!@#% Around and Found Out

[ianslo]

---

Members don't see this ad.

And that would be fine if they were asking for basic representation for ALL groups. Often though, it is just a seat at the table for the group that they identify with personally. If I don't belong to either group in question, do I care?

Right. That's what representation is.

And yes, we should all care. The World is a better place when all points of view are represented and considered.

 

[Sanman]

Right. That's what representation is.

And yes, we should all care. The World is a better place when all points of view are represented and considered.

That isn't all viewpoints. That is two viewpoints. The most powerful group and the second most powerful group. You seem to be missing my point.

 

[ianslo]

That isn't all viewpoints. That is two viewpoints. The most powerful group and the second most powerful group. You seem to be missing my point.

What limits it to only two groups?

 

[Sanman]

What limits it to only two groups?

The fact that the people fighting for diversity often only want their group represented. For example, if the second most represented group in a department is women, I may see/hear a big push for women to be promoted instead of white men. I will hear much less interest regarding minorities, people with disabilities, etc getting promoted.

Does it make a difference to me if a white man or a white woman is promoted if I am not a member of either group? Because I don't see a big push for equal representation. I see a push for one or two groups to get a seat at the table.

 

[deleted1129370]

You missed the share the spotlight part of my post. White people aren't going anywhere anytime soon. We're going to be just fine.

I think that's where folks get a bit unsure about things, as the word "share," can be ambiguously operationalized. Right now, one could argue that the powers at be on that hiring board the OP was discussing were attempting to "share," but at their expense. How do we fairly do this? Should whites and non-whites be on a WhatsAPP chat and be like "hey Bob, there is an opening for a psychologist at X AMC, you take that one, and I will take the other one that comes up." That's why merit tends to be a better approach as at the end of the day, when I hear "share," I hear someone basically being in a position to make an arbitrary decision for others who they deem should get access to something based on poorly and ambiguously defined and operationalized criterion. This brings into question Affirmative Action which has seen some interesting attention in the recent past. Understandably so.

The other aspect of this, is the fact you have what I believe are a minority of white folks who are basically out there apologizing for...us white people and the sins of our ancestors in an attempt to model humility so that maybe other white people will follow their lead. That's not going to happen either. You end up continuing a divisive approach that counters the ultimate goal - providing equitable solutions for those that have been historically marginalized. There's also an aspect of, is it realistic to somehow create an environment where someone is paying reparations as a method of remuneration to make up for the sins of our ancestors? What if my ancestors were actually part of the "good guys" back in the day? Should I pay a subscription to ancestory.com so I can have proof the next time I am singled out in a conversation about how "white silence is black prejudice," - well now I have some proof that my ancestors were helpful I suppose. Alternatively, where do we draw the line? I don't know about you, but my recollection of middle school history was that a significant portion of our nation's founding can be attributed to the fact that white Europeans dominated the heck out of the indigenous population...and it didn't stop there. So, do we pay for that as well? Do we keep the circle of shame going indefinitely because folks from ancestors who were historically marginalized don't think it was fair? I wonder what other countries are doing to address their nation's historically underpinnings of how they achieved their status. I wonder if Russia cares. I wonder if China cares.

I get the tactics. Let's scream bloody murder to get our voices heard. Toddles do this as well. We can't always give into a toddler's demands. The loudest voices aren't always the best voices to be making important decisions from. They certainly won't account for the population majority, but when you put a camera on them and see thousands of people across multiple cities protesting, people draw the (erroneous) conclusion that what they are seeing on TV is the population majority. Did you know most (lay) people struggle with laws of probability? They'd prefer narrative accountings for things to make a decision. It's a bias seen in most court rooms. The same is likely true outside of the court room.

To bring back something that was mentioned by a previous poster - I think we are dealing with two polar opposites. On one hand you have folks who might be staunchly against recognizing that they are either prejudice themselves and do things that perpetuate inequity for individuals of minority backgrounds, and on the other hand, you have people who have taken a hypervigilant, over-corrective approach in an attempt to make up for our past and to somehow make it all better as soon as possible. I think the more sustainable "solutions" are somewhere in between. Lastly, we can all be provided the same data about these topics, but we might have different interpretations of that data, and, different views of how we should go about addressing them. It doesn't mean those who oppose you don't care, don't recognize what's going on, but just like everything else, we frame things differently, and as a result, we differ in how we interpret and behave.

 

[WisNeuro]

The fact that the people fighting for diversity often only want their group represented. For example, if the second most represented group in a department is women, I may see/hear a big push for women to be promoted instead of white men. I will hear much less interst regarding minorities, people with disabilities, etc getting promoted.

Does it make a difference to me if a white man or a white woman is promoted if I am not a member of either group? Because I don't see a big push for equal representation. I see a push for one or two groups to get a seat at the table.

Yeah, there isn't really that much E and I in most of the initiatives that I have seen.

 

[ianslo]

I think that's where folks get a bit unsure about things, as the word "share," can be ambiguously operationalized. Right now, one could argue that the powers at be on that hiring board the OP was discussing were attempting to "share," but at their expense. How do we fairly do this? Should whites and non-whites be on a WhatsAPP chat and be like "hey Bob, there is an opening for a psychologist at X AMC, you take that one, and I will take the other one that comes up." That's why merit tends to be a better approach as at the end of the day, when I hear "share," I hear someone basically being in a position to make an arbitrary decision for others who they deem should get access to something based on poorly and ambiguously defined and operationalized criterion. This brings into question Affirmative Action which has seen some interesting attention in the recent past. Understandably so.

