asking if you belonged to any equity seeking groups.  I was surprised to see first generation university students on it, so DEI is not only about white privilege and can include poor white people.