« The Hits (and Misses) Just Keep on Coming | Main | Summer's end book round-up »

August 26, 2016

Comments

"While 25.5% of resumes received callbacks if African American candidates’ names were “whitened”, only 10% received a callback if they left their name and experience unaltered"

Does this mean the 25.5 % test group altered their experience? Huh?

Marty,

Here's just one easily found example.

I see this data as a shameful mark against our society, and the values we profess to believe in.

Now, from your point of view, what explains this disparity?

There are a variety of answers to this question:

1. They are less intelligent (cf Andrew Sullivan, asshole).
2. They have "cultural pathologies" holding them back (explain them).
3. It's OK, they are catching up (the comforting "not my fault" hypothesis). But then if they are only just now catching up due to what we did to them in the past, then why are they not due compensation for that injustice? And why is it taking so long, or in some cases, getting worse?
4. Ongoing racial discrimination.

Pick 'em.

Does this mean the 25.5 % test group altered their experience?

25.5% of those who whitened got callbacks.

it doesn't say how many of the resumes were whitened and how many weren't, but we can probably assume it was 50/50.

Sometimes, where you worked can be as revealing of your ethnic group as your name. It's a bit different from padding your resume by claiming experience you don't actually have.

Atrios, as always, has some solid suggestions that might help out all colors of "the working class".

How come not a single white person, outside of white hip-hop artists, has tried to "blacken" their job resumes in the history of job-seeking in America?

Except for George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the Roosevelt boys, if they only knew.

Is it because they know what the consequences might be?

You never saw WASP comedians in the 1930s ever change their surnames from Smith or Swanson to Rothschild or Kubelsky either.

I'm not sure how old I was when I thought to myself that George Burns was pretty funny ... for a Scotsman.

Regarding Nashville Hot Chicken, didn't Colonel Sanders put Nashville Hot on its menu recently? But that's OK because the Colonel invented fried chicken, which is what Dick Gregory preferred anyway when they didn't use to serve Negros on toast at lunch.

But, I'm a little bit of a foodie, and it never ceases to amaze me how professional chefs can "discover" a common food item, like grits, for example, or pork belly, all delicious, and pretty soon you can't get either dish for less than $15 anywhere, if your life depended on it.

Americans, being human, consume marketing, presentation, and packaging. The thing in itself is not particularly appetizing without the show biz.

Would you like pommes frites with that?

Sure. Sounds delish.

They are just french fries.

Well, then absolutely not, those quisling Muslim lovers.

You should really be posting on LGM count. Hard to keep up with the same conversation in two different places.

But, I'm a little bit of a foodie, and it never ceases to amaze me how professional chefs can "discover" a common food item, like grits, for example, or pork belly, all delicious, and pretty soon you can't get either dish for less than $15 anywhere, if your life depended on it.

That's what your kitchen is for. If you want someone to serve you, you've got to pay up. It's extra nice if the people who are serving you actually get the cash.

"It's extra nice if the people who are serving you actually get the cash."

Yes. A line chef in even some top restaurants gets maybe $11 an hour, plus I've talked to some who have $100,000 student loans to go to cooking school, so I'm thinking they aren't. I'm a good tipper, even for bad service, but then I think people should get paid well for mere breathing.

Big bonuses for everything beyond that.

I was talking more about the very cheap, very common raw ingredient all of sudden discovered and sold like diamonds or rare pearls.

Lobster was once a trash comestible. They blanketed the sea floor until something happened.

They tasted the same when no one wanted them.

Pam Geller says Hillary wants to shut down Breitbart.

I hope she does it on her first day in office, but offers the staffers a spot on the Obamacare exchanges.

Well, not too many restaurant start-ups make it big, just saying. If you want cheap shrimp and grits, make them at home.

How come not a single white person, outside of white hip-hop artists, has tried to "blacken" their job resumes in the history of job-seeking in America?

Red Rodney comes to mind. Claimed to be an "albino black" in order to get work (trumpet player) in the early post WW II era.

There was that one lady that NAACP lady that identified black, she blackened her resume substantially. Then Elizabeth Warren made her a little more American Indian.

There are probably a lot more like those.

Believe me, I know the overwhelming odds against long-term success in the restaurant business, even for the good ones.

I do make them at home. Whaddaya want from me? Jeez, youda thunk I was complaining about the NSA. ;)

Let's not forget Ward Churchill. See, we can name all four of them.

Bill Clinton was the first black President, so there's another.

Barack Obama? He doesn't have to claim he's something he's not. Others do it for him.

They tasted the same when no one wanted them.

Hahahaha. You are on a roll, Countme.

Same for scallops.

There are probably a lot more like those.

From 2 to "a lot"? Dear me. Is that what they call a "quantum leap"?

it's entirely possible that black and other non-white people are subject to discrimination, AND that some white demographics are subject to discrimination.

it's not like like exclusion is some zero-sun game. the more faces pressed up against the glass the better, i would think, at least for those on the inside.

it's entirely possible that somebody like McK could know lots of accomplished, successful women and people of color in the legal or other white collar professions, AND that the barriers to that level of success are much higher for women or non-white people.

who knows, maybe some places are not as enlightened as houston. boston might not be, for one exanple.

also - my understanding about red rodney is that he had to pretend to be an albino negro while touring with charlie parker to avoid the scandal of an integrated band. especially when working in the south.

plus parker probably thought it was a great big prank.

Trump hires the king of Clinton trolls:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/01/trump-enlists-veteran-operative-david-bossie-as-deputy-campaign-manager/

David Bossie.

Until this week, Bossie was president of Citizens United, the hard-line advocacy outfit that has mounted digital, film and advertising campaigns against President Obama’s agenda and against moderate Republicans.

Bossie will take a leave of absence from Citizens United for the duration of the campaign. And he has left the “Defeat Crooked Hillary” super PAC, which he had been running since June.

Citizens United is best known as the orchestrator of the 2010 Supreme Court decision, “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,” a historic ruling that ended many restrictions on political spending for corporations and unions.

Citizens United has been one of the main conservative organizations requesting documents from the State Department about Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary and publicly sharing emails it has obtained. A particular focus has been on Clinton’s staff and its communications with her charitable foundation regarding meetings with foundation donors.

Bryan Lanza, a former spokesman at Citizens United, now works as a spokesman for the Trump campaign.

No one is saying all the problems are solved. What we are saying is that we are, and have for a long time, been moving toward solving them and this SJW/privilege bullshit is setting us back. It's divisive, intellectually lazy and ultimately pointless

But "privilege"--how does anyone think this sounds to a listener, "you are white. as a white person you think and act in certain ways that are bad. you need to stop doing that. we will tell you how you need to think and act. please listen. because you are white."?
Bullshit.

I’m just catching up here, so forgive me if I repeat some of what others have said, but the main point surely is that those who possess “privilege” in this sense are lucky enough to benefit from the absence of something bad (like fear, paranoia, expectation of violence or prejudice), rather than being the possessors or perpetrators of something bad (as McKinney implies above is the accusation).

I remember that a long time ago, in a thread far, far away, McKinney protested about the concept of White Male Privilege and Snarki remarked on her experience in (I think) Japan, of not having to look over her shoulder when walking on the street at night, and speculated (unarguably I would have thought) that this was an experience that, in the US, McK was a lot more likely than her to have taken for granted. So it seems to me that the only thing that is Bad in those benefitting from White (Male) Privilege is their unawareness that they have expectations (of being listened to, of not being shot when unarmed, of getting interviews without whitening their c.v.s etc etc) which expectations are not reasonably held by, mutatis mutandis, women/persons of colour etc etc. I’m sure you’ve all read the widely praised/damned commencement speech by David Foster Wallace called This is Water, but for present purposes only the beginning is relevant:

There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, "Morning, boys, how's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, "What the hell is water?"