The other aspect of this, is the fact you have what I believe are a minority of white folks who are basically out there apologizing for...us white people and the sins of our ancestors in an attempt to model humility so that maybe other white people will follow their lead. That's not going to happen either. You end up continuing a divisive approach that counters the ultimate goal - providing equitable solutions for those that have been historically marginalized. There's also an aspect of, is it realistic to somehow create an environment where someone is paying reparations as a method of remuneration to make up for the sins of our ancestors? What if my ancestors were actually part of the "good guys" back in the day? Should I pay a subscription to ancestory.com so I can have proof the next time I am singled out in a conversation about how "white silence is black prejudice," - well now I have some proof that my ancestors were helpful I suppose. Alternatively, where do we draw the line? I don't know about you, but my recollection of middle school history was that a significant portion of our nation's founding can be attributed to the fact that white Europeans dominated the heck out of the indigenous population...and it didn't stop there. So, do we pay for that as well? Do we keep the circle of shame going indefinitely because folks from ancestors who were historically marginalized don't think it was fair? I wonder what other countries are doing to address their nation's historically underpinnings of how they achieved their status. I wonder if Russia cares. I wonder if China cares.

I get the tactics. Let's scream bloody murder to get our voices heard. Toddles do this as well. We can't always give into a toddler's demands. The loudest voices aren't always the best voices to be making important decisions from. They certainly won't account for the population majority, but when you put a camera on them and see thousands of people across multiple cities protesting, people draw the (erroneous) conclusion that what they are seeing on TV is the population majority. Did you know most (lay) people struggle with laws of probability? They'd prefer narrative accountings for things to make a decision. It's a bias seen in most court rooms. The same is likely true outside of the court room.

To bring back something that was mentioned by a previous poster - I think we are dealing with two polar opposites. On one hand you have folks who might be staunchly against recognizing that they are either prejudice themselves and do things that perpetuate inequity for individuals of minority backgrounds, and on the other hand, you have people who have taken a hypervigilant, over-corrective approach in attempt to make up for our past and to somehow make it all better as soon as possible. I think the more sustainable "solutions" are somewhere in between. Lastly, we can all be provided the same data about these topics, but we might have different interpretations of that data, and, different views of how we should go about addressing them. It doesn't mean those who oppose you don't care, don't recognize what's going on, but just like everything else, we frame things differently, and as a result, we differ in how we interpret and behave.

This is a lot and I have to get to work, so I'll get back to it later, but as to the first bolded phrase - non-whites aren't just "historically" marginalized, they are CURRENTLY marginalized.

And the second - how do you think marginalized people should make their voices heard?

 

[deleted1129370]

This is a lot and I have to get to work, so I'll get back to it later, but as to the first bolded phrase - non-whites aren't just "historically" marginalized, they are CURRENTLY marginalized.

And the second - how do you think marginalized people should make their voices heard?

It was implied that there is both current and historical, that's why I didn't mention current. Alternatively, the reality is, that will likely never not be the case. There will always be someone, somewhere who experiences some form of prejudice because of their minority status. I'd like to think we have gotten a lot better about things since 50, 100+ years ago, and things will likely continue to improve. But if the goal is for perfection and 100%, then folks will be in a bitter embattlement with others they believe are either perpetuating or contributing to that. Life will never be good enough. If the way you operationalize and define what a good quality of life should be is central to one's minority identity, then I think that may influence a person to constantly think of themselves as a victim in the system. Learned helplessness sets in, cue drug use, legal consequences, and then they have a whole new set of problems impinging on them that overlay pre-existing beliefs about themselves, the world, and their future. I'm a minority as well, but I opt to view my environment differently. Heck, I have had some folks say and/or do some things that on the surface seemed like prejudice. I dealt with in my own way. One of my new favorite sayings I came across on LinkedIn was someone basically saying how "don't let colonized black people speak for all of us." They were basically implying that black people who side with some of the more conservative leanings out there are basically colonized, and have a "Stockholm Syndrome" going on where they identify with their white "jailers."

To your second point - who knows what should be done? Maybe nothing? Is the world on fire that needs constant attention? I think this depends on how people choose to view the state of our country. I think there are a lot of things that have been put into place to help, but honestly, I think a lot of them don't address root-cause mechanisms, but rather, surface-level or ancillary things. They address things after they've occurred rather than as a preventative means. I think to really get a good idea of how we can address things is to get all parties involved. Not dismissing one's views over another (i.e., "I don't like what you said, so shut up and sit down"). When you start pushing others to the side in an effort to prop yourself up above others, you will understandably receive pushback. That's largely unhelpful. You will not get buy-in from those that frankly, you need. We don't live in caves, we live in society with others who have different backgrounds. I think we as Americans get way too caught up in our own ideals that we never stand back to get perspective, that in reality, our country offers some of the best opportunities for people of all backgrounds to have a better life, to express themselves openly without fear of being jailed, killed, etc. Other countries....they have some interesting laws themselves, especially immigration laws that are significantly more harsh than ours. But, the media portrays us as a country filled with little Hitlers running around and we are obsolete and behind others in every way.

