Food for thought

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
To be fair he stated, "any barriers that perhaps were there for me and not for her couldn't be discussed (remember, I'm a white hetero male Christian)". This is what irked me because it sounded like he was minimizing the barriers his colleague probably faced (and still faces) by bemoaning his perceived inability to shares his barriers or oppression because of race.

It wasn't intended that way. I do find it interesting having discussions like this on an online forum. It was a lot easier to talk about openly in some ways face-to-face with others - I think the capacity for perspective taking was enhanced in those situations, and I was grateful to have a really diverse cohort to work with through them. If I come off as a jerk to you here - I'm sorry.

While it is absolutely true that members of the majority like myself need to be very sensitive in how we frame our thoughts on these issues, I'd suggest that there is a tendency to invalidate our opinions at times. Perhaps it is based on past experiences with people belittling the very real systemic oppressive forces that are out there. But I still don't see why people can't make honest comments about their experiences, particularly in this case where we are discussing the reactions of white people to the concept of privilege.

I still find it inflexible that one can't point out some relative differences between two individuals that work against the societal averages (e.g., things like SES, lack of abuse history, parental situations, etc). I don't see how it minimizes the existence of very real institutionized race-related oppression. To me it is just another piece of information to consider when thinking about what this term "privilege" means. That piece of information doesn't minimize race-related oppression in my mind. But it does go contrary to the common connotation of "privilege" and a failure to engage people in a discussion about those kinds of feelings/comparisons negates an important opportunity to bridge gaps, IMO.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
So, moving to the question of what to do. One solution has been affirmative action. Others have been funding minority or women owned businesses. Tim Wise seems to advocate reparations. I think, as stated earlier by someone else, that the browning of America will change these issues, also societal momentum. Things seem to shift quickly.

Social networking drives some of the inequality in our country--particularly labor inequality. If you are a white person you are more likely to get a coveted position through family/friends. That isn't discrimination per se, it's just that people are more likely to network with people who are similar to them and white people have access and connections to the better and higher paying positions. This is a cycle that will repeat itself and I'm not sure how it will shift on it's own. The attitudes towards discrimination shift, but people will continue to use favoritism and help those that are part of their inside network and are more similar to them.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...-drive-black-unemployment/?src=me&ref=general
 
Social networking drives some of the inequality in our country--particularly labor inequality. If you are a white person you are more likely to get a coveted position through family/friends. That isn't discrimination per se, it's just that people are more likely to network with people who are similar to them and white people have access and connections to the better and higher paying positions. This is a cycle that will repeat itself and I'm not sure how it will shift on it's own. The attitudes towards discrimination shift, but people will continue to use favoritism and help those that are part of their inside network and are more similar to them.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...-drive-black-unemployment/?src=me&ref=general

While we're on the topic of salient factors within income distribution and social networks. http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/1002/almighty-dollar/flat.html
 
Members don't see this ad :)
While we're on the topic of salient factors within income distribution and social networks. http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/1002/almighty-dollar/flat.html

Interesting stuff. Hindu-Americans and Jews have significantly higher education levels than any other group. Both these groups are discriminated against actually, but significantly higher education levels seem to mitigate the damage.

Eighty-five percent of Hindu-Americans are college graduates, and 57 percent have some postgraduate education, which is nearly five times the national average.
 
Interesting stuff. Hindu-Americans and Jews have significantly higher education levels than any other group. Both these groups are discriminated against actually, but significantly higher education levels seem to mitigate the damage.

Eighty-five percent of Hindu-Americans are college graduates, and 57 percent have some postgraduate education, which is nearly five times the national average.

I think the two probably have significant differences. Jewish Americans are a fairly old group in the US and have quite an establishment in two of the most powerful industries in the nation (Entertainment and Finance). Hindu-Americans seem to be a newer and growing demographic especially where I live (Dallas seems to be a huge hub) and many who come over seem to have student-visas and stereotypically go into newer fields of growth (Medicine and Technology).

That's of course not to say that they aren't both discriminated against, and heavily at times. While I don't mean to suggest "Ideal Minorities," I do think it may pay to look at what factors led to these demographics. If it is involvement in higher education, is it that we need AA to get students into college? Or is it that we need to start earlier with that by eliminating injustice in the primary education system? Both?

I think you'll certainly see less struggle against working to fix the system in primary schools, as everyone agrees that things should be equal in the primary system. All kids should be treated the same and should generally have the same expectations based on their abilities and not the color of their skin or their accent.

When it comes to colleges, you'll see nothing but resentment if there is AA admission standards that make quotas or assign points for race. I think another issue, not to minimize institutionalized racism, is what areas some minorities go into more often than others. http://theop.princeton.edu/reports/wp/ANNALS_Dickson_Manuscript_FINAL_(31May09).pdf
 
When it comes to colleges, you'll see nothing but resentment if there is AA admission standards that make quotas or assign points for race.

This is something I've never understood. If the goal is truly 'racial equality', why are institutions of higher education highlighting race in admissions? I could understand the goal of increasing the mean percentage of educated under-represented minorities long term, but this is something that is going to happen ultimately regardless. By emphasizing race, it simply breeds contempt.

There was another thread here on SDN where a prospective student voiced his concerned he was going to get into medical school with subpar stats because of his status as a minority, and he (admirably) wanted to get in on his own merits, not by the color of his skin.

I personally know people from my undergrad graduating class, with competitive stats, that actively choose to not disclose their (white) race on applications to grad school, because so many programs explicitly state something to the effect of "we are especially interested in applicants from diverse ethnic backgrounds", and they are concerned their status as a white will actually lower their chances of consideration compared to minorities. This seems highly counter-intuitive to the racial equality we as a western society profess a desire to attain.
 