There may be many things wrong with Black Lives Matter as a movement (although I haven't followed fully enough to see what or if there are), but I don't believe that for example cops killing unarmed black men, or treating partying black teenagers violently or disrespectfully, are phenomenona the frequency of which have suddenly increased, and it seems to me that someone like McKinney, a well-off white lawyer driving a Lexus, despite comfortably swimming in it, has no idea WTF is water.

I was just thinking yesterday that we should elect a President with the courage to overturn the First Amendment, nationalize the press, close any anti administration outlets, on the first day in office. As long as they defended Obama care to the death, It's death and everyone elses.

GftNC, great comment.

"phenomena" not "phenomenona"!

"McKinney, a well-off white lawyer driving a Lexus, despite comfortably swimming in it, has no idea WTF is water."

Yes, not speaking for Mckinney, I'm sure that after 50 years of discussing this, 45 years of legal changes to try to fix it, innumerable discussions and explanations s, that us white males are so stupid and unempathetic that we still don't understand. To quote myself, that's just stupid. And the problem. As long as I'm told that I somehow don't have the capacity to understand the issues, or know wtf is water, then my answer is not very printable.

White privilege (or male privilege, or Christian privilege--there's many kinds) refers to ways white, male, or Christian (etc.) people are treated better as a result of their whiteness, maleness, or Christianness.

If that is conceptually difficult, you can get to the same point by thinking of the treatment white, male, Christian people get as normal, and the treatment people of color, women, and nonChristians get as subpar.

Whatever you prefer.

It's just another way of describing racism.

So let's use a stark example. Let's say you're a 14 year old white kid in Missouri in 1955, and you allegedly whistle at a black woman. What happens to you?

Nothing. Nothing happens to you. If you actually did it, maybe your friends high five you for putting her in her place.

Now let's say you're a 14 year old black kid in Missouri in 1955, and you allegedly whistle at a white woman. What happens to you?

See where I'm going here?

Okay, you say, but that was then! America isn't like that any more!

And I say yes, America is better in many ways, but really what we're fighting about his exactly how much better.

So let's fast forward to 2012. Let's say you're a white teenager walking through a neighborhood after you bought some skittles. What happens to you?

Nothing. Nothing happens to you.

Let's say you're Trayvon Martin and you're walking through a neighborhood after you bought some skittles. What happens to you?

These are just the most famous examples of people being treated differently because of their . There's women being treated as pushy but men being lauded as go-getters for doing the same things. There's fat people getting yelled at in the street and non-fat people . . . not getting yelled at in the street. The list is very, very, long.

Now, I'm sure you will say some version of "I've never seen anything like that!"

So what? Why would this be something that you see? You are the straight, white, Christian (perhaps not necessarily practicing) man. You are the very person who is not on the receiving end of this treatment.

"Nothing. Nothing happens to you."

That depends on what neighborhood you're in.

Again Sig, who would ever say that they've "never seen anything like that"? You don't think white males have been in situations where they felt the need to constantly look over their shoulder? I've run 30 blocks home because walking seemed to put me at risk. I've spent hours editing my resume to see which way might be more likely to get an interview.

And, I've been beat up for being white, robbed for the same reason.

And some of your examples are sketchy, women being pushy is often because they are pushy, not aggressive go getters, pushy without accomplishment. Now days any criticism of women is just written off to sex ism, double standard. The one that po's me is "women have to work twice as hard as men". It is physically impossible for anyone to have worked twice as hard as most of the people that I managed that were successful. Successful people usually get there by hard work. Lots of them work harder than less successful people. But successful women don't work twice as hard as successful men.

My point is that men aren't stupid or unempathetic but they really object to constantly being criticized and demean Ed because of oh their sex and skin color.

Marty,

No one here has said white men do not experience bad things. We have said they generally

generally

Generally, as in as a statistical matter

because of course there are instances of white people treated terribly

But we're talking about "in general," here

generally get treated badly LESS OFTEN and LESS INTENSELY.

So your anecdotes about a bad thing that happened to you one time are completely irrelevant.

"My point is that men aren't stupid or unempathetic "

You're not helping make this point, you know.

"they really object to constantly being criticized and demean Ed because of oh their sex and skin color."

If you think that's bad, try being murdered because of your sex and skin color.

Marty, nobody is claiming that you (or McKinney) are a racist, or stupid, or unempathetic. It's perfectly clear, from this thread and many others, that you aren't. The discussion at hand is not primarily the absence or presence of racism etc in white people, or white men, it is the phenomenon of certain groups being comparatively immune from regular discrimination or even harrassment (therefore "privileged"), and unaware of it, and of the extent to which other groups are subject to such treatment as groups, not individuals. This comparative immunity is a real thing, and when for example someone like McKinney derides it, as he does in the quote I excerpted above, it is legitimate to call him on it, with reference to the features which grant him such immunity.

"So your anecdotes about a bad thing that happened to you one time are completely irrelevant"

No, they aren't. My issue is the continuing statement that white males don't understand the plight of others because we cant possibly know how their lives are.

Your generalizations are generalizing the worst case to everyone. Both white in terms of privilege and nonwhite in terms of their experience. Neither is completely accurate.

But, if you want to see how effective that argument is go sit down with one of your friends. significant other and start a discussion this way:

Look, you cant possibly understand the problem I am talking about, and you are the cause of it. So what I want you to do is sit and listen to me tell you how much you suck and what I expect you to do about it. You are not allowed to have an opinion or disagree, you are expected to do exactly what I say and agree that I have the problem exactly right. Now lets have a dialogue on this.

See how that works for you.

Marty, McTx:

if white privilege does not exist, then what are all these non-white people complaining about ? and why are the only people to loudly proclaim its non-existence conservative whites ?

if white privilege does not exist...

Yes, that seems to be the basic question here. Not, "what are its attributes" or "what can we do about it?"

Rather, we go round in circles debating the thesis: "Whites have privilege in the USA due to the color of their skin, true or false?"

Is this one of those category errors I keep hearing about so much?

A free moment popped up.

This is either a rhetorical question or a really dumb one. So I'll ascribe it to your being in a hurry.

Dumb? So, white male privilege impacts different victims differently? How do we account for that?

Then you should. People are interested when you actually do. And you could start by addressing this, posed by bobbyp:

So what do we do about it [the fact that blacks are still, in aggregate, worse off] on the level of public policy? Nothing? Wait it out?

I've addressed this in a number of contexts before at ObWi. The very high incidence of generational uneducated, single parent families is probably the single largest driver of African American's aggregate inability to progress.

Here's a quote I just googled, " Nationwide, black students graduated at a rate of 69 percent; Hispanics graduated at 73 percent; whites graduated at a rate of 86 percent."

So, this accounts for some of the disparity.

Here's another quote I googled: "According to the most recent statistics, the nationwide college graduation rate for black students stands at an appallingly low rate of 42 percent. This figure is 20 percentage points below the 62 percent rate for white students."

This is a white privilege only if I and my fellow co-conspirators are somehow keeping young African Americans from attending class or getting student loans.

Here's another one: "At the time of the Harlem Renaissance in the 1920s, about 10,000 American blacks — one in 1,000 — were college educated. The editor of this journal, who was born in 1924, points out that a black child born that same year had about as much chance of completing four years of college as he had of playing shortstop for the Boston Red Sox. Today the world is different. There are more than 4.5 million African Americans alive today who hold a four-year college degree.

The breakdown is as follows: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are 3,215,000 blacks in this country who have a bachelor’s degree. And there are an additional 1,078,000 African Americans who have both a four-year college degree and a master’s degree. An additional 150,000 blacks hold a professional degree in fields such as law, business, and medicine. Another 136,000 Afri-can Americans have ob-tained a doctorate. Over-all, 4,579,000 African Americans possess a four-year college de-gree or higher.
This is breathtaking progress.

In 2008, 19.6 percent of all African Amer-icans over the age of 25 held a college degree. This figure has in-creased significantly from 13.8 percent in 1996 and 11.3 percent in 1990.