So...there you go, another long-winded response for you to read after work. Have a great day at work! 🙂

 

[PsychPhDone]

It was implied that there is both current and historical, that's why I didn't mention current. Alternatively, the reality is, that will likely never not be the case. There will always be someone, somewhere who experiences some form of prejudice because of their minority status. I'd like to think we have gotten a lot better about things since 50, 100+ years ago, and things will likely continue to improve. But if the goal is for perfection and 100%, then folks will be in a bitter embattlement with others they believe are either perpetuating or contributing to that. Life will never be good enough. If the way you operationalize and define what a good quality of life should be is central to one's minority identity, then I think that may influence a person to constantly think of themselves as a victim in the system. Learned helplessness sets in, cue drug use, legal consequences, and then they have a whole new set of problems impinging on them that overlay pre-existing beliefs about themselves, the world, and their future. I'm a minority as well, but I opt to view my environment differently. Heck, I have had some folks say and/or do some things that on the surface seemed like prejudice. I dealt with in my own way. One of my new favorite sayings I came across on LinkedIn was someone basically saying how "don't let colonized black people speak for all of us." They were basically implying that black people who side with some of the more conservative leanings out there are basically colonized, and have a "Stockholm Syndrome" going on where they identify with their white "jailers."

To your second point - who knows what should be done? Maybe nothing? Is the world on fire that needs constant attention? I think this depends on how people choose to view the state of our country. I think there are a lot of things that have been put into place to help, but honestly, I think a lot of them don't address root-cause mechanisms, but rather, surface-level or ancillary things. They address things after they've occurred rather than as a preventative means. I think to really get a good idea of how we can address things is to get all parties involved. Not dismissing one's views over another (i.e., "I don't like what you said, so shut up and sit down"). When you start pushing others to the side in an effort to prop yourself up above others, you will understandably receive pushback. That's largely unhelpful. You will not get buy-in from those that frankly, you need. We don't live in caves, we live in society with others who have different backgrounds. I think we as Americans get way too caught up in our own ideals that we never stand back to get perspective, that in reality, our country offers some of the best opportunities for people of all backgrounds to have a better life, to express themselves openly without fear of being jailed, killed, etc. Other countries....they have some interesting laws themselves, especially immigration laws that are significantly more harsh than ours. But, the media portrays us as a country filled with little Hitlers running around and we are obsolete and behind others in every way.

So...there you go, another long-winded response for you to read after work. Have a great day at work! 🙂

I definitely lean toward a more pro-DEI direction than you, and I don't have the energy to fight on SDN right now because I am spoken over daily in real life. But...as a Jewish person can I ask you drop the hitler nonsense? There's enough actual antisemitism that I'd like to save that for the real threats and not a caricature for making a point. Thanks.

 

[borne_before]

You say "pushing their agenda", I say "asking for the most basic level of representation". Straight, white males have been the primary representation in just about everything since the beginning of time. It's time to share the spotlight a bit.

The question I have for you is why does representation matter? Why does representation based on a few demographics matter. When scrutinized, you'll find out that there is substantial overlap and that the assumptions made about perceived member in a group rarely generalize to the individual. That's the main problem I have with DEI folks - they make lots of assumptions without questioning the philosophical or historical bases of those assumption. Questioning them is taboo.

 

[borne_before]

I definitely lean toward a more pro-DEI direction than you, and I don't have the energy to fight on SDN right now because I am spoken over daily in real life. But...as a Jewish person can I ask you drop the hitler nonsense? There's enough actual antisemitism that I'd like to save that for the real threats and not a caricature for making a point. Thanks.

Some people remember godwin's law and reductio ad hitler/nazism.

Reductio ad Hitlerum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Godwin's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SomeGreatNotion]

What if my ancestors were actually part of the "good guys" back in the day?

Not to be antagonistic but I think this is irrelevant. "Good guys" have benefitted from the system constructed by the "bad guys". DEI initiatives are not meant to punish either the good guys or the bad guys, but you have framed it as such.

I've found this thread to be both illuminating and frustrating. I'd just add that there may be more agreement here than what meets the eye. I read the OP's post as an example of poor hiring practices and less as a criticism of DEI. While this thread has become a bit of a battle about DEI, I believe this is very much an implementation issue. As WisNeuro mentioned before...there is a lot of D without the E and I.

 

[Sanman]

Not to be antagonistic but I think this is irrelevant. "Good guys" have benefitted from the system constructed by the "bad guys". DEI initiatives are not meant to punish either the good guys or the bad guys, but you have framed it as such.

I've found this thread to be both illuminating and frustrating. I'd just add that there may be more agreement here than what meets the eye. I read the OP's post as an example of poor hiring practices and less as a criticism of DEI. While this thread has become a bit of a battle about DEI, I believe this is very much an implementation issue. As WisNeuro mentioned before...there is a lot of D without the E and I.

I think implementation is the most important part though. There is a fine line between DE&I and tribalism. It gets murky when internal politics get involved.

 

[ClinicalABA]

You missed the share the spotlight part of my post. White people aren't going anywhere anytime soon. We're going to be just fine.

Exactly! I guess the state of affairs in the US is such that people on both sides will exaggerate the general position of the other side or cite only extreme examples (often related to specific individual, rather than at the group level). There may be some folks on the far left who advocate for "white folks sitting out for the next 300 years," but that is not the modal attitude. The general view is a bit more tempered- asking for some acknowledgement that social and economic advancement is still more difficult ON THE WHOLE for people from historically disadvantage groups, and some adjustments in admissions/hiring practices just might be justified, and that doing so would- again ON THE WHOLE- would make for a more just and better society for all involved.

I'm still looking for evidence of widespread policy and practice that is designed to exclude straight white males from successfully participating in academics and the workforce. I'd really like some evidence of widespread "white males need to sit out the next several hundred years" attitudes and policy.

