!@#% Around and Found Out

[Pragma]

But it clearly was/is an important part of the selection process, and that’s been made abundantly clear by the people doing the hiring. So I guess I fail to see what the confusion is on the part of the applicant. Would the applicant I felt better if they had stated “DEI” explicitly in the job description? Because the applicant’s current argument is that they have enough of a DEI background to qualify for the position after finding out that it is a core component of whatever the institution was seeking. I guess that’s where I’m lost. They told you what they were looking for (regardless of how you found out, you found out), they told you that you don’t have the background to fit the criteria that they have in mind, why are we faulting the institution? Why are we entitled to fill a space that’s clearly created for a different kind of applicant with more relevant background and training? Maybe ask ourselves, have we ever been this up in arms when non-minorities are hired over minorities for much less sensible reasons?

I personally have been up in arms on SCs in the past where non-minorities have been selected over minorities for less sensible reasons. I’ve seen some BS reasons and have called people out on those over the years.

In my more recent experiences, institutions really want to hire minority faculty. In my specialty, the low supply issue works in minority applicants’ favor and they can be more selective. We really need to be focused (and are) on increasing the diversity of our students/future workforce and focusing on making our departments/institution cultures worthy of retaining minority faculty.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I personally have been up in arms on SCs in the past where non-minorities have been selected over minorities for less sensible reasons. I’ve seen some BS reasons and have called people out on those over the years.

In my more recent experiences, institutions really want to hire minority faculty. In my specialty, the low supply issue works in minority applicants’ favor and they can be more selective. We really need to be focused (and are) on increasing the diversity of our students/future workforce and focusing on making our departments/institution cultures worthy of retaining minority faculty.

Thank you (genuinely) for doing your part. I really hope more on this thread who are so quick to assume reverse discrimination or unfair hiring can attest to implementing the same approach as you. But I doubt it (cue my loss of faith on humanity lol).

 

[Sanman]

But it clearly was/is an important part of the selection process, and that’s been made abundantly clear by the people doing the hiring regardless of what the job description said. So I guess I fail to see what the confusion is on the part of the applicant. Would the applicant I felt better if they had stated “DEI” explicitly in the job description? Because the applicant’s current argument is that they have enough of a DEI background to qualify for the position after finding out that it is a core component of whatever the institution was seeking. I guess that’s where I’m lost. They told you what they were looking for (regardless of how you found out, you found out), they told you that you don’t have the background to fit the criteria that they have in mind, why are we faulting the institution? Why are we entitled to fill a space that’s clearly created for a different kind of applicant with more relevant background and training? Maybe ask ourselves, have we ever been this up in arms when non-minorities are hired over minorities for much less sensible reasons?

The thing is that I don't think it is abundantly clear, certainly not at the time to the OP. If only a minority candidate will do, why interview the OP in the first place? This is where the situation falls apart. Maybe a minority candidate was selected and quit. That would at least explain the time between calls. However, otherwise a decision needs to be made at some reasonable point to call off a search and offer the position to one of the candidates that has applied. I don't believe it was mentioned to the OP that it was a new search.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

But it clearly was/is an important part of the selection process, and that’s been made abundantly clear by the people doing the hiring regardless of what the job description said. So I guess I fail to see what the confusion is on the part of the applicant. Would the applicant I felt better if they had stated “DEI” explicitly in the job description? Because the applicant’s current argument is that they have enough of a DEI background to qualify for the position after finding out that it is a core component of whatever the institution was seeking. I guess that’s where I’m lost. They told you what they were looking for (regardless of how you found out, you found out), they told you that you don’t have the background to fit the criteria that they have in mind, why are we faulting the institution? Why are we entitled to fill a space that’s clearly created for a different kind of applicant with more relevant background and training? Maybe ask ourselves, have we ever been this up in arms when non-minorities are hired over minorities for much less sensible reasons?

Yes...they should have been more clearer "white, heterosexual cis-gender males need not apply." But alas, I think HR would have had a s*** storm over that. Who knows...maybe they can frame prejudice in a more progressively appetizing way.

 

[Sanman]

Yes...they should have been more clearer "white, heterosexual cis-gender males need not apply." But alas, I think HR would have had a s*** storm over that. Who knows...maybe they can frame prejudice in a more progressively appetizing way.

Better question, how does one verify heterosexual? I can see plenty of people checking the bisexuality box if it is the difference between getting and not getting a job.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

The thing is that I don't think it is abundantly clear, certainly not at the time to the OP. If only a minority candidate will do, why interview the OP in the first place? This is where the situation falls apart. Maybe a minority candidate was selected and quit. That would at least explain the time between calls. However, otherwise a decision needs to be made at some reasonable point to call off a search and offer the position to one of the candidates that has applied. I don't believe it was mentioned to the OP that it was a new search.

That IS my point though. I don’t think only a minority candidate will do for a DEI position necessarily. Maybe most times, but that’s not a hard and fast rule. The bottom line is that whatever they needed, he didn’t have. And rather than ‘charging it to the game’, he’s claiming reverse discrimination with great conviction, and everyone else is, surprise surprise, so sure that is indeed what it is. That’s where the story stops making sense (to me).

It reeks of entitlement. No one cares to offer this viewpoint, probably because they have a vested emotional interest in agreeing with him, so I thought I would do the honors.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

Better question, how does one verify heterosexual? I can see plenty of people checking the bisexuality box if it is the difference between getting and not getting a job.