Despite the good news, the data still shows that blacks must continue to travel a huge distance before they reach parity with white Americans in higher education.
Overall, 32.6 percent of the non-Hispanic white population over the age of 25 holds a college degree compared to 19.6 percent of adult blacks. This percentage gap has remained steady in recent years."

Ok, so how does WMP figure into these statistics? Particularly since the above article also states that, of the degrees awarded to African Americans, 62% go to females. So, black female privilege?

Seems to me there are other, fundamental issues. I don't see how a young child, born to a single high school dropout, easily overcomes that disadvantage.

So, if there is a solution, it begins with inculcating, if possible, a different ethic among young men and women generally. Here is another quote, "The out-of-wedlock rate in 2013 among Hispanic women was 53.2 percent. For African American women the rate was 71.4 percent. White women gave birth out of marriage at a rate of 29.3 percent in 2013, the CDC said . . .:

According to the Kaiser Foundation, there were 3,019,000 white births and 640,000 black births in 2014.

I realize 2013 and 2014 are different years, so I am going to assume the variance isn't huge. I couldn't find matching stats. Sorry.

So, there seem to have been almost as many white, single parent births as there were total black births. There is a swing in percentage, but big deal. It's close on to a million kids a year who are born with a huge disadvantage.

We address that by attempting to persuade young women that having children young and without a spouse is a huge, life-limiting factor.

We enact draconian, no exceptions penalties for men who father and fail to support children.

Next, we do a much better job than we currently are in motivating children beginning at an early age by making very clear the devastating effect of having kids early and not getting a good education and good life and work skills.

We were fortunate that our kids were competitive and viewed good grades as part of life's competition. I still had very hard talks with both of them about the consequences of not maximizing their opportunities. We need to get a lot better at making hard work, finishing school, responsible procreation etc a part of the national ethos.

I reject, generally, lowering standards and other handicapping devices to increase diversity. It's not fair to anyone, particularly the "beneficiary" of forced inclusion.

DocS's article here has a good explanation: not noticing (and not having to notice) that what is easy for you isn't so easy for other people.

other people are subject to all kinds of slights, discrimination, discouragement, and obstacles that you aren't due to your race, gender, whatever. it is your privilege to not have to face all of that; indeed you might not even know those obstacles exist for those other people.

Ok, this is a different take on privilege. Most of the time I see it used, it's bullshit tied into some kind of PC/progressive silliness about power relationships, preserving status, assumed attitudes toward women, LGBT's, minorities, assumed inability to relate to same, etc.

It seems to me, then, that what we are talking about is actually a range of conduct running from bad manners to invidious discrimination. I think the latter is far more rare today than at any time in our country's history and those who contend otherwise are overstating the case and giving up credibility.

Also, there is a huge generational component, that the privilege-sensitive overlook. I'll grant that higher numbers of people my age and older have less flexible views on color, sexuality etc. The good news is that we are dying (my favorite cousin, by coincidence, passed away yesterday at the age of 72, quite suddenly--I was her favorite from infancy, yet she was a not unusual [for her age and background] blend of great integrity in many ways and not all all open to social equality of the races even as she agreed that equality under the law was the right thing), but as I tried, not well, in my parenthetical to point out, people are individuals and are complex.

You can't fix bigots. That isn't happening. If your concern is that various races, genders, etc don't mix and match well, or that non-whites have barriers that whites don't have, as Marty pointed out above, that is a very, very general observation riddled with exceptions. So large and so riddled, that I find the notion of privilege in your context not very useful.

Most here are probably not familiar with daily life in the Rio Grande Valley. It is demographically Hispanic by huge margins, 90% maybe more in many places. Very few African Americans, the rest white. I and hundreds of other very white people do a lot of business in the Valley, have friends (all Hispanic) who we go out with, play golf, hunt, whatever. Ditto for San Antonio. So a lot of what people assume about privilege is just crap for huge swaths of people--millions--in a state that is routinely held up as the last bastion of unrepentant ultra conservatism.

Further to my point, the other Houston Equity Partner is married to a Hispanic woman. Ethnic intermingling, for lack of a better word, is so ubiquitous that no one notices outside of a few old fossils. So, a lot of what the privilege-sensitive say seems blown out of proportion, particularly by historical standards. And, for what rudeness and other daily slights there might be, the corresponding issue might be a degree of over-sensitivity.

But then, there is the study of resumes and call backs. I personally would want to see the resumes, and I would particularly like to know what size and what type of businesses were getting the resumes.

Title VII applies to any business with 15 or more employees. Discrimination cases cost between $75,000 and $300,000 to defend. Settlements can run 10K to close to 100K. Large and medium institutions can carry that load. Small operations would go bankrupt. I just settled a claim for a client (8K) that was total bullshit. Pure opportunistic litigation. But, much cheaper to settle early than go the distance. Not for nothing, small business owners are, as a group, hyper paranoid about litigation of any kind. They are particularly concerned about being sued for discrimination. Hiring a minority is seen by many as hiring a potential lawsuit. What if the employee doesn't work out? One privilege of being a white male is the right to be fired with minimal, if any, legal recourse. The upside is, it makes getting hired more easy.

If you want to lower barriers, raise the Title VII attachment point to employers with 50 or maybe 75 employees.

if white privilege does not exist, then what are all these non-white people complaining about ? and why are the only people to loudly proclaim its non-existence conservative whites ?

I'm not sure the number of complainers--as opposed to forums happy to publish the complaints--is as high as you think it is. See, eg, my Valley example.

I'm not sure the number of complainers--as opposed to forums happy to publish the complaints--is as high as you think it is.

that doesn't actually answer the question.

McKinney, a well-off white lawyer driving a Lexus, despite comfortably swimming in it, has no idea WTF is water.

GFTNC--did you see the part where I mentioned prosecuting, litigating etc as the case may be for invidious discrimination? Would not the subtext for that statement suggest that I am aware of racial discrimination.

As a matter of fact, one of the things that informs my indifference to what sounds like, in many instances, whining and excuse making is that I attended an integrated high school from 1968 to 1970 in Shelby County TN. Shelby County is where MLK was assassinated. We had a curfew in effect for everyone, white or black, under 18. The school fight song was "Dixie". Black kids didn't like that. There was a peaceful protest. Dixie went away. There was a gang of rednecks (I was a "Navy Brat" and a jock) that liked to gang up on blacks. There were lots of fights. Because jocks were black and white, we were closer--not super close--but closer. Which meant we were aligned against the rednecks. It didn't seem particularly like a very small piece of history then, but looking back, I think it was.

And what we had then was seriously bad shit. Makes today look like a freaking cake walk. And, with that, I'm done. Duty calls.

...and start a discussion this way:

I've rarely seen anybody start a discussion like that, and they always ended badly.

Nobody here has prefaced their remarks in such a manner.

What demographics would you say are overrepresented relative to the general population here?

(Dick Yuengling made the list, just barely. If you order "a lager" in Philadelphia, without any modifiers, you will be served a Yuengling.)

Makes today look like a freaking cake walk.

For some.

McKinney,

If the rate of out of wedlock births is a major causual factor explaining the rate of poverty, rather than the effect, how do you explain this graph?

By your reasoning, the % of poor white women should be dramatically higher now than in 1980. Is that the case?

I've addressed this in a number of contexts before at ObWi. The very high incidence of generational uneducated, single parent families is probably the single largest driver of African American's aggregate inability to progress.

Here's a quote I just googled, " Nationwide, black students graduated at a rate of 69 percent; Hispanics graduated at 73 percent; whites graduated at a rate of 86 percent."

So, this accounts for some of the disparity.

These are proximate causes. It's like reading Guns, Germs and Steel. Of course Europeans were able to conquer the New World in large part because they had superior technology, mainly in the forms of weapons. But that doesn't answer the question of why they had those things in the first place but the natives didn't.

Why aren't black kids graduating at the same rates as whites? (I'm pretty sure it's because McKinney is preventing them from going to class, and I'm really close to being able to prove it.)