 

[WisNeuro]

Exactly! I guess the state of affairs in the US is such that people on both sides will exaggerate the general position of the other side or cite only extreme examples (often related to specific individual, rather than at the group level). There may be some folks on the far left who advocate for "white folks sitting out for the next 300 years," but that is not the modal attitude. The general view is a bit more tempered- asking for some acknowledgement that social and economic advancement is still more difficult ON THE WHOLE for people from historically disadvantage groups, and some adjustments in admissions/hiring practices just might be justified, and that doing so would- again ON THE WHOLE- would make for a more just and better society for all involved.

I'm still looking for evidence of widespread policy and practice that is designed to exclude straight white males from successfully participating in academics and the workforce. I'd really like some evidence of widespread "white males need to sit out the next several hundred years" attitudes and policy.

I think the issue for some is the concept of applying "On the whole" ideas to individuals. Treating "privilege" as a binomial issue and over-assuming based on a small number of variables. We caution against doing this clinically (e.g., look at the neuro testing for ADHD threads), but we seem fine doing it in these situations.

 

[Sanman]

Exactly! I guess the state of affairs in the US is such that people on both sides will exaggerate the general position of the other side or cite only extreme examples (often related to specific individual, rather than at the group level). There may be some folks on the far left who advocate for "white folks sitting out for the next 300 years," but that is not the modal attitude. The general view is a bit more tempered- asking for some acknowledgement that social and economic advancement is still more difficult ON THE WHOLE for people from historically disadvantage groups, and some adjustments in admissions/hiring practices just might be justified, and that doing so would- again ON THE WHOLE- would make for a more just and better society for all involved.

I'm still looking for evidence of widespread policy and practice that is designed to exclude straight white males from successfully participating in academics and the workforce. I'd really like some evidence of widespread "white males need to sit out the next several hundred years" attitudes and policy.

Sure, then the next question is what adjustments get made and for which groups. Do white folks have to sit out or just white men? Now women are underrepresented in leadership but now overrepresented in psychology, so do they sit down and be quiet or are they included as a disadvantaged group? Asian people are overrepresented in academically elite institutions and high paying professions, but still face racism and discrimination. Are they advantaged or disadvantaged? Does a Native American candidate get preference over a Hispanic or Black candidate or are they equal?

This is where things get messy. I have seen responses from many systems related to the Me Too and BLM movements. However, I see no changes to be more inclusive overall. That is politics, not diversity. What you often get as a result is tribalism instead of equity and inclusion because you are correct. White guys are not just going away. They will give just enough to make others happy. That can lead to diversity musical chairs with not enough seats.

This is worth a read, IMO:

Against Identity Politics

 

[NewNeuroDemic]

I read the OP's post as an example of poor hiring practices and less as a criticism of DEI. While this thread has become a bit of a battle about DEI, I believe this is very much an implementation issue. As WisNeuro mentioned before...there is a lot of D without the E and I.

Yeah, I originally posted it to highlight some weird and concerning hiring practices. But after re-reading it, I definitely criticize the DE&I rationalization that was offered to not hire me. So that's my bad. There have been numerous subsequent responses that I do not agree with and that do not speak for me.

I am surprised more discussion hasn't taken place about the unprofessionalism of search committee members and other aspects of the experience, but maybe these topics have been discussed in other threads. It is astounding to me that search committees are comprised of faculty members. I don't think many other industries/professions leave such important tasks to the unqualified.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yeah, I originally posted it to highlight some weird and concerning hiring practices. But after re-reading it, I definitely criticize the DE&I rationalization that was offered to not hire me. So that's my bad. There have been numerous subsequent responses that I do not agree with and that do not speak for me.

I am surprised more discussion hasn't taken place about the unprofessionalism of search committee members and other aspects of the experience, but maybe these topics have been discussed in other threads. It is astounding to me that search committees are comprised of faculty members. I don't think many other industries/professions leave such important tasks to the unqualified.

But,doesn't it make sense in this instance? Do, university admins know better what is needed within a clinical psych department than the faculty do? Even in clinical positions within organizations, we as faculty made the decision, executive admin just signed off on it. If anything, I would argue that the faculty are far more qualified than upper level admin/management to determine hiring in these types of settings.

 

[deleted1129370]

 

[Pragma]

But,doesn't it make sense in this instance? Do, university admins know better what is needed within a clinical psych department than the faculty do? Even in clinical positions within organizations, we as faculty made the decision, executive admin just signed off on it. If anything, I would argue that the faculty are far more qualified than upper level admin/management to determine hiring in these types of settings.

I have seen a range of practices. Typically when there is a SC it is comprised of some of the dept/program as well as some external member(s). They would theoretically be the best for evaluating the content/fit. In one setting I was at I saw the SC rank order candidates after interviews, then pass that on to an upper administrator who ultimately would make the call. I have also seen places where it is more administrative leader heavy in the hiring process without a formal search committee, but usually bringing in some relevant faculty members to interview and provide input.

 

[deleted1129370]

I think it will be difficult taking the politics out of most things that are of contentious debate. There's a lot at stake for all parties involved. I kind of liken it to cooking - you can't really take out the salt once you've put too much into the dish. So then you have to get creative with other elements of flavor like acid or heat to try to compensate. I think a lot of what we've discussed are options that aim to compensate for the "system" we live within. It's interesting that most of us here hold doctorates which represent a statistical minority of people in the U.S., yet, we are talking about trying to find remedies for the vast majority. People who would likely not understand most of the verbiage and concepts being discussed in here.