I was thinking of putting a myriad of porn magazines in a private waiting room and having a camera inside that monitors which magazines are more frequently perused.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Yes...they should have been more clearer "white, heterosexual cis-gender males need not apply." But alas, I think HR would have had a s*** storm over that. Who knows...maybe they can frame prejudice in a more progressively appetizing way.

Prejudice does not mean ‘not hiring the person who is not qualified’. That is a huge disservice and disrespect to those who are actually discriminated against in the workplace due to prejudiced attitudes. As experts in human behavior, we should know better than to get in our feelings because we so badly want to be part of a protected class. They provided a reason , albeit through the grapevine, for why he was not the best fit for the job and it essentially boils down to inadequate experience in a core area related to the position. That is definitely not prejudice, no matter how badly we want to make a point that white men can be discriminated against.

As I stated in earlier posts, whatever they should or shouldn’t have put in the job as is irrelevant to that point.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

Prejudice does not mean ‘not hiring the person who is not qualified’. That is a huge disservice and disrespect to those who are actually discriminated against in the workplace due to prejudiced attitudes. As experts in human behavior, we should know better than to get in our feelings because we so badly want to be part of a protected class. They provided a reason , albeit through the grapevine, for why he was not the best fit for the job and it essentially boils down to inadequate experience in a core area related to the position. That is definitely not prejudice, no matter how badly we want to make a point that white men can be discriminated against.

As I stated in earlier posts, whatever they should or shouldn’t have put in the job as is irrelevant to that point.

Are we on the set of your TV show?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I was thinking of putting a myriad of porn magazines in a private waiting room and having a camera inside that monitors which magazines are more frequently perused.

It's an operational definition, at least.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

It's an operational definition, at least.

Still would have been a neat way to study it. I wonder which journal we could publish our findings in?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Still would have been a neat way to study it. I wonder which journal we could publish our findings in?

The Journal of Polymorphous Perversity.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Are we on the set of your TV show?

If you have nothing meaningful or sensible to add to the discourse, sitting it out is always an option.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

If you have nothing meaningful or sensible to add to the discourse, sitting it out is always an option.

I have been, for a while now. I am opting not to pander some of the stuff you've been saying as I simply do not agree with it. You are also more than welcomed to sit out as well. People are offering differing opinions that it appears you don't agree with, which is evident from your responses. I get it. I/we are simply doing the same. Also....free speech, etc.

 

[Sanman]

That IS my point though. I don’t think only a minority candidate will do for a DEI position necessarily. Maybe most times, but that’s not a hard and fast rule. The bottom line is that whatever they needed, he didn’t have. And rather than ‘charging it to the game’, he’s claiming reverse discrimination with great conviction, and everyone else is, surprise surprise, so sure that is indeed what it is. That’s where the story stops making sense (to me).

It reeks of entitlement. No one cares to offer this viewpoint, probably because they have a vested emotional interest in agreeing with him, so I thought I would do the honors.

This is where I disagree. The job had no stated DEI component, it was a neuropsych position, and he was made an informal offer by a member of the hiring committee who spoke out of turn. I do think some members were pushing a minority preference, which is fine if there is a qualified candidate. However, it seems like the process proved the place has a lot of dysfunction. Whether this position was being used as a token hire or there are two factions in the faculty fighting it out, I have no idea.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I am so sorry, this seems like a hissy fit tantrum and is the equivalent of the “I have black friends“ argument. I mean you literally used the “I have a black spouse“ argument which is literally the WORST justification for anything ever, coming from a non-black person , regardless of how aware and educated you may be. A lot of people co-signing your stance don’t have the lived experience to tell you this, so hopefully you hear it from me and take it for what it’s worth. If I were applying for a position as a pediatrician, and my argument was that even though “I have no expertise or background” in the area (as you claim), I have taken a few classes and I have a lot of pediatrician friends, so that should be enough qualification, I would be laughed out of the institution and rightfully so. You are villainizing this institution for presumably choosing an individual who perhaps has the lived experience of dealing with the relevant issues and you have a problem with that?I’m not drinking the Kool-Aid that everyone else in this thread is drinking (and for reasons I don’t care to presume); I’m sorry but I just don’t see it.

And I repeat, because it’s been conveniently ignored throughout this thread, the fact that the spot remains open a year later does not mean that they did not find a more qualified candidate to fill the spot. It very well could be, as is the experience of a lot of visible minorities in our field, that the conditions of employment were so hostile that they did not last long in the position. Which is something that I myself have witnessed multiple times. So maybe step out of your anger and hurt ego pity party, and approach the situation more critically. You have a lot of people on this website who are way too eager to jump into your side of the issue, but that doesn’t mean it stands the test of reason and logic. It just means they’re very eager to agree with you for whatever reason (that I once again, will not speculate).

Maybe this exact situation as it’s playing out in real time, and your entitlement and resulting meltdown to their rejection, is a microcosm of the larger reasons why you’re not suited for a DE&I position. #ReverseRacismIsNotAThing #AndItNeverWillBe

I mean, “I have X friends” by itself is a bad argument, but there’s something to be said for knowing a community. It’s the basis of a lot of good practices in CBPR—listen to people with lived experiences, know the needs and experiences of the community, and elevate those voices using your platform/privilege. Of course, it’s also important to know your place and privilege in these relationships and to have researchers actually from those communities as well.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I have been, for a while now. I am opting not to pander some of the stuff you've been saying as I simply do not agree with it. You are also more than welcomed to sit out as well. People are offering differing opinions that it appears you don't agree with, which is evident from your responses. I get it. I/we are simply doing the same. Also....free speech, etc.