McT - I recommend that you read The American Dream and the Public Schools. It has a very nuanced discussion of both education issues that you mention above. Yes, we are somehow conspiring against African American students in multiple small ways, most of them not in any way personal.

You might also want to check out the current discussions of "intersectionality." You might start with the article I linked earlier on teaching intersectionality.

So, if there is a solution, it begins with inculcating, if possible, a different ethic among young men and women generally.

Given that when the civil rights movement picked up speed, things like 'white flight' occurred, which, coupled with the hollowing out of urban areas, left African American school underfunded. This results in a range of disparities

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/07/health/schools-disparity-education-study/

From the article
Schools suspended minority students more often than white students, and it starts very early -- in preschool. In preschool, black kids were 3.6 times more likely to be suspended than white kids. In K through 12, black students were 3.8 times more likely to be suspended.

and

The study found schools with large numbers of black and Latino students offered fewer classes in calculus, algebra II, chemistry and physics. This was the case with gifted classes too. Blacks and Latinos made up 42% of the student body in schools with gifted classes, and yet they made up just 28% of students enrolled in gifted classes.

Around the nation, 1.6 million kids attended schools that have a law enforcement officer but no counselor. And Asian, black and Latino students were more likely to be among those kids.
Officers: Among high schools with more than 75% black and Latino students, 51% had an officer. Another startling stat: A black student was 2.3 times more likely than a white student to be referred to or arrested by an officer.

and

Nearly 800,000 students were enrolled in schools where 20% of the teachers didn't meet all the requirements for a state license. And once again, blacks and Hispanics were more likely to attend such schools. The same is true when it came to experienced teachers. Students of color were more likely than white students to attend schools with teachers who were in their first year of teaching.

Of course, given that US education is based on local property taxes, it is not surprising that there are inequities in funding, but I just wonder how a trained lawyer like McT can't seem to acknowledge the fact.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/01/28/us-education-still-separate-and-unequal

The disparities in punishment even reach to black students with disabilities, who are more likely to receive out-of-school suspensions or to be subjected to mechanical restraint than their white peers.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/unequal-opportunity-race-and-education/

Jonathan Kozol s 1991 Savage Inequalities described the striking differences between public schools serving students of color in urban settings and their suburban counterparts, which typically spend twice as much per student for populations with many fewer special needs. Contrast MacKenzie High School in Detroit, where word processing courses are taught without word processors because the school cannot afford them, or East St. Louis Senior High School, whose biology lab has no laboratory tables or usable dissecting kits, with nearby suburban schools where children enjoy a computer hookup to Dow Jones to study stock transactions and science laboratories that rival those in some industries. Or contrast Paterson, New Jersey, which could not afford the qualified teachers needed to offer foreign language courses to most high school students, with Princeton, where foreign languages begin in elementary school.

http://www.topmastersineducation.com/school-funding-post-racial-us/

in supermajority-minority public schools–schools where students of color make up 90 percent or more of the student population–the number of Black and Latino students in attendance increased 4.9% and 14.2%, respectively, between 1980 and 2009. In 2005, 88 percent of supermajority-minority schools were associated with levels of poverty characteristic of educational ghettos, which was not the case for White-dominated schools.

This is what privilege looks like.Just because a chosen few are able to weather the storm and pop up for your pep talk about working hard and doing their best does not mean it doesn't exist.

How does the McKinney theory explain this?

What is McKinney's proposed public policy to address observed racial disparities in wealth and income? It strikes me it is pretty much a regurgitation of the infamous Pound Cake Speech.

And just about as effective.

I don't have time to find more data so here:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/big-gap-in-college-graduation-rates-for-rich-and-poor-study-finds-1422997677

Blacks by percentage have more poor people, whites account for a higher percentage of wealthy people. It is almost universally accepted (AFAICT) that it is harder to be upwardly mobile for the poor, thus continuing poverty across generations.

So lets stop comparing blacks to whites, the time frame to create equitable public policy to make the percentage of blacks and whites that are wealthy isn't even necessarily a public policy goal. The public policy goal is to create equal opportunity within economic strata for whites and blacks.

There are enough differences there to work on to not confuse the issue by counting the wealthy in the statistics.

The public policy goal is to create equal opportunity within economic strata for whites and blacks.

So basically you are trying to tell me that obvious disparate outcomes across race should just be ignored?

Really? Just 'suck it up' black folks?

Some policy.

Here's an interesting article on the intersection of race and public policy with respect to drawing up school district boundaries.

No racism here, nosirrrreee!

"The public policy goal is to create equal opportunity within economic strata for whites and blacks."

Marty,

I may have been a bit unfair above, but your goal is fine, but lacks policy chops. What policies would you advocate to "create equal opportunity within economic strata for whites and blacks.

McKinney wants to give young black women lectures on sex and marriage. What's your imagined policy or policies to address the issue as you see it?

McKinney:

And then I started counting all of the other people of color or women or gay or what have you I deal with and tons of other people deal with everyday and I am again reminded of much bullshit there is about how shitty women/people of color have it because they are not *at this moment in time* exactly co-equal with white males.

Your list of all the professional women/minorities you deal with does indeed show that things have moved on, racism-wise and sexism-wise since way back when. But that is not what this thread is about.

I've been called 'privileged' any number of times on this site, usually as a substitute to engaging on the merits, as if being a white, reasonably successful male is, in and of itself, a disqualification from holding a valid opinion.

Not only am I not saying that, but in fact would be in a very poor position to say that since I myself have spent most of my life in fairly serious privilege. For a similar reason, I would like to make crystal clear that when I categorise you as a well-off, white, male lawyer driving a Lexus this is not a criticism: many of my best friends and relations (as the racists famously say) etc etc. Again, this thread is not about wealth, or race, it is about the awareness of privilege, or if you prefer, advantage.

GFTNC--did you see the part where I mentioned prosecuting, litigating etc as the case may be for invidious discrimination? Would not the subtext for that statement suggest that I am aware of racial discrimination.

Do you mean this:

Which is not to say that anyone who F's someone over in a large or small way based on race, gender, etc doesn't deserve prosecution, litigation, termination, ostracizing, etc, as the case may be. They do. It's been the law since 1964 for crying out loud.

So again, no-one is claiming that you are not aware of racial discrimination, or that you have the wrong (i.e a racist) attitude to it when you see it. No-one is claiming that you are not entitled to an opinion, or that you are a racist, or stupid, or unempathetic.

What we are talking about here is privilege, and the awareness of it by the possessors of it. Somewhere upthread (I don't know how to search without going through the whole thing) you say that the definition of the sort of privilege we are talking about is not the one you usually have to deal with. Presumably you know by now that the sort of straw men who insist on safe spaces and trigger warnings etc are not the kind of people you are dealing with here.

There is something strange about not recognising that if you were a successful black male driving a Lexus you might get frequently stopped and asked for ID, and before it was produced assumed to be the thief of the vehicle. And not recognising that if that happened to you a lot, it might influence your view of the police, and society, and your place in it.


Cats hate water and know when they are in it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weeNYQg_j04

Saw that originally at Balloon Juice this morning.

Come on in, the water is fine, according to the enabling pilot fish tending to the great white shark:

"Ailes’s longtime executive assistant Judy Laterza — who became one of his top lieutenants, earning more than $2 million a year, according to a Fox executive — seemed to function as a recruiter of sorts. According to Carlson’s attorney, in 2002, Laterza remarked to a college intern she saw on the elevator about how pretty she was and invited her to meet Ailes. After that meeting, Ailes arranged for the young woman to transfer to his staff. Her first assignment was to go down to the newsstand and fetch him the latest issue of Maxim. When she returned with the magazine, Ailes asked her to stay with him in his office. He flipped through the pages. The woman told the Washington Post that Ailes said, “You look like the women in here. You have great legs. If you sleep with me, you could be a model or a newscaster.”