Oh...and APA loves to get involved with political affairs, so let's not kid ourselves that we should not involve politics. That ship has sailed. No putting that Geni back in the bottle.

 

[Sanman]

Clearly, the only proper way to conduct a candidate interview:

 

[deleted1129370]

Clearly, the only proper way to conduct a candidate interview:

Actually - in my former profession as a classical musician, this is what they did. You would have a panel of current orchestra members and the music director/conductor, there would be a giant screen that ran across the stage so the panelists couldn't see you, and there was carpeting to muffle the sound of women's heeled shoes. There would be a monitor there on your side of the screen to assist you (if needed) because you would be unable to speak so that the panelists would not hear the person's voice.

 

[ianslo]

Sure, then the next question is what adjustments get made and for which groups. Do white folks have to sit out or just white men? Now women are underrepresented in leadership but now overrepresented in psychology, so do they sit down and be quiet or are they included as a disadvantaged group? Asian people are overrepresented in academically elite institutions and high paying professions, but still face racism and discrimination. Are they advantaged or disadvantaged? Does a Native American candidate get preference over a Hispanic or Black candidate or are they equal?

This is where things get messy. I have seen responses from many systems related to the Me Too and BLM movements. However, I see no changes to be more inclusive overall. That is politics, not diversity. What you often get as a result is tribalism instead of equity and inclusion because you are correct. White guys are not just going away. They will give just enough to make others happy. That can lead to diversity musical chairs with not enough seats.

This is worth a read, IMO:

Against Identity Politics

from ClinicalABA's post that you quoted:
I'm still looking for evidence of widespread policy and practice that is designed to exclude straight white males from successfully participating in academics and the workforce. I'd really like some evidence of widespread "white males need to sit out the next several hundred years" attitudes and policy.

No one is saying to exclude straight white males. It's not happening and is not going to happen. SWM yield the most power in our society and that's not going to change anytime soon. They will always have a voice and will always have privilege and opportunities that other groups don't. Implicit bias rarely works against them.

To your second point - who knows what should be done? Maybe nothing? Is the world on fire that needs constant attention? I think this depends on how people choose to view the state of our country. I think there are a lot of things that have been put into place to help, but honestly, I think a lot of them don't address root-cause mechanisms, but rather, surface-level or ancillary things. They address things after they've occurred rather than as a preventative means. I think to really get a good idea of how we can address things is to get all parties involved. Not dismissing one's views over another (i.e., "I don't like what you said, so shut up and sit down"). When you start pushing others to the side in an effort to prop yourself up above others, you will understandably receive pushback. That's largely unhelpful. You will not get buy-in from those that frankly, you need. We don't live in caves, we live in society with others who have different backgrounds. I think we as Americans get way too caught up in our own ideals that we never stand back to get perspective, that in reality, our country offers some of the best opportunities for people of all backgrounds to have a better life, to express themselves openly without fear of being jailed, killed, etc. Other countries....they have some interesting laws themselves, especially immigration laws that are significantly more harsh than ours. But, the media portrays us as a country filled with little Hitlers running around and we are obsolete and behind others in every way.

I think how one views this country depends in large part of what their experiences here have been. I think there are a lot of "fires" going on and I agree with you that prevention is the better answer and that bringing all parties together and really listening to each other is what we need. What I disagree with is that inviting groups to be heard means pushing aside someone else. There is room, and a need, for us all to be at the table.

 

[Sanman]

from ClinicalABA's post that you quoted:
I'm still looking for evidence of widespread policy and practice that is designed to exclude straight white males from successfully participating in academics and the workforce. I'd really like some evidence of widespread "white males need to sit out the next several hundred years" attitudes and policy.

No one is saying to exclude straight white males. It's not happening and is not going to happen. SWM yield the most power in our society and that's not going to change anytime soon. They will always have a voice and will always have privilege and opportunities that other groups don't. Implicit bias rarely works against them.

You didn't address my question. I never said they would be excluded. My question was then who gets a hand up and who doesn't? Because we agree that straight white males will not be at the bottom. So, who will it be?

 

[deleted1129370]

from ClinicalABA's post that you quoted:
I'm still looking for evidence of widespread policy and practice that is designed to exclude straight white males from successfully participating in academics and the workforce. I'd really like some evidence of widespread "white males need to sit out the next several hundred years" attitudes and policy.

No one is saying to exclude straight white males. It's not happening and is not going to happen. SWM yield the most power in our society and that's not going to change anytime soon. They will always have a voice and will always have privilege and opportunities that other groups don't. Implicit bias rarely works against them.

I think how one views this country depends in large part of what their experiences here have been. I think there are a lot of "fires" going on and I agree with you that prevention is the better answer and that bringing all parties together and really listening to each other is what we need. What I disagree with is that inviting groups to be heard means pushing aside someone else. There is room, and a need, for us all to be at the table.

Have you had a a family Thanksgiving with a rectangular table, even with a leaf? Usually someone ends up at the foldable table in the den.

 

[deleted1129370]

I would say that it seems we differ in how many of us are viewing current events. That's understandable. I think we can appreciate that on a basic level. I don't think at any point I have advocated for excluding any one group over another. I am emphasizing that many Americans view current DEI efforts whereby they perceive themselves as being pushed to the side. Heck, even I have experienced that where I've seen posts on various social media sites, even in some meetings at the VA where some colleagues have flat out stated that certain "people" need to move out of the way so that progress can be made. To use a very non-PC phrase here, a functional idiot could read between those lines. So needless to say, if people such as myself are picking up on that, with my "high powered intellect," I could infer that many basic Americans are also picking up on that. That's not the message or tone that needs to be set.