“Are we on the set of your TV show?”was not a different opinion or even an opinion at all. It was a simply pointless response directed at my post. But we all know that.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

McSweeneys crushed this article. Sometimes humor is the best way to make certain information more palatable.

I Am an Anti-Racist Feminist, Except When It Interferes with My Career as an Academic

My unwavering commitment to the equality of all people, to dismantling the hegemony that has kept so many oppressed for so long, is my raison d’êtr...

www.mcsweeneys.net

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I mean, “I have X friends” by itself is a bad argument, but there’s something to be said for knowing a community. It’s the basis of a lot of good practices in CBPR—listen to people with lived experiences, know the needs and experiences of the community, and elevate those voices using your platform/privilege. Of course, it’s also important to know your place and privilege in these relationships and to have researchers actually from those communities as well.

When used in reference to or in an attempt to claim knowledge of a particular racial or cultural group, it’s NEVER a good idea because it almost always is being used to vastly and offensively overstate one’s purported knowledge of said group. To the point where The statement itself is a running joke amongst various minority groups.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

“Are we on the set of your TV show?”was not a different opinion or even an opinion at all. It was a simply pointless response directed at my post.

Look at the previous pages of my replies.....that is what I am referring to. My more recent comment was just an opinion, which we are all entitled to have. This is not an editorial board of a journal, so no, I will not be offering various references and citations. Least of all when I am off the clock.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Look at the previous pages of my replies.....that is what I am referring to. My more recent comment was just an opinion, which we are all entitled to have. This is not an editorial board of a journal, so no, I will not be offering various references and citations. Least of all when I am off the clock.

Who asked for references or citations? You have completely lost me so I’m just going to leave you here and get back to the topic at hand.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

Who asked for references or citations? You have completely lost me so I’m just going to leave you here and get back to the topic at hand.

Merriam Webster Defines humor in several ways, one of which: " the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous : the ability to be funny or to be amused by things that are funny."

You will find most of the posters, including myself intermix humor with actual factual stuff in our posts. I am simply expressing my disagreement with your position(s) in a humorous manner. Also, allow me to welcome you to the forum - if you haven't seen already, many folks differ in their opinion, and they tend to use facts, opinions, and humor to express themselves.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Let me make sure I'm clear on this- some of you believe that there is a reality where, as a group, white hetero males are being denied access to the multiple facets of our world (e.g. "placed on the bottom of the pile") purely because of their white-male-heterosexualness? For real? Maybe this happens on an individual level (and as I mentioned above, on the individual level many folk hereabouts usually default to the "suck it up, buttercup, an be better" advice) but does it happen systemically on a group level?

The way I see it, folks like me challenged folks not like me to footrace (let's say it was a five mile race). We all trained relatively equally hard, have similar speed and racing abilities, etc. Do to some random twist of luck I get to start the race driving car, while the rest of you have to run on foot. Somewhere around mile 4, I listen to and actually agree with your pleas that it's not fair that I get to use a car. I get of of the vehicle, and start running on foot just like the rest of you, because that puts on equal footing, where are training and abilities as runners will be all we can rely on to finish this race. However, due to my historical advantage (i.e. having a car), I'm at mile 4 out of five, while the rest of you are at mile 3. If I take no other action- even though I've admitted that having the car gave me a huge advantage- I'm still going to win the race unless some of you are more than twice as fast as me. Even if I let you catch up before insrat running and lose this race, I still have the car (and a horse, train, and plane) that I can use in the next race, just to be sure I don't lose again. Oh- and just to be sure, the people who own the means of production of the cars, planes, etc., also look a lot more like me than the rest of you.

 

[Sanman]

Let me make sure I'm clear on this- some of you believe that there is a reality where, as a group, white hetero males are being denied access to the multiple facets of our world (e.g. "placed on the bottom of the pile") purely because of their white-male-heterosexualness? For real? Maybe this happens on an individual level (and as I mentioned above, on the individual level many folk hereabouts usually default to the "suck it up, buttercup, an be better" advice) but does it happen systemically on a group level?

The way I see it, folks like me challenged folks not like me to footrace (let's say it was a five mile race). We all trained relatively equally hard, have similar speed and racing abilities, etc. Do to some random twist of luck I get to start the race driving car, while the rest of you have to run on foot. Somewhere around mile 4, I listen to and actually agree with your pleas that it's not fair that I get to use a car. I get of of the vehicle, and start running on foot just like the rest of you, because that puts on equal footing, where are training and abilities as runners will be all we can rely on to finish this race. However, due to my historical advantage (i.e. having a car), I'm at mile 4 out of five, while the rest of you are at mile 3. If I take no other action- even though I've admitted that having the car gave me a huge advantage- I'm still going to win the race unless some of you are more than twice as fast as me. Even if I let you catch up before insrat running and lose this race, I still have the car (and a horse, train, and plane) that I can use in the next race, just to be sure I don't lose again. Oh- and just to be sure, the people who own the means of production of the cars, planes, etc., also look a lot more like me than the rest of you.

