. 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
I think that
MOST people here are somewhat mindful of the contributions of privilege to our educational and professional attainments, but I would very much disagree with your statement about there not being "anyone" here who struggles with being aware and midful of it.
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;
sorry- i legitimately don't understand what you are saying here (i.e., what 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?
It definitlely meets the definition of discriminatory, in the sense of it being "prejudicial" treatment. It is my opinion that it does not meet the "unjust treatment" definition/connotation of discrimination. It would seem that that is a major difference in our take on the issue.
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?
In my opinion, your "white maleness" should not,
de facto- preclude you from any job you are fully qualified for. In my opinion, giving some slight preference to qualified competent individuals from historically disadvantaged (or historically under-represented in some cases) populations is advantageous at the individual, programmatic, and societal level.
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.
You're conflating "giving some preference to candidates from historically disadvantaged groups" with "screwing white males out of a job." While that's largely a point of semantics and rather subjective, I don't feel that it is the same. As I have said before, de facto tossing out the applications of
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?
We don't, unless we systematically implement these processes and evaluate them against an appropriate control. Alas. the best we have to go on may be correlation data.
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.
These are complicated questions, and I'm not sure who gets to decide. I'm not really sure that should even be given much of a say in that type of decision making.
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."
Of course they wouldn't appreciate that! I have never seen anyone advocate such a postion IRL!
Listen, I'm admittedly extreme on some of these issues and realize that any actual working solution is probably somewhere in the middle (even though I'm correct
😉). I may also be ignorant. Does there really exist a large segment of the population who holds power over hiring andv admissions practices that has an agenda of "screwing over white-hetero-cis-males"? Is this a widespread
policy and practice that is putting the field of clinical psychology at risk? Have we overcompensated (based on past discrimination/legal disempowerment/legal and ethical de-humanization/legal ownership of other peoples) to the point where the cards are dramattically stacked against white-hetero-cis-males? In my part of the field (and world, for that matter) I regularly encounter white males in directorship positions of predominately female staffed organizations, where the clients are overwhelmingly hispanic and the caregivers are largely female. I see that I am more likiely to be addressed as "doctor" than my female colleagues of equal credential and equal (or higher) position and ability. I regularly see forms that have spaces/check boxes for "mother" and "father" and "male or female." The staff I work with regularly (mental health, allied health) are predominantly white, English speaking, middle class (and also- other than me- predominantly female), while the population we serve is predominantly ESL, lowere SES. The legislators passing laws that negatively impact historically disdvantage groups is largely white and male (congress has made strides, but it is still 75% male and 75% white- both figures not representative of US demographics). If this is not due to some current or historical bias against these groups, then what is it due to? Genetics? Constitutional (in the physical sense) factors, such as laziness? Cultural factors such as just not wanting upward mobility enough? Anyone willing to go there?