That passage was from this:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/how-fox-news-women-took-down-roger-ailes.html

I joked the other day about Trump saving us from those crossing the border preaching the gospel of the street taco.

This impressionable dumbass sh*thead piece of vermin (he has taken full advantage of the opportunities this country provides for achieving self-generated assholery) must have read me and the irony escaped him:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/top-latino-trump-surrogate-warns-taco-truck-every-corner

See, I agree with MCKT, as we all do, in his main point that extraordinary strides have been made in this matter that concerns us. All strides fought against tooth and nail every step along the way, but who's counting?

Well, lots of people have been keeping track. I can self-congratulate as an American that in fact we have made great strides and at the same time wonder if I should be a little jumpy and keep my over-sensitive PC guard up because every step of the way was met with severe beatings, fire hoses, savage dogs, and gunfire.

I think they call it conditioning. Maybe we (I generalize, I've had it easy; I speak generationally) suffer from PTSD.

But, if we aren't the fish in Wallace's water, what is it with the Trump tsunami just offshore. Should I ignore the blaring warnings. Cats and dogs and even snakes are seeking higher ground. Shouldn't all of us? Or would that be too much sensitivo PC bullshit?

MCTX wrote: "You can't fix bigots."

I agree. Apparently, we can't prevent them from running for President either with a campaign staff made up fully of bigots. But if we can't fix them at this late date in the 250-year history of fighting and fixing bigotry in this country, then this sizable remnant (remnant? roughly 38% percent of the electorate) need to be physically assaulted whenever possible and beaten to a pulp.

There was not nearly enough violence at Trump rallies. We need more.

David Bossie? If Hillary Clinton is such a murderous beast, how come she hasn't Vince Fostered that f*ck through a wood chipper?

It's the least we could do as a sane polity.

Also, this politically correct sensitivity expressed about over- generalization when it comes to white males, of which I am one ..... well, welcome to the deep end of the pool.

Absent gills, which so many of the Other have had to develop to survive and achieve, I do the backstroke.


My issue is the continuing statement that white males don't understand the plight of others because we cant possibly know how their lives are.

Actually, Marty. your issue appears to be with sloppy phrasing. Often (way too often, even) people say "white males" when what they mean is some variation of "lots of white males" or "many white males" or "most white males". Rather than meaning "all white males," which seems to be the way you are taking it.

I would say further than many of us white males, even those of us who are aware of the problem, don't have it on the top of our minds a lot of the time. I know I don't.

And while I have a glimmer of what life is like for someone who is black in this country, I am self-aware enough to realize that I don't entirely get it. Simply because I don't have to have it on the top of my mind all the time. And, I submit, the same is true for all of us here who are in the same boat. (I don't know if we have any regular commenters who are black. Or Latino. If you are out there, please chime in.)

Certainly it seems like the ladies here have the perception (and, I believe, the reality) that they get treated differently. Which suggests that any of us who are male and who are arguing that they don't, just possibly don't get it.

bobbyp,

I am sure that the list of disparities you point out in the articles/links between whites and blacks, quality of schools, unemployment, college graduation rates, etc. narrows considerably within economic strata. Not equal, but much closer, I suspect. The lower the strata the more equal is my sense. I wish I had time to find the data, but if you have a source I would love to review it.

What I do know is the disparity between rich and poor whites is just as striking as between whites and blacks, simply because the top of the economic scale is so heavily weighted to whites.

My policy proscriptions would simply include all poor people. Lower income school improvement, school choice, etc. I live in a town where poor children, as part of the school lunch program, get sent home with food for the weekend. Food, shelter, education, at least minimal security. School curriculum/programs always need work, however, some city schools have approached some suburban schools in dollars per student without the equivalent progress, that's a teacher/program issue.

And yes, the actuality of inner city schools being more difficult and, in some cases, dangerous to teach at perpetuates the teacher recruitment problem. If there is a common and consistent challenge it is with keeping experienced teachers in the poorest schools. If there is a public policy solution to that we should explore it. The same problem, maybe more difficult to solve, is to get more experienced teachers in poor, rural schools. I think they just impact fewer students.

I think there are lots of public policy potential to help, let's not gentrify the neighborhood without bringing the neighbors along with us. That is an investment policy to explore, but gentrifying so everyone is forced to move and concentrate poverty even more just allows the issue to be ignored while politicians point to their previously blighted neighborhoods as successes.

Now I'm rambling, sorry.

This is a white privilege only if I and my fellow co-conspirators are somehow keeping young African Americans from attending class or getting student loans.

Come on, McKinney, you know better than this. To take just the most blindingly obvious factor, if young African Americans go to schools with inferior teachers (generally, not universally, less able, less prepared, etc.), which they unarguably do, they are going to do less well in school. No matter how dilligently they study, they are operating under a handicap. And, should they get into college, they are handicapped there as well because they have less good perparation.

Are you responsible for that? Well, to what extent do you support having local schools be locally funded? Think that doesn't make a difference in what quality of teachers those districts can afford? Do you bother to object when school district boundaries are being drawn to keep schools segregated? (And, as I'm sure you know, that happens. Even if it is glossed as "keeping communities together" or something.)

The examples of indirect ways of making a difference in the schools go on and on. And we haven't gotten beyond education yet. Sure, a lot of blacks succeed anyway. But we are talking about statistics here -- graduation rates nationwide, etc.

The public policy goal is to create equal opportunity within economic strata for whites and blacks.

So basically you are trying to tell me that obvious disparate outcomes across race should just be ignored?

Bobby, that's not what he said -- at least as I read it. What Marty seemed to me to be saying is that we should look first at making economic opportunity more equal among blacks and whites in the same economic class. No "such it up" required or suggested.

Now once we get that, there may still be some wealth disparities. Almost have to be, at least for a while. But I would expect them to level out over time.**

** My basis for that. Look at professional sports, since they (at least most of them) tend to be mostly merit-based these days. See how the pay rates for the most skilled players compare. Once you can rise up on at least a semi-equal basis, you tend to end up with a very similar wealth picture.

"such it up" ==>> "suck it up"
Sigh

Get ready for a tsunami of generalized three-day-old fish wrap anti-Semitism from the fake pro-Israeli white Christian right, male and female ... because they are open-minded that way ... Trump backers and staff:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-idea-america-unbelievable-ignore-144555145.html

Maybe Ryan and McConnell will invite Peres to speak his mind directly to Congress.

Ya think?

I expect Death Palin and Oh-My-Eyes Bachmann to hit the mics shortly to asshole-splain to Peres that HE doesn't speak for Jews and Israelis, THEY do.

If I were to suggest a program like Affirmative Action based on socioeconomic status right now, I wouldn't be doing it for the first time. Such a thing would target the people most in need of help and would help people in other demographic categories in proportion to the degree of socioeconomic disadvantage those demographics suffered. While there may be far fewer wealthy black kids going to really good schools before college, I'd still rather not provide them unneeded aid that could go to someone more in need of it.

As a given demographic's socioeconomic standing improved, less aid would go to that group with no need for adjustment in the targeting of the program.

All in theory, of course, assuming it was administered in good faith.

My issue is the continuing statement that white males don't understand the plight of others because we cant possibly know how their lives are.

we could know. we should know. but we apparently don't.

there are plenty of non-white people who are eager to tell white people exactly what they go through day to day. when i read or hear these accounts i am frequently stunned.

and yet, a sizeable number of white people (primarily conservatives, for some reason) insist those non-white people are either mistaken or lying about their own lives. but how do white conservatives know more about the actual lives of those people than the people themselves do?

Now I'm rambling, sorry.

No problem. Good start. Good suggestions (if by "choice" you mean charter schools, well, that's a non-starter with me, but whatever-big issue in MASS as I understand).

And I certainly agree that issues of class are inextricably intertwined with issues of race.

I see the widening wealth disparities as between classes as the major social issue in this country....but racism is still way too (and in my view-widely) prevalent. It acts to reinforce this socially destructive class division.