Not sure where the others stand. However, as I said earlier this not my concern. My concern is that if you give one or two of the ten other runners at mile 3 a lift to mile 4 or 5, the white male is still in second or third place and the 8 other runners lose out on the chance at the podium period. So, who gets to pick which two runners get the lift so those in power feel less guilty? There is also a chance that those in power take away all the prize money if not enough white guys are winning.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

Let me make sure I'm clear on this- some of you believe that there is a reality where, as a group, white hetero males are being denied access to the multiple facets of our world (e.g. "placed on the bottom of the pile") purely because of their white-male-heterosexualness? For real? Maybe this happens on an individual level (and as I mentioned above, on the individual level many folk hereabouts usually default to the "suck it up, buttercup, an be better" advice) but does it happen systemically on a group level?

The way I see it, folks like me challenged folks not like me to footrace (let's say it was a five mile race). We all trained relatively equally hard, have similar speed and racing abilities, etc. Do to some random twist of luck I get to start the race driving car, while the rest of you have to run on foot. Somewhere around mile 4, I listen to and actually agree with your pleas that it's not fair that I get to use a car. I get of of the vehicle, and start running on foot just like the rest of you, because that puts on equal footing, where are training and abilities as runners will be all we can rely on to finish this race. However, due to my historical advantage (i.e. having a car), I'm at mile 4 out of five, while the rest of you are at mile 3. If I take no other action- even though I've admitted that having the car gave me a huge advantage- I'm still going to win the race unless some of you are more than twice as fast as me. Even if I let you catch up before insrat running and lose this race, I still have the car (and a horse, train, and plane) that I can use in the next race, just to be sure I don't lose again. Oh- and just to be sure, the people who own the means of production of the cars, planes, etc., also look a lot more like me than the rest of you.

The problem with this analogy is the way it was framed. From the beginning you used a framework that all of us are in some kind of "race." Some folks have advantages that have allowed them to be ahead of others in the race while others who have been disadvantaged are lagging behind. We've all heard this millions of times. Nothing new. The problem here is that folks are choosing to see the relationship with others who differ from them in an adversarial manner. If from the beginning you plant the seed that life is a race where there are people of "haves" vs "have nots" it stokes a thinking pattern where people grow resentful and bitter towards others. Telling people "check your privilege" etc., does nothing more than to drive a wedge in between others. The stuff that has been espoused lately by the more liberal progressives have done nothing more than to take bastardized and questionable statistical methods, and then use it as "evidence" to support a position to keep on driving home the message that those in the "majority" need to re-pay society by shutting up, don't complain, and sit back for the next 100-200 years to let folks in minority positions to be uplifted. Then we will all be in a societal utopia. Cue violins and woodwinds, roll the credits, end movie.

Franky, I don't care about data at times...especially since we have a replication crisis. Once we can address that and re-visit the extant literature on these topics, let's talk. Alternatively, what any good are our "data" when we measure things on a nomothetic level but fall short on applying it on an idiographic level? "Im sorry white guy, but the data doesn't support that you are likely to get screwed out of a job, so, you are just complaining unnecessarily, go check your privilege." No. If the data isn't helpful to helping those who are facing relevant issues, then I frankly use the "data" cautiously.

Statistics is both an art and a science. If you give me a dataset, and you tell me exactly the outcome you want, I can promise you I will deliver you results that will contain the necessary reliability and validity, with post-hoc analyses and power effects. Heck...that was actually one of the issues at hand with the replication crisis, where authors endorsed using methods per the appropriate statistical parameters to demonstrate "significance" when there wasn't.

The reality is, the more you seek to uplift one group by stomping down another...it will not be a sustainable nor favorable outcome in the long run. It goes counter to being culturally inclusive and understanding of everybody. I don't drink the Kool-Aid, sorry.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Let me make sure I'm clear on this- some of you believe that there is a reality where, as a group, white hetero males are being denied access to the multiple facets of our world (e.g. "placed on the bottom of the pile") purely because of their white-male-heterosexualness? For real? Maybe this happens on an individual level (and as I mentioned above, on the individual level many folk hereabouts usually default to the "suck it up, buttercup, an be better" advice) but does it happen systemically on a group level?

The way I see it, folks like me challenged folks not like me to footrace (let's say it was a five mile race). We all trained relatively equally hard, have similar speed and racing abilities, etc. Do to some random twist of luck I get to start the race driving car, while the rest of you have to run on foot. Somewhere around mile 4, I listen to and actually agree with your pleas that it's not fair that I get to use a car. I get of of the vehicle, and start running on foot just like the rest of you, because that puts on equal footing, where are training and abilities as runners will be all we can rely on to finish this race. However, due to my historical advantage (i.e. having a car), I'm at mile 4 out of five, while the rest of you are at mile 3. If I take no other action- even though I've admitted that having the car gave me a huge advantage- I'm still going to win the race unless some of you are more than twice as fast as me. Even if I let you catch up before insrat running and lose this race, I still have the car (and a horse, train, and plane) that I can use in the next race, just to be sure I don't lose again. Oh- and just to be sure, the people who own the means of production of the cars, planes, etc., also look a lot more like me than the rest of you.