Some people have stated thus far "well I haven't overtly seen or experienced [white people being marginalized]." What if I used that same approach with my experiences regarding minority folks? That's not very helpful right? It implies, that if it's really not occurring on a statistically significant level, then the point is moot. That's how I perceive that sentiment at least. This btw is referencing some previous posts by one or two other posters.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think we as Americans get way too caught up in our own ideals that we never stand back to get perspective, that in reality, our country offers some of the best opportunities for people of all backgrounds to have a better life, to express themselves openly without fear of being jailed, killed, etc. Other countries....they have some interesting laws themselves, especially immigration laws that are significantly more harsh than ours. But, the media portrays us as a country filled with little Hitlers running around and we are obsolete and behind others in every way.

So...there you go, another long-winded response for you to read after work. Have a great day at work! 🙂

Yes, the USA offers some of the best opportunities for people....not equally, and certainly not accessible to many. That's a big part of it though. The running race/marathon example was a good one. A marathon is 26.2mi, and everyone has to run it to win. However, some people may have to start 2mi behind the starting line. Other runners won't have shoes. Others won't have access to the same training. We know there will always be some inequity because money can overcome most things, but increasing resources and access to make the disparities smaller should be the goal. There is a problem though.

What most people are fighting for is a seat at the table, but yielding ANY space at the table many object to, completely ignoring how they got their seats. Some are asking for an equal number of seats (!!!). Think about that, wanting equal access to something, as everyone else. Why is that so hard to reach? There is a blind spot for most white people, and it's WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN for there to be more equal footing. It brings up a lot of uncomfortable things for white people. It then requires real change to do more than just lip service, and that's the hard part where most efforts stop. Just my 2 cents as a cis-gendered white guy with some privilege.

ps. The "Little Hitlers" thing is more real than anyone should be comfortable with in 2022.

 

[Sanman]

Yes, the USA offers some of the best opportunities for people....not equally, and certainly not accessible to many. That's a big part of it though. The running race/marathon example was a good one. A marathon is 26.2mi, and everyone has to run it to win. However, some people may have to start 2mi behind the starting line. Other runners won't have shoes. Others won't have access to the same training. We know there will always be some inequity because money can overcome most things, but increasing resources and access to make the disparities smaller should be the goal. There is a problem though.

What most people are fighting for is a seat at the table, but yielding ANY space at the table many object to, completely ignoring how they got their seats. Some are asking for an equal number of seats (!!!). Think about that, wanting equal access to something, as everyone else. Why is that so hard to reach? There is a blind spot for most white people, and it's WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN for there to be more equal footing. It brings up a lot of uncomfortable things for white people. It then requires real change to do more than just lip service, and that's the hard part where most efforts stop. Just my 2 cents as a cis-gendered white guy with some privilege.

I would question whether they are asking for equal representation of everyone. For example, the NSF and NIH focuses DE&I initiatives on the following groups:

Women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minority groups—blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, and American Indians or Alaska Natives

That's it. No one else gets a seat at the DE&I table. Is that everyone? Is that even everyone except White males? No.

 

[ianslo]

I would question whether they are asking for equal representation of everyone. For example, the NSF and NIH focuses DE&I initiatives on the following groups:

Women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minority groups—blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, and American Indians or Alaska Natives

That's it. No one else gets a seat at the DE&I table. Is that everyone? Is that even everyone except White males? No.

A DE&I initiative doesn't mean they are never going to hire white males again. Or that white men are suddenly going to be silenced or be the minority. Of course that will never happen. It just means they recognize that other groups aren't represented well in their organization, and they want to do what they can to be more representative of the world we live in.

Will it ever be perfect? No. Will every conceivable minority be represented? No, of course not. That's not a reason to try to improve diversity in our workplaces.

 

[Sanman]

A DE&I initiative doesn't mean they are never going to hire white males again. Or that white men are suddenly going to be silenced or be the minority. Of course that will never happen. It just means they recognize that other groups aren't represented well in their organization, and they want to do what they can to be more representative of the world we live in.

Will it ever be perfect? No. Will every conceivable minority be represented? No, of course not. That's not a reason to try to improve diversity in our workplaces.

You keep bringing up white men, I am not sure why.The bolded is where we we will disagree. To use our marathon analogy, that means you will be helping some groups move forward in the race while leaving others behind. That might seem fine to you, but it may not seem so fine to the minorities left in last place. What is the justification for helping some minorities and not others?

 

[PsyDWannabe]

You missed the share the spotlight part of my post. White people aren't going anywhere anytime soon. We're going to be just fine.

My advice: it is best you avoid that particular poster and converse more with people who have the ability to see nuance and who don’t intentionally misstate your point to suit their own agendas and superiority complex. That poster (and a couple of others) seems to be fighting demons that exist well outside of this forum, and I assure you it’s a waste of time going back-and-forth with them. That particular poster is so full of microaggressions And dog-whistles against racial/ethnic minorities, it’s baffling how they’re allowed to continue posting on here but that’s a different issue for a different time. One of their posts ever so subtly communicated an intense dislike of/ feeling threatened by “intellectual” Black/POCs and that’s when I disengaged completely because there may be something else going on there (as you can probably tell from their posts).