Thanks.

Look at professional sports

Indeed, we should....

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/bondy-10-places-racism-major-issue-sport-article-1.1778178

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/racism-in-baseball-isnt-going-anywhere

As aside to this thread, or maybe not, I have been thinking about the difficulties in discussing some of these issues.

One of the more difficult things is the assumption by white males, me included, that white privilege and discussions of it always include or imply that white males are engaged in the defense of white privilege.

I won't go through this thread to see if it has been implied, that isn't my point. My point is that it has been, in many forums and often, stated that white males don't want to understand because they want to maintain their privilege, white and male. So almost any discussion creates an emotional reaction and an intellectual response that's defensive.

(as a note I am talking for me, not anyone else here, now)

So, if that assertion/accusation is not your intent then I think some apology is in order, generically. But, on the other hand, perhaps some understanding that the reaction and response is not without its own history.

So, for me, in its simplest form white privilege exists in almost every phase of society. Male privilege is harder to generalize for me. Male/female cultural identities are not so cut and dry in America today. There are certainly male advantages.

But white privilege is nothing I care about reducing, it is availing everyone of those privileges that is the goal. I do not have to feel less safe, less empowered, less confident of my right to be treated fairly for everyone else to feel that way too. The idea is to create equal privilege to the upside.

Making me feel defensive does not further that goal, nor does my inference that I am being attacked.

Marty - I think that's why Doc Sci wants a different word than "privilege."

but how do white conservatives know more about the actual lives of those people than the people themselves do?

The same way Roman Catholic priests know best about sex, of course.
Not being personally involved* is the only way to be objective.

*not counting involving oneself constantly into other people's private life of course.

Bobby, thanks for the links. Those were interesting.

But I would note that what they conspicuously didn't mention was any big pay disparities among players according to race. And economics was the subject I was discussing at that point, not racism in general.

Yes, there is a lack of diversity in the front offices. And among the ownership (see the previous discussion about who has the money to afford a hobby like owning a major league sports team.) But it's arrived among the players. And is getting there among the managers and coaches as well. And given how small the number of managers and coaches is, simple statistics will tell you that the fraction which belong to any given group will bounce up and down, even with perfect diversity. It's just such a small sample size.

Making me feel defensive does not further that goal, nor does my inference that I am being attacked.

some people definitely use the word and the concept to attack others. jerks abound.

but, in my experience, the core of the idea is to get 'privileged' people to pause and think about why whatever it is they're doing might be easier for them, compared to what other people have to deal with. i think 'check your privilege' is the official shorthand for that. it's about opening eyes, not shaming. if you can see what this person has to go through maybe you'll try to do something about it.

but yeah, 'privilege' is not a great word for this because it gets people's backs up.

And economics was the subject I was discussing at that point, not racism in general.

Well sure. But let it be noted that major professional sports in the good ol' USA are unionized.

Coincidence? I think not!*

*sorry, I couldn't resist.

What? Racism you say? Umpossible!

the core of the idea is to get 'privileged' people to pause and think about why whatever it is they're doing might be easier for them, compared to what other people have to deal with. i think 'check your privilege' is the official shorthand for that. it's about opening eyes, not shaming. if you can see what this person has to go through maybe you'll try to do something about it.

Several points. First, this is a comparatively benign view of the common intent behind privilege sensitive people. Nous' intersecctionality crowd has a much different take, and this is a much larger group, as afar as I can tell and no one on the left is pushing back. And, with respect, I reject the whole 'oppression/dominance/etc' line of thought as being a mental/societal/individual straight jacket. Because I've cast off the effects of night before last, I will graciously refrain from further characterizing this line of thought as Bullsh*t. I will refer to it simply as "the worst idea ever conceived of in the history of the universe". I think that's pretty balanced.

Second, I think I get the gist of what you are saying, but what I'm missing are enough specifics of how, in my daily life, I am supposed to do anything different that what I already do.

Third, if there was a true consensus that what everyone meant by privilege is 'advantage' or 'head start' as in 'white people have the advantage of having always been at the top of the social and economic order', I'd say yes, subject to lots of context, nuance, etc.

I'd also say that this is changing, visibly, and that if lots and lots of currently disadvantaged individuals do more to improve their own situation and that of their children--with reasonable but finite levels of assistance--more change will happen over time. It is a gradual process that the law can effect somewhat but only somewhat. For example, that law can and does forbid exclusion in many contexts. It does not and should not compel involuntary inclusion.

Marty points out that whatever white men have, there isn't some white male conspiracy to deny that to others. Contra BP, every young woman needs guidance and support in the teen and early adult years, validating their decisions to avoid getting pregnant and not being or allowing themselves to be subordinate to stupid, demanding young men. Young men who make babies and leave need their asses beaten and that's just for starters. Feel free to scoff, but then try to tell me that if young, poor women, black or white, avoided pregnancy, finished high school with a starter set of skills or prepped for college, they and their eventual children wouldn't be a hell of a lot better off. Bill Cosby notwithstanding, anyone who thinks early, single female pregnancy is a good start in life should put that into practice in their own home and encourage their daughters to get pregnant whenever they happen to feel like it. I have a life sized picture of that happening.


That said, where I think people could do more is in our daily interactions with others. A black kid who shows up at a mostly white school and without the spending money of his/her classmates is on the outside looking in from the get-go. Loneliness and a sense of isolation is a universal human phenomena. If I was allowed to wave my magic wand, instead of all this multicultural race/gender identity guacamole, I'd make ordinary kindness and politeness a matter of daily convention. I'd also promote a culture in which flashing daddy's money is considered truly bad form.

If it was my call, we'd have a national conversation about getting along and living together and move away from this theory or that, particularly those theories and concepts that focus so intently on race and sexuality. Because we really don't have a choice. We''re stuck with each other, regardless of who we are. I'm great with that, personally. I like being in a country whose ideal is equality for all.

I particularly love this quote:

“Of course it’s political. Why else would you do it?” he said, explaining that Republicans, like any political party, want to protect their majority. While GOP lawmakers might have passed the law to suppress some voters, Wrenn said, that does not mean it was racist.

“Look, if African Americans voted overwhelmingly Republican, they would have kept early voting right where it was,” Wrenn said. “It wasn’t about discriminating against African Americans. They just ended up in the middle of it because they vote Democrat.”


I note that, while he claims it was about politics rather than race, he flat out says that African American voters were specifically targeted. I suppose he should get credit for honesty on that.

Marty points out that whatever white men have, there isn't some white male conspiracy to deny that to others

see wj's blockquote, above.

MCKT wrote:

"That said, where I think people could do more is in our daily interactions with others. A black kid who shows up at a mostly white school and without the spending money of his/her classmates is on the outside looking in from the get-go. Loneliness and a sense of isolation is a universal human phenomena. If I was allowed to wave my magic wand, instead of all this multicultural race/gender identity guacamole, I'd make ordinary kindness and politeness a matter of daily convention. I'd also promote a culture in which flashing daddy's money is considered truly bad form."

If it was my call, we'd have a national conversation about getting along and living together and move away from this theory or that, particularly those theories and concepts that focus so intently on race and sexuality. Because we really don't have a choice. We''re stuck with each other, regardless of who we are. I'm great with that, personally. I like being in a country whose ideal is equality for all."

This, along with Russell's plea for kindness recently, I endorse wholeheartedly. The only way out is paying it forward. So, what MCKT and Russell said.

I confess to a certain distaste for the guacamole mentioned therein, especially its codification in the relatively recent jargon of the social sciences. It makes me squirm, a little like the wet, undigestible cardboard of John Galt's speechifying in Rand's ideological bodice-rippers does.

Paddy Chayevsky, the late screenwriter, made quick work of various species of yadda-yadda crapola ... Marxist identity and crypto-journo-capitalist business jargon both.

I'd prefer the plain words of Rodney King .. "Why can't we all just get along" at the person-to-person street level and replicate that on up through the various institutional structures.