I could understand the goal of increasing the mean percentage of educated under-represented minorities long term, but this is something that is going to happen ultimately regardless.

How is it going to happen "regardless" when many minority group members in this country do not start on an equal playing field?
 
We have a changing economy in which education is not correlating as well with job prospects.

I think this is an issue that we need to seriously work on. One of the top considerations for me in evaluating an employment plan that involves education or higher level training is, "Will this training lead to competitive long-term employment?"
 
Jon Snow,

First, I agree that blanket AA does ignore many underpriveleged White people, especially the White rural poor. I contend that AA should be weighted in the direction of SES and not race (at least for college admission). Some colleges already give special consideration to 1st generation college students regardless of race. However, one of the other benefits to AA is that it increases diversity on college campuses and eventually in the workforce. Exposure to people of different backgrounds generally leads to greater acceptance and greater intergroup collaboration which is necessary to change racial attitudes and promote inclusion of minorities into society and increase chances of equality. SO, I think policies that include race or minority status for admission criteria are still necessary and usually beneficial.

Second, the person you described had a very difficult life, but he/she does benefit from White Privilege. This person probably still probably would be able to check off most of, if not all of, these items:

1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
2. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure renting or purchasing housing in an area
which I can afford and in which I would want to live.
3. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to
me.
4. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be
'followed or harassed.
5. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of
my race widely represented.
6. When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that
people of my color made it what it is.
7. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the
existence of their race.
8. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.
9. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented,
into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a
hairdresser's shop and find someone who can cut my hair.
10. Whether I use checks, credit cards, or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work
against the appearance of financial reliability.
11. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like
them.
12. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having
people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty, or the illiteracy of my race.
13. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.
14. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.
15. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group. 16. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who
constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.
17. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and
behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.
18. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to "the person in charge," I will be facing a
person of my race.
19. If a traffic cop pulls me over, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my
race.
20. I can easily buy posters, postcards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys, and
children's magazines featuring people of my race.
21. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat
tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, out numbered, unheard, held at a distance, or
feared.
22. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having coworkers on the
job suspect that I got it because of race.
23. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot
get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.
24. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.
25. If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or
situation whether it has racial overtones.
26. I can choose blemish cover or bandages in flesh color and have them more or less
match my skin.

Third, your notion that change can't forced is mind-boggling to me. Would you say that the social and legal policies put in place during the civil rights era and since have had no impact on improving racial equality in this country? The Civil Rights Movement and these policies did not just appear, they were part of an effort to FORCE change because change needed to happen THEN, because it was not happening all by itself! Certainly it is possible that eventually attitudes would have shifted, but to wait until that happened would be devastating to a large portion of the population and the ramifications would be felt for generations.

The US government has its issues and may be involved in areas that are better left to the private sector (I'm guessing we would disagree about the areas), but I think civil rights and promotion of equality is one area where the government has a duty to intervene.
 
I There has been change, rapid change. Some of that is legal but much of it is not.

You can also argue that white people have been benefiting from a form of affirmative action all along due to the well-established practice of favoritism in hiring. I do like the idea of affirmative action being also linked to multiple factors, including SES and first generation college students. It should be more complicated.

As to whether things change on their own due to demographic shifts or browning of the population, what about the gender pay gap? Women make up 51% of the population, account for a higher percentage of college and graduate degrees overall, yet they continue to lag significantly in pay even at higher education levels compared to men. Actually, pay disparity is worse for women with graduate degrees in many fields. Pay is also lower for women when you take into account position and industry. Increased numbers doesn't naturally lead to equal rights.

Psychology has significantly more women than men, and the pay gap still persists when you account for level of education and experience for full-time positions.
 
Last edited:
Is there a gender pay gap? Saw a recent study that examined decisions and priorities and pay and found no gap. Meaning women, on average, prioritize things differently than do men.

The research actually shows a significant pay gap when you account for level of experience and position. You can even see this in psychology on the doctoral level when you take into account experience and position:

http://www.apa.org/workforce/publications/09-salaries/table-15a.pdf

http://www.apa.org/workforce/publications/09-salaries/table-15b.pdf

Usually, women start with the same level of pay as men, but they are less likely to get salary increases and promotions so lifetime disparities are enormous.
 
Last edited:

I think it depends on where you get your data to some extent. This report was commissioned by the Bush administration even though it was published in 2009.

It is not possible that all of the pay disparities are simply due to choices. It is established that women with the same level of experience, hours worked, degree, etc. still get paid less. Also, women are pursuing higher education in larger numbers than their male counterparts. Why would they be doing so if they didn't care about financial mobility?

Gender gap in physician salaries:
As in some earlier studies, the researchers found a difference in income, with a male doctor’s annual salary averaging just over $200,000 and a female’s averaging about $168,000. And like previous researchers, they found that the female doctors tended to be in lower-paying specialties, have fewer publications, work fewer hours and hold fewer administrative leadership positions.

But when these researchers ran the numbers again, this time adjusting for differences in specialty, publications, academic rank, hours worked and leadership positions, they found that the expected average salary for women still fell behind that of their male colleagues. The male doctors made over $12,000 per year more than the women.

Calculated over the course of a 30-year career, the income gap based on sex alone amounted to over $350,000.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/among-doctors-too-women-are-paid-less/
 
Why would they be doing so if they didn't care about financial mobility?

While I generally agree with your whole post I just wanted to answer this question for you. Financial independence.
 
Top