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I definitely lean toward a more pro-DEI direction than you, and I don't have the energy to fight on SDN right now because I am spoken over daily in real life. But...as a Jewish person can I ask you drop the hitler nonsense? There's enough actual antisemitism that I'd like to save that for the real threats and not a caricature for making a point. Thanks.

That particular poster was, a few pages ago, cautioned to stop laughing at Blackness because he was caught doing so in a couple posts to make his misguided points, and his response was “so what if I am (mocking Blackness)?”

Just giving you context in terms of saving or at the very least protecting your emotional energy and to whom it’s directed.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I'm still looking for evidence of widespread policy and practice that is designed to exclude straight white males from successfully participating in academics and the workforce. I'd really like some evidence of widespread "white males need to sit out the next several hundred years" attitudes and policy.

Not a single person On here has ever so much as implied that the above should be implemented. Yet, Enough self identified white male posters in this very thread have intentionally and repeatedly responded to legitimate points using the above, because they have no reasonable point to make. It’s beyond clear that with these particular individuals, there is a fragility that’s being threatened and is precluding them from contributing constructively to the conversation. But those same folks also want to turn around and find out why DEI initiatives are unsatisfactory, it seems to me that with that attitude, there will never be a DEI initiative that suits their sensibilities.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Not a single person On here has ever so much as implied that the above should be implemented.

This is a factual statement

Yet, Enough self identified white male posters in this very thread have intentionally and repeatedly responded to legitimate points using the above, because they have no reasonable point to make. It’s beyond clear that with these particular individuals, there is a fragility that’s being threatened and is precluding them from contributing constructively to the conversation. But those same folks also want to turn around and find out why DEI initiatives are unsatisfactory, it seems to me that with that attitude, there will never be a DEI initiative that suits their sensibilities.

On the other hand, not sure I totally agree with this. While there may be some super fragile folks out there that live in fear of their privilege being taken away, I don't think that describes everyone who has posted here. While I disagree with a lot of them, I'm not ready to counter their arguments with accusations of assumed extreme behavior (I'll think you'll find that this a tactic some of them have used- I acknowledged it with them, and I think it only fair to acknowledge it with someone who I believe is "on my side"). To do so is, IMHO, unjustified, and- based on my observations- not a successful tactic even if justified. At least they have hung around to continue the discussion.

In summary, I do think there are some folks around here who are responding emotionally to perceived threats to their privilege (and, unfortunately, there's probably some who think that privilege is deserved). However, their are many (myself included) for whom this is a more nuanced topic. There have been some good (but difficult) questions from the "other side"- e.g., how long do we have to do this for to "make it up" to historically disadvantaged groups, that have challenged my to think more clearly about my position. I appreciate that, even if I very much disagree with the tactic of presenting questions about sub-topics as evidence against the main topic- a classic straw man approach to debate.

ETA- I had originally labled the tactic of replacing an argument with an extreme or simplistic version as a "red herring", when it's actually a "straw man"- duh!

 

[PsyDWannabe]

This is a factual statement

On the other hand, not sure I totally agree with this. While there may be some super fragile folks out there that live in fear of their privilege being taken away, I don't think that describes everyone who has posted here. While I disagree with a lot of them, I'm not ready to counter their arguments with accusations of assumed extreme behavior (I'll think you'll find that this a tactic some of them have used- I acknowledged it with them, and I think it only fair to acknowledge it with someone who I believe is "on my side"). To do so is, IMHO, unjustified, and- based on my observations- not a successful tactic even if justified. At least they have hung around to continue the discussion.

In summary, I do think there are some folks around here who are responding emotionally to perceived threats to their privilege (and, unfortunately, there's probably some who think that privilege is deserved). However, their are many (myself included) for whom this is a more nuanced topic. There have been some good (but difficult) questions from the "other side"- e.g., how long do we have to do this for to "make it up" to historically disadvantaged groups, that have challenged my to think more clearly about my position. I appreciate that, even if I very much disagree with the tactic of presenting questions about sub-topics as evidence against the main topic- a classic red herring approach to debate.

Never said that describes everyone who posted here. I said repeatedly that this was some/multiple, but not all posters. We could all be mindful of generalizations that undermine legitimate points being made, and I try to be aware of that myself. As you stated, it’s a terrible unsuccessful tactic.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

In summary, I do think there are some folks around here who are responding emotionally to perceived threats to their privilege (and, unfortunately, there's probably some who think that privilege is deserved). However, their are many (myself included) for whom this is a more nuanced topic. There have been some good (but difficult) questions from the "other side"- e.g., how long do we have to do this for to "make it up" to historically disadvantaged groups, that have challenged my to think more clearly about my position. I appreciate that, even if I very much disagree with the tactic of presenting questions about sub-topics as evidence against the main topic- a classic red herring approach to debate.

Very well said.

 

[deleted1129370]

 

[WisNeuro]

That gif is ageist. Also. Too soon, man, too soon.

 

[borne_before]

So like, i'm totally wondering if we can create a consensus about the problem and clearly define it. Until we do that, aren't these discussions rather useless?

Can we agree that it was uncool of that institution to exclude an individual who can contribute based on their membership of various aspects of identity?

and

Can we agree that certain groups have advantage over others?

Or is there more interest in discussing the process over the content?

 

[borne_before]

from ClinicalABA's post that you quoted:
I'm still looking for evidence of widespread policy and practice that is designed to exclude straight white males from successfully participating in academics and the workforce. I'd really like some evidence of widespread "white males need to sit out the next several hundred years" attitudes and policy.