Those last two words, "institutional structures" are an example of guacamole, but I used them to make the point that for women, African-Americans, gays and lesbians, Native Americans, Hispanics ... all of the groups who were carved out as separate identities and with different, less complimentary labels, and subject to different rules and treatment for so long, by, frankly, institutionalized prejudice, much of which in its most obvious symptoms has been knocked down, yes, but still I think those groups decided that when life gives you avocados, why not make guacamole and lots of it.

Better that we had Departments of Universal Human Kindness Studies in our educational institutions. That would probably be shut down and defunded by real men, but I'm a real man too, and I'd be happy to take it outside instead, if that's how real men want it.

As I would exhort my son with some heat those VERY FEW times when he was just a kid and I might overhear him being unkind to a peer, "Hey, be nice!"

And now he is a very kind adult to all comers. Not to Donald Trump, but the kid is smart too.

Unfortunately, the avocado purveyors, such as the fruitcake quoted by wj (from bobbyp's cite) in his 4:45pm comment, keep the the avocados coming all year round, so until they are persuaded of the need for simple institutionalized human kindness, even to blacks and Democrats, I regretfully see the need for a period of human brutality toward Wrenn et al before we shut down the identity politics game.

It is Wrenn et al who practice the original identity politics.

"But white privilege is nothing I care about reducing, it is availing everyone of those privileges that is the goal. I do not have to feel less safe, less empowered, less confident of my right to be treated fairly for everyone else to feel that way too. The idea is to create equal privilege to the upside."

This is what The American Dream and the Public Schools does such a good job of addressing.

Let's consider education and school funding, as so many here have been suggesting. I recognize the inherent justice of your response here, Marty, but when it comes to public school policy this particular framing rapidly runs into problems.

Does equalizing privilege mean equalizing school budgets on a per-capita spending level? If so, then what of the Special Needs students who cost more to educate?

If we accede to the reality of special education and increase funding for those students, then we are saying that school budgets should be figured according to the cost of providing for the needs of individual students. Does this also then mean the cost of hiring and retaining experienced teachers for urban and small rural schools with hiring and retention difficulties? What about schools with greater need for bi-lingual counseling?

If we accede to those needs, then we either have to increase the overall education budget to pay for expensive programs, and increase taxes or shift budgets to cover that, or we need to reduce the budget of schools that do not have those expensive needs.

But reducing those budgets then comes out looking like you are reducing the quality of education for those students who had enjoyed better funding and teaching all along under the current method of dividing up the revenues. We'd be reducing what we have been calling privilege.

"Marty points out that whatever white men have, there isn't some white male conspiracy to deny that to others

see wj's blockquote, above."

That's the water David Foster Wallace's fish swim in.

So we make the fish swim in guacamole. THAT they sense.

"But reducing those budgets then comes out looking like you are reducing the quality of education for those students who had enjoyed better funding and teaching all along under the current method of dividing up the revenues. We'd be reducing what we have been calling privilege."


yes, that's a problem. Well, some of it is. makes school choice, charter schools, magnet schools and private schools incredibly important to add to the mix. So dividing up the funding is driven by the quality of the education provided.

It is Wrenn et al who practice the original identity politics.

Exactly.

And when the Wrenns of the world get called out on it, they play the, "Who, me?" card. Let us not forget we're the ones who invented this lunatic ladder of superiority based on "race".

This won't stop until they stop or get stopped.

What goes around, comes around. The comes around end-times have started, not only nationally, but world-wide.

Get used to it. Payback is a (insert the unflattering term of your choice here).

"yes, that's a problem. Well, some of it is. makes school choice, charter schools, magnet schools and private schools incredibly important to add to the mix. So dividing up the funding is driven by the quality of the education provided."

Wait...the parent gets to choose and the money follows the student? But that's parental privilege. What if I want to give my education tax dollars to the poor public urban school because I have a different set of priorities? How do we decide who gets funded? Choice does not solve the problem, it just shifts the grounds for the argument.

Second, I think I get the gist of what you are saying, but what I'm missing are enough specifics of how, in my daily life, I am supposed to do anything different that what I already do.

One thing you could do is not trash the whole enterprise. Just because a discussion doesn't tell you what you need to do doesn't mean that it is invalid or meaningless.

And, as bobbyp notes, taking this tack is going to encourage people to rub your nose in the idea.

This comment
This is a white privilege only if I and my fellow co-conspirators....

Reminded me that a lot of what I got up to in HS and College would have probably given an African-American a space on a police blotter.

I've been away from the US for a long time, so maybe there are no problems. It is easy for me to resort to sarcasm, but I'm not being sarcastic when I say that it's truly good that there is such diversity around you McT. But I've pointed out to you things like Men's Rights

http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/05/mens-rights-circumcision/

https://www.buzzfeed.com/adamserwer/how-mens-rights-leader-paul-elam-turned-being-a-deadbeat-dad?utm_term=.aizELOvJ7#.qaBKrg0qO

You talk about the 'intersectionality crew', but why is something that comes from the academy counterbalanced by something that seems to have no academic pedigree or standing? If you think that what separates the West in terms of civilization is the academy, why is the vehicle that supposedly indicates our superiority so wrong? It's the same dynamic as climate change deniers, the academy is wrong, the academy is lying, they have been bought off. Intersectionality discusses identity and acknowledging the context as a way of trying to explain why disparities are nuanced and it is not simply that one group is being oppressed and another is not. Blanket dismissal sounds like you feel threatened by it. (and before you complain about mind-reading, recall you wrote this "First, this is a comparatively benign view of the common intent behind privilege sensitive people.")

I realize that we rely on our daily interactions to act as a thermometer for the health of society, but it seems viewing those as the only evidence that you need is like assuming that because your supermarket stocks tuna, it obviously means that there is no problem with overfishing.

A lot of us thought that electing Obama was a sign of a post-racial future, yet the level of racism that has come thru for the past 8 years is astonishing. Seeing some of the same things play out through Hillary's candidacy has a lot of us say 'fooled me once...'

Privilege is the refracted image of the racism and sexism that we see when some of these arguments are deployed. I would be much more willing to restrict addressing privilege in the way that McT and Marty say if we didn't see the root cause bubbling up all the time.

The refusal to pay for our society, the constant push to 'drown government in a bathtub', the hyping of free enterprise as a cure-all, when there are the level of disparities in our society comes out as a 'I've got mine, and screw everyone else'. When one can no longer depend on government to distribute the goodies in a way that I am first in line, closing down the window seems a bit convenient.

I'm half asian, but I've gotten tons of white privilege. Living in Japan, a paradise for white privilege, makes me very conscious of the privileges I continue to receive. I often wonder if I fled the US in part because I was unwilling to deal with the hard work of trying to make a change where I was. But the fact that I could pick up and live in another country is another facet of privilege. Dealing with it for me is just reminding myself everyday that it exists, I have benefited and trying not to be judgemental and assume that what my experience is dictates how others should be judged. I don't think this is a bad thing. But from what is written here from the other side, the mere fact that I do that means that I'm somehow part of the problem.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/michele-bachmann-2016-last-election-demographic-change

I guarantee this vile crazy beast with the cracked ten-thousand mile stare and the frozen killer's smile decal pasted on her face that if Trump wins and she gets anywhere near the White House and/or American foreign policy that it will be the last American election.

Especially for her.

"This is a white privilege only if I and my fellow co-conspirators are somehow keeping young African Americans from attending class or getting student loans."

this is exactly wrong.

if you and your co-conspirators are somehow intentionally keeping young blacks from attending class, that's not privilege, it's oppression.

privilege is when the barriers to yoy attendoing class are lower for you if you are white than if you are black.

privilege is not primarily about intent, it's about position.

you attending. not yoy attendoing.

frigging tablet keyboard.

Up thread (at least I think it was this thread) there was some discussion of the differences in the age at marriage and childbearing, and the numbers of single mothers, between the rich and everyone else. And the suggestion that this was a significant factor in keeping the economic disparities the way that they are.