This has been a running theme in the 10+ years that I’ve been a member of this forum. My reaction today is a culminations of the micro aggressions, subtly snide remarks, and ‘ throwing hands, hiding stones, and playing victim‘ by certain posters consistently over time when it comes to topics similar to the one at hand. But of course, just as in real life because isn’t that what this all is, they will all pretend to have no idea what I’m talking about even though they’ve been called out on it numerous times by different posters through the years lol

This is not the first time this kind of discourse has stretched its legs on this forum, simply put. If I had more time on my hands, I would go through the archives and come back with some screenshots featuring some very familiar names. If we want to talk about the implicit attitudes that uphold white supremacist mindsets particularly in our field, let’s talk about it. But the first response is always a hefty dose of defensiveness, and nothing is achieved beyond that. Rinse and repeat.

Insert analogy of Yalom’s microcosm.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Let me make sure I'm clear on this- some of you believe that there is a reality where, as a group, white hetero males are being denied access to the multiple facets of our world (e.g. "placed on the bottom of the pile") purely because of their white-male-heterosexualness? For real?

All that text yet I failed to answer your question lol the answer is YES, YES, and YES. Both on this very forum and of course by extension in ‘real life’ as well. But of course there will be a host of posts following down below subversively denying the fact while denying that they are denying the fact.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

This has been a running theme in the 10+ years that I’ve been a member of this forum. My reaction today is a culminations of the micro aggressions, subtly snide remarks, and ‘ throwing hands, hiding stones, and playing victim‘ by certain posters consistently over time when it comes to topics similar to the one at hand. But of course, just as in real life because isn’t that what this all is, they will all pretend to have no idea what I’m talking about even though they’ve been called out on it numerous times by different posters through the years lol

This is not the first time this kind of discourse has stretched its legs on this forum, simply put. If I had more time on my hands, I would go through the archives and come back with some screenshots featuring some very familiar names. If we want to talk about the implicit attitudes that uphold white supremacist mindsets particularly in our field, let’s talk about it. But the first response is always a hefty dose of defensiveness, and nothing is achieved beyond that. Rinse and repeat.

Insert analogy of Yalom’s microcosm.

Careful now as you come off that cross of yours, the children of Ghana need the wood.

 

[futureapppsy2]

When used in reference to or in an attempt to claim knowledge of a particular racial or cultural group, it’s NEVER a good idea because it almost always is being used to vastly and offensively overstate one’s purported knowledge of said group. To the point where The statement itself is a running joke amongst various minority groups.

I agree that it is often used offensively or to overclaim knowledge, which is why I said it's important to critically know your privilege and know your place. I have a colleague who has a disabled kid, and it made her really interested in the lived experiences of disabled people. She ended up connecting with a lot of disabled people and building a internationally known CBPR collective for disability community-driven research, including mentoring several disabled (and multiply marginalized) community members to advanced degrees. Does she know the lived experience of disability as well as disabled people? No. Do lots of non-disabled parents of disabled kids claim to know the experience of disability as well as (or better than) a disabled person? Yes. Would it still be overstepping if my colleague, even after all her work, did the same? 100%. On the other hand, there's a lot to be said for the willingness to actually spend a lot of time building genuinue relationships with community members, learning about their lived experiences, and carefully using her privilege to support the community without speaking for them or over them (as she often says, "I'm a white able-bodied MD--people will listen to me more than they should and my disabled, POC, and otherwise marginalized colleagues less than they should, so I think about how can I partially counteract that in my work".

 

[NewNeuroDemic]

I am so sorry, this seems like a hissy fit tantrum and is the equivalent of the “I have black friends“ argument. I mean you literally used the “I have a black spouse“ argument which is literally the WORST justification for anything ever, coming from a non-black person , regardless of how aware and educated you may be. A lot of people co-signing your stance don’t have the lived experience to tell you this, so hopefully you hear it from me and take it for what it’s worth. If I were applying for a position as a pediatrician, and my argument was that even though “I have no expertise or background” in the area (as you claim), I have taken a few classes and I have a lot of pediatrician friends, so that should be enough qualification, I would be laughed out of the institution and rightfully so. You are villainizing this institution for presumably choosing an individual who perhaps has the lived experience of dealing with the relevant issues and you have a problem with that?I’m not drinking the Kool-Aid that everyone else in this thread is drinking (and for reasons I don’t care to presume); I’m sorry but I just don’t see it.

And I repeat, because it’s been conveniently ignored throughout this thread, the fact that the spot remains open a year later does not mean that they did not find a more qualified candidate to fill the spot. It very well could be, as is the experience of a lot of visible minorities in our field, that the conditions of employment were so hostile that they did not last long in the position. Which is something that I myself have witnessed multiple times. So maybe step out of your anger and hurt ego pity party, and approach the situation more critically. You have a lot of people on this website who are way too eager to jump into your side of the issue, but that doesn’t mean it stands the test of reason and logic. It just means they’re very eager to agree with you for whatever reason (that I once again, will not speculate).

Maybe this exact situation as it’s playing out in real time, and your entitlement and resulting meltdown to their rejection, is a microcosm of the larger reasons why you’re not suited for a DE&I position. #ReverseRacismIsNotAThing #AndItNeverWillBe

Ha okay. Noted. My experiences don't matter because they are the "WORST justification ever." Well reasoned, well said, and definitely helpful. I appreciate you taking so much time to thoughtfully educate me (but I understand that this education is ultimately worthless because it is not lived). I shall remain silent henceforth on this issue, both on the forum and where I work.