No one is saying to exclude straight white males. It's not happening and is not going to happen. SWM yield the most power in our society and that's not going to change anytime soon. They will always have a voice and will always have privilege and opportunities that other groups don't. Implicit bias rarely works against them.

I think how one views this country depends in large part of what their experiences here have been. I think there are a lot of "fires" going on and I agree with you that prevention is the better answer and that bringing all parties together and really listening to each other is what we need. What I disagree with is that inviting groups to be heard means pushing aside someone else. There is room, and a need, for us all to be at the table.

Here is an example of from 2002: Federal Appeals Court Allows White Male Professors’ Lawsuit Claiming Pay Discrimination to Proceed

 

[deleted1129370]

That gif is ageist. Also. Too soon, man, too soon.

Most of the gifs I was looking at either had females, African American male and/or females...so I was placed in between a rock and a hard place. These damn eggshells need to be emptied out before we move onto season 7.

 

[WisNeuro]

So like, i'm totally wondering if we can create a consensus about the problem and clearly define it. Until we do that, aren't these discussions rather useless?

Can we agree that it was uncool of that institution to exclude an individual who can contribute based on their membership of various aspects of identity?

and

Can we agree that certain groups have advantage over others?

Or is there more interest in discussing the process over the content?

For some, it will always be a fruitless endeavor, as it's easier to name call and engage in ad hominem than engage in intellectual discussion. But I do agree that there are about 10 different arguments going on here.

As for advantage, as long as we can agree that advantage is a continuous variable rather than a binomial one. One that not every member of a group enjoys to the same extent, and that advantage is intersectional with many variables that are often discounted in the service of advancing strawman argument.

 

[WisNeuro]

Most of the gifs I was looking at either had females, African American male and/or females...so I was placed in between a rock and a hard place. These damn eggshells need to be emptied out before we move onto season 7.

It's ok, any show that goes beyond 3-4 seasons needs those couple middle seasons of junk before picking back momentum for a killer ending. Like BB.

 

[Pragma]

For some, it will always be a fruitless endeavor, as it's easier to name call and engage in ad hominem than engage in intellectual discussion. But I do agree that there are about 10 different arguments going on here.

As for advantage, as long as we can agree that advantage is a continuous variable rather than a binomial one. One that not every member of a group enjoys to the same extent, and that advantage is intersectional with many variables that are often discounted in the service of advancing strawman argument.

Be careful how you talk about the strawman!

 

[deleted1129370]

For some, it will always be a fruitless endeavor, as it's easier to name call and engage in ad hominem than engage in intellectual discussion. But I do agree that there are about 10 different arguments going on here.

As for advantage, as long as we can agree that advantage is a continuous variable rather than a binomial one. One that not every member of a group enjoys to the same extent, and that advantage is intersectional with many variables that are often discounted in the service of advancing strawman argument.

Indeed. The topic has split up a bit. I can accept ownership of any part I played into it. This topic is a rough one as there will understandably be emotions on all sides of this.

 

[WisNeuro]

Be careful how you talk about the strawman!

Definitely no disrespect to Ray Bolger.

 

[smalltownpsych]

When I went to undergrad at a very liberal thinking type of university with a lot of diversity, the professors would talk about hat a great thing that was. Meanwhile, I saw the various minority groups not Interacting at all. To me it felt like one of the least inclusive and welcoming atmosphere I had ever experienced. Dr. Piper-Mandy, who has shaped many of my views of understanding culture and discrimination and oppression was one of the few that actually called that out. Most of the professors seemed like they were using a level of thought like the underpants gnomes. Step A: acknowledge imequity exists and its bad, check, Step B: ? Step C: Everyone gets along. My experience is that if you have questions about step B, then you are told that you are in denial of step A. I also saw this play out with poverty, homelessnes, mental illness, criminal justice reforms, etc.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Here is an example of from 2002: Federal Appeals Court Allows White Male Professors’ Lawsuit Claiming Pay Discrimination to Proceed

Not sure this great example. The judges stated that the pay equity program DID NOT infringe on the rights of the professors who did not get raises, but concluded it was ultimately up to a jury to decide. Hardly an example of widespread practice of excluding white males from the workplace/academy. The specific white males in the case had presumably appropriately paying jobs.

 

[smalltownpsych]

When I went to undergrad at a very liberal thinking type of university with a lot of diversity, the professors would talk about hat a great thing that was. Meanwhile, I saw the various minority groups not Interacting at all. To me it felt like one of the least inclusive and welcoming atmosphere I had ever experienced. Dr. Piper-Mandy, who has shaped many of my views of understanding culture and discrimination and oppression was one of the few that actually called that out. Most of the professors seemed like they were using a level of thought like the underpants gnomes. Step A: acknowledge imequity exists and its bad, check, Step B: ? Step C: Everyone gets along. My experience is that if you have questions about step B, then you are told that you are in denial of step A. I also saw this play out with poverty, homelessnes, mental illness, criminal justice reforms, etc.

Wanted to add that most of the professors talking about how great the faux diversity and bemoaning the inequities of the system were older white males which is probably why I respected and appreciated an African American female professors perspective on these issues a bit not to mention she knew her stuff.

Back in my formative years, the equity stuff was called affirmative action and many complained about it, but it was an essential tool to getting diversity into universities and workplaces. I think I prefer the older term and the feel of it was more about elevating groups to share in the benefits of society than a competitive perspective that seems to be more prominent now.