 

[Pragma]

It is ultimately sad because it is not a conversation. A gathering of two sides to figure out the common ground and the nuances. It’s top-down dictation of what is right and wrong. Never a sustainable way of being.

 

[NewNeuroDemic]

It is ultimately sad because it is not a conversation. A gathering of two sides to figure out the common ground and the nuances. It’s top-down dictation of what is right and wrong. Never a sustainable way of being.

I am genuinely confused regarding my role in antiracism, DE&I, etc work. On one hand, I am sometimes told things like PsyDWannabe said, that I should know my place and realize my experiences are bull****/meaningless because they do not approximate that of disadvantaged groups, that I should remain silent and listen. On the other hand, I've also been taught that such efforts require the active participation of privileged people like me via thoughtful discussions, educational experiences, etc., that silence is complicit. So what do I do? I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

 

[Pragma]

I am genuinely confused regarding my role in antiracism, DE&I, etc work. On one hand, I am sometimes told things like PsyDWannabe said, that I should know my place and realize my experiences are bull****/meaningless because they do not approximate that of disadvantaged groups, that I should remain silent and listen. On the other hand, I've also been taught that such efforts require the active participation of privileged people like me via thoughtful discussions, educational experiences, etc., that silence is complicit. So what do I do? I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

I think this idea of “I’m friends with” a minority group is kind of weak sauce. But at the same time, as futureappppsy2 said, getting to know a community is how it starts. I’ll say that their notion of CBPR is cool (I came from a lab doing that before it was cool) . But just in real life - make friends and understand, take those times and start to get it. I’m not about to say i don’t get it when i take care of my neighbors kids because they trust me and we talk about these issues all the time. We’re basically family - not lived experience but people that share lives and trust each other. Being a spouse doesn’t mean lived experience but it does mean something!

 

[smalltownpsych]

Thank you (genuinely) for doing your part. I really hope more on this thread who are so quick to assume reverse discrimination or unfair hiring can attest to implementing the same approach as you. But I doubt it (cue my loss of faith on humanity lol).

Was he really claiming reverse discrimination or was he just describing what he saw as a poor hiring practice? I really am not clear about that. Regardless, it does seem that any discussion of how to address racial inequities is met with a certain amount of hostility and assumption that they are just whining about their potential loss of privilege. Maybe all the white males need to just shut up then? Sounds a little toxic to me.

The question earlier about experiencing not being hired because of white maleness, no. I have felt discriminated against for other more private reasons and am glad that my program valued those as strengths and that they were truly diverse in many many ways.

One more point, regardless of where we all started and what our backgrounds are, as psychologists we have moved into the ranks of the privileged in this culture. Doesn’t mean that I still don’t feel pretty insecure in a lot of ways though. Maybe I’ll get over that someday.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Ha okay. Noted. My experiences don't matter because they are the "WORST justification ever." Well reasoned, well said, and definitely helpful. I appreciate you taking so much time to thoughtfully educate me (but I understand that this education is ultimately worthless because it is not lived). I shall remain silent henceforth on this issue, both on the forum and where I work.

Ha. Ha. The tantrum and self-victimization continues. Thanks for putting all those extra words in my mouth but weaponizing fake self-pity won’t move the conversation any further. Once again, insert Yalom microcosm analogy. You’re telling on yourself.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I am genuinely confused regarding my role in antiracism, DE&I, etc work. On one hand, I am sometimes told things like PsyDWannabe said, that I should know my place and realize my experiences are bull****/meaningless because they do not approximate that of disadvantaged groups, that I should remain silent and listen. On the other hand, I've also been taught that such efforts require the active participation of privileged people like me via thoughtful discussions, educational experiences, etc., that silence is complicit. So what do I do? I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

None of the bolded was said by me. If that is what you understood from everything I wrote and more importantly if that is how you react to information that bruises your ego, you’re a lot worse at listening and actively participating than you may think (like most non-minorities who are sure they should be designated experts on the DEI because their spouse is black, despite all feedback to the contrary). Your recent responses to posts legitimately criticizing your narrative and your response to your job application situation very closely approximate each other and paint a picture of someone who emotionally starts flailing blindly and self-immolating whenever things don’t go their way. Ah, the fragility.

It is amazing how a group of people who had to prove their critical thinking skills at the highest levels to become doctors all of a sudden lose their sense of nuance and devolve into extremes when discussing diversity, inclusivity, race, and culture. Critically assessing one’s own ideas and behavior should not be this terrifying of a prospect. I didn’t ask you to “check your privilege“. I asked you to think critically about the reasons you didn’t get the job and about your claims that you are The best candidate to fill a DEI quota, for lack of a better term. STILL, nobody should be so intensely triggered by the idea of “checking your privilege”. But hey, if you and other posters on this forum are (which is clearly and hilariously the case), then maybe you all need to spend a lot more time doing just that.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Was he really claiming reverse discrimination or was he just describing what he saw as a poor hiring practice? I really am not clear about that. Regardless, it does seem that any discussion of how to address racial inequities is met with a certain amount of hostility and assumption that they are just whining about their potential loss of privilege. Maybe all the white males need to just shut up then? Sounds a little toxic to me.

That statement is the refuge of people who don’t like being called out about their inability to see the forest for the trees when discussing the present topic. NONE of what you said was stated by me and one could argue that coralling my points into that very overly simplified and dismissive statement simply because you don’t like when White men (or anyone really) are encouraged to think more critically is manipulative at best.

 

[erg923]

The language and terms thrown around in this thread is *hilarious* to me.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I am genuinely confused regarding my role in antiracism, DE&I, etc work. On one hand, I am sometimes told things like PsyDWannabe said, that I should know my place and realize my experiences are bull****/meaningless because they do not approximate that of disadvantaged groups, that I should remain silent and listen. On the other hand, I've also been taught that such efforts require the active participation of privileged people like me via thoughtful discussions, educational experiences, etc., that silence is complicit. So what do I do? I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

It is not meant to make sense. It is meant to control and silence. It is meant to imply--or outright state--that you are morally inferior and that, therefore, your points may be safely ignored and your character be assassinated via ad hominem attacks/insults (overtly or implied).

 

[erg923]

.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

It is not meant to make sense. It is meant to control and silence. It is meant to imply--or outright state--that you are morally inferior and that, therefore, your points may be safely ignored and your character be assassinated via ad hominem attacks/insults (overtly or implied).

Very very sad and unfortunate that this is what you and others interpret at the mere urge to think critically about the scenario presented in the original post. A barrage of made up insults against yourself and turning yourselves into the greatest victim does nothing to invalidate the points made. You and others feel incredibly threatened by that suggestion, and I urge you to really ask yourselves why.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Very very sad and unfortunate that this is what you and others interpret at the mere urge to think critically about the scenario presented in the original post. A barrage of made up insults against yourself and turning yourselves into the greatest victim does nothing to invalidate the points made. You and others feel incredibly threatened by that suggestion, and I urge you to really ask yourselves why.

Lighten up, Francis, and get over yourself. I'm not down for a public 'denunciation rally' (a.k.a., 'struggle session') that you lead.

 

[ClinicalABA]

The problem with this analogy is the way it was framed. From the beginning you used a framework that all of us are in some kind of "race." Some folks have advantages that have allowed them to be ahead of others in the race while others who have been disadvantaged are lagging behind. We've all heard this millions of times. Nothing new. The problem here is that folks are choosing to see the relationship with others who differ from them in an adversarial manner. If from the beginning you plant the seed that life is a race where there are people of "haves" vs "have nots" it stokes a thinking pattern where people grow resentful and bitter towards others. Telling people "check your privilege" etc., does nothing more than to drive a wedge in between others. The stuff that has been espoused lately by the more liberal progressives have done nothing more than to take bastardized and questionable statistical methods, and then use it as "evidence" to support a position to keep on driving home the message that those in the "majority" need to re-pay society by shutting up, don't complain, and sit back for the next 100-200 years to let folks in minority positions to be uplifted. Then we will all be in a societal utopia. Cue violins and woodwinds, roll credits.

A few points of clarification- I have certainly never said "check your privelege". My position is more along the lines of "just try to at a minimum acknowledge that privileges related to things you did not personally earn have had played some role in you getting where you are and recognize that others may be starting off at a disadvantage (again, not one they have personally earned by any action of their own)." Yes- I believe that counteracting those unearned advantages/disadvantages is an active process and must go beyond just a reset to " now we'll do things based on personal merit alone" in order to address the centuries old problems. I have never advocating "throwing out the white guy's application because he is a white guy" or "shutting up, not complaining and sitting back for 100-200 years tomeven things out. I'm more along the lines of giving preference to reasonably qualified/competent to do the job candidates from historically disadvantaged groups over an equally or somewhat more qualified candidate from an historically advantaged group. I have never personally experienced this systematic putting down and excluding of the white cis straight male that some of you posit is ra pant and destroying our field (or as been said above "making it more like school teachers", which is using a traditionally female occupation in the pejorative- but that's a topic for another thread!)

 

[calimich]

process comment and I statements incoming:
Seems this is the second time in this thread you've used elements of Blackness when trying to be funny. I find that curious and I wonder how big a part of your sense of humor involves laughing at Blackness. I suppose it could be coming out more because of the thread topic. I also imagine defensiveness will follow.

This topic is going into a direction I think I will just sit on the sidelines and observe.

Careful now as you come off that cross of yours, the children of Ghana need the wood.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

Lighten up, Francis, and get over yourself. I'm not down for a public 'denunciation rally' (a.k.a., 'struggle session') that you lead.

I'm about to post the Merriam Webster Dictionary for Narcissism for that guy...I swear it's as if his whole shtick is basically "listen to my views as I am far more intellectually superior than all of you, and shame on you for having a thought or opinion." Makes for a nice dialogue.

A few points of clarification- I have certainly never said "check your privelege". My position is more along the lines of "just try to at a minimum acknowledge that privileges related to things you did not personally earn have had played some role in you getting where you are and recognize that others may be starting off at a disadvantage (again, not one they have personally earned by any action of their own)." Yes- I believe that counteracting those unearned advantages/disadvantages is an active process and must go beyond just a reset to " now we'll do things based on personal merit alone" in order to address the centuries old problems. I have never advocating "throwing out the white guy's application because he is a white guy" or "shutting up, not complaining and sitting back for 100-200 years tomeven things out. I'm more along the lines of giving preference to reasonably qualified/competent to do the job candidates from historically disadvantaged groups over an equally or somewhat more qualified candidate from an historically advantaged group. I have never personally experienced this systematic putting down and excluding of the white cis straight male that some of you posit is ra pant and destroying our field (or as been said above "making it more like school teachers", which is using a traditionally female occupation in the pejorative- but that's a topic for another thread!)

I hear you. But, lots to unpack here, so here we go. I will be discussing the bolded points above: first, I know you didn't overtly state that, I am saying that as this is thematic of much of the base of what I hear from folks with similar attitudes and perspectives/positions on the matter; second. I don't think anyone here struggles per se (maybe a statistical few) with being aware and mindful of our own intrapersonal differences and privileges - this is a concept I've known for decades, so again, with folks throwing around that phrase I don't think does much in the way of improving situations as it does creates unnecessary tension because the implication is a vast majority of people of privilege are either willfully or blindly ignorant. If your efforts are the create meaningful dialogue where people discuss these topics, and not disguised as a capitulation to one side of the debate, then this approach won't work; third, how is giving preference to a "reasonably qualified/competent" candidate of a certain minority background not discriminating towards others who may not belong within that given or other minority groups? I am gay, white, and came from a poor-to-middle class SES background, but I'm white and a male, so does my whiteness and maleness preclude me from viable jobs for which I am fully qualified for? Should I be screwed out of that job over someone from a specific minority background in an effort to make reparations for the sins of my ancestors? That's not right either. Additionally, how do we know that this approach is actually targeting the mechanism(s) responsible for much of the disadvantages a given minority group experience? Are we okay with drawing the line somewhere, or is it simply a free-for-all on anything that would relate to doing X for the purposes of "giving it back" to those who have historically been marginalized? Again, I am not sure this is going to be sustainable for all parties involved. There has to be middle ground that involves folks from all sides conceding on certain things in an effort to improve the quality of life for all folks. To your last point, just your statement regarding how you've never experienced being excluded on the basis of being white cis-gender male is like saying "I've never experienced being black and gay, so I can't really say there's much of a problem here." Every person has different experiences...and that gets lost on people because the "data" doesn't support the notion of white cis-gender males experiencing hardships on the levels minority group members do. It's a fallacy and frankly...I deal with individuals in my office, not the rest of the United States. I need to be able to help someone whether they are white, black, gay, straight and everything in between with their struggles. I don't think they'd appreciate my saying or implying "well David, I'm sorry you are experiencing problems at work, but you are white and straight; our data says you are privileged and you should appreciate the fact you have a job."

 

[texanpsychdoc]

process comment and I statements incoming:
Seems this is the second time in this thread you've used elements of Blackness when trying to be funny. I find that curious and I wonder how big a part of your sense of humor involves laughing at Blackness. I suppose it could be coming out more because of the thread topic. I also imagine defensiveness will follow.

I wonder how much you are reading too much into something? I am genuinely lost about where you think I am laughing at blackness? And just for the sake of argument, even if I was, what's your point? Is that now a forbidden thing to do?

 

[WisNeuro]

I wonder how much you are reading too much into something? I am genuinely lost about where you think I am laughing at blackness? And just for the sake of argument, even if I was, what's your point? Is that now a forbidden thing to do?

Well, technically in the gif, you would have to be accused of using Arabness, more specifically Palestinian.

 

[Sanman]

A few points of clarification- I have certainly never said "check your privelege". My position is more along the lines of "just try to at a minimum acknowledge that privileges related to things you did not personally earn have had played some role in you getting where you are and recognize that others may be starting off at a disadvantage (again, not one they have personally earned by any action of their own)." Yes- I believe that counteracting those unearned advantages/disadvantages is an active process and must go beyond just a reset to " now we'll do things based on personal merit alone" in order to address the centuries old problems. I have never advocating "throwing out the white guy's application because he is a white guy" or "shutting up, not complaining and sitting back for 100-200 years tomeven things out. I'm more along the lines of giving preference to reasonably qualified/competent to do the job candidates from historically disadvantaged groups over an equally or somewhat more qualified candidate from an historically advantaged group. I have never personally experienced this systematic putting down and excluding of the white cis straight male that some of you posit is ra pant and destroying our field (or as been said above "making it more like school teachers", which is using a traditionally female occupation in the pejorative- but that's a topic for another thread!)

I was the one that made this analogy, but I was using teachers as an example of a profession that is losing it's economic toehold in society. That it is a traditionally female profession was not directly the point I intended. However, that traditionally female professions (with the exception of nursing) remain largely underpaid for the level of education expected is germane to this discussion and a serious question to consider. Now I did not make the decision to underpay them but apparently pointing out the inequity is the same thing as encouraging it or talking down to others. This misunderstanding gets to the heart of these arguments that happen about diversity.

 

[texanpsychdoc]

Well, technically in the gif, you would have to be accused of using Arabness, more specifically Palestinian.

Really? Yeah...people are seeing what they want to see. I chose that gif as the other ones didn't represent the type of popcorn eating behavior I was looking for (most of them were like really animated or too sarcastic for my intention). So...because I opted for that gif, this person is now inferring I am laughing at black people....got it.

 

[WisNeuro]

Really? Yeah...people are seeing what they want to see. I chose that gif as the other ones didn't represent the type of popcorn eating behavior I was looking for (most of them were like really animated or too sarcastic for my intention). So...because I opted for that gif, this person is now inferring I am laughing at black people....got it.

Confirmation bias is a real bitch sometimes.