I think there is a lot to that. So here's an off the wall suggestion for something that we could do. And something we could all write our school boards, city governments, and state legislators about enacting. (Not that it will be an easy sell!)

All children get mandatory sex education in school. Start with a What is Puberty class (4th or 5th grade for girls, maybe 8th grade for boys?). Follow up with yearly classes in high school.

Every child is required to attend. No opt out for anybody. Except your child can TEST out -- if you are determined that you should be the one to teach your kid about sex, and nobody else, fine. But you have to actually do so; if the kid can't pass the test, he has to go to class. (And that included home-schooled kids. The kids still have to pass the test, or else they have to go to school and take the class with everybody else.)

The goal of this draconian intrusion of government? To get the number of single mothers, especially teenage single mothers, back down. And, we expect, thereby improve the educational prospects of the next generation. Not to mention the educational options of the generation which is putting off parenthood until they have finished their educations.

Like I say, it would be a hard sell. But it would probably do more to resolve our problems with wealth disparities and lack of economic mobility than any other single thing we could do.

I am not a woman. But I think that the rate of pregnancy and single motherhood will not be solved by sex education. There are a lot of things we can teach that would probably solve that problem better.

Teach young men respect. That means no means no, but it also means condoms show respect. It means don't bully, berate or even inveigle your way into sex. Deserting fathers are likely first to be disrespectful boyfriends or lovers.

Then teach young women they are worthy of respect. They are in charge of what they give to the relationships they have and if they don't feel like they are then it is not a good relationship. They can, but should not have to, demand a condom and should exercise their right to birth control if they choose to have sex.

These are not sex education topics, they are life topics that can be reinforced in schools but won't take if they are not taught at home.

Both young men and women will seek respect and affection in whatever way they can get it if they do not have it at home. They will accept sex for love and domination for respect if that's all they get.

Schools can't provide the sense of self that a family, of whatever makeup, can.

I do look for the public policy that supports strong and respectful young men and women that understand their value as people, just because they are. Outside the parental substitutes that try hard, Boys and Girls Clubs, big Brothers and Sisters, I find little support that can adequately fill that void.

When many of your adult role models have been forced into the young single mom role and cheerfully make the best of it, strive hard, love their children. and in most ways are awesome people, it is easy to ignore their warnings and not avoid that outcome.

And, to end the rant, we need to find a way to broaden the role model pool for young people. Mentors and role models from their community, and other communities, that broaden there sense of possibility. The most tragic thing to me is the poor young person who can't imagine living any other way.

In one way, they aren't sex education topics. But in another they are.

I would say that teaching things like respect (including both "no means no" and "it's OK to say no") should be part of the class.

For that matter, I'd include some information on the correlation between getting pregnant young and being poor. Between being a single parent and being poor. And then ask the kids: would you rather be rich or poor?

work hard, do your best, stay in school, don't have children if you can't support them, financially and otherwise. respect yourself and others.

all good. no doubt if black people, or any other people, observed these basic principles, their odds of success in life would be better than if they didn't.

this is not a mystery, nor is it in question.

what nobody seems to want to address is why any given group of people is less likely to observe all of these things than another.

why do people do counter-productive things? are they just stupid? are they inherently prone to poor judgement? temperamentally incapable of delaying gratification?

if you're talking about an individual, maybe, a simple failure to practice good life skills is all the explanation that's needed.

if you're talking about patterns that are marked enough to show up in a statistical analysis, maybe not so much. maybe other factors are involved.

it's great to say we're all ultimately responsible for our own behavior, and the consequences thereof. but some folks have a steeper hill to climb than others.

An interesting piece which reminds me of our continuing tussle throughout this thread about what we mean by "privilege":

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/trump-the-university-of-chicago-and-the-collapse-of-public-language

GFTNC, great article, made me think of Lewis Carroll

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

GftNC, I agree with Marty, great article. And also that Lewis Carroll has much to teach us, even today.

And while Humpty Dumpty is relevant, I'd point you to a poem: Jabberwocky:

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”

He took his vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
He chortled in his joy.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

I'm sure that someone more educated in art history will correct me, but Jabberwocky always seemed to me to be an expression, in poetic form, of "Impressionistic" art: look in detail, you see an incoherent confusion; stand back, and the the meaning is clear and bright.

lemme note that:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,...

...is immediately preceded by:

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2016/08/seeking-a-better-word-for-privilege.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e201b8d218236a970c#comment-6a00d834515c2369e201b8d218236a970c

toot toot
/MyOwnHorn

I'm sure I was just channeling cleek.

Marty, and Snarki, agree, and have always loved Jabberwocky. I even know someone (a possessor of white privilege!) who called their child Callay after it. Cleek: toot away; it's so fascinating to me how little attention has been paid to all attempts to define privilege how the Doc did in her post, and to how most of us seem to/want to, and to discuss it in that context. Alice and Humpty Dumpty seem the obvious references to turn to.....

wj,

You are describing Finnish sex ed. It started on the 5th grade, I think. We went through the human biology the whole year, and sexual biology got a couple of weeks. The issues included menstruation, puberty, nightly ejaculations but also the mechanics of procreation, combined with a hefty dose of the importance on condom use. On the eighth grade, these issues were revisited, and on the ninth grade, genetics and sexually transmitted diseases were discussed in biology. The stress was in being able to recognize the symptoms of typical diseases early.

The education was quite guilt-free. It was pointed out that the sex should take place in an atmosphere of love and respect, but the stress was on mechanics. The main point that was repeated was responsibility, especially for boys: If the girl gets pregnant, she decides whether she keeps the baby, and you become the father. Every sexual act means you take the chance to become a father, and you have no knowledge whether she is using contraception or having STDs, so only an idiot leaves out the condom. And even then you can become a father. Best to use both condom and the pill.

However, McKinney's point about out-of-wedlock births is misleading. The number is not necessarily an indication about the number of fatherless children. In Finland, half of the newborns are born out-of-wedlock but most of them are born into stable common law marriages. Technically, this means that those fathers need to confess their paternity, and they do. The rate of children without established paternity is now the same as a hundred years ago: Every sixth child.

IIRC, the statistics show that teen pregnancies in the USA have been declining over the past couple of decades. Whether the reason is economics, education, or the aftermath of AIDS is unclear.

Trust the Finns to deal with the issue sensibly and rationally. I blame the (relatively) late spread of christianism to Scandinavia, so its brain-eating prion infection didn't really get a grip.

Thanks, Lurker. I didn't imagine that I was the first person ever to come up with the idea. But it's nice to learn that it has actually been implemented somewhere.

Snarki, is it Christianism? Or libertarianism? I'm thinking that a significant factor in our resistance to such education might be just blind determination to make all of our decisions ourselves.

See, for example, the number of people fighting against having their children vaccinated against childhood diseases. There's nothing of religion involved, but they seem to resist the idea with religious fervor anyway.

wj, do not underestimate the religious component in anti-vaccination. The movement has returned to its 19th century roots. Then it was primarily catholic these days protestants (in the widest sense) lead the charge (followed admittedly by people of the esoteric persuasion).

The anti-vax part of the religious right is very concerned with the issue of parental rights at the moment and link it with abortion notification and home schooling and a general fear that the government will use H&HS to take away their kids or to push an ungodly social agenda on their kids through government oversight.

If you say your goal is "equal opportunity" then you have to back it up with some kind of public policy. Pound Cake speeches don't cut it.

Rubber, meet road.

I'm pretty much live and let live for the meanderings of discussion here, but going from privilege to a discussion of what barriers minorities suffer to a discussion of no means no really gives me whiplash and leaves me with the impression of an argument that if we somehow just taught African-American men that no means no, we would make serious progress on the racial disparities in this country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/opinion/ken-starrs-squalid-second-act.html?_r=0

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/07/brock-turner-statement-stanford-rape-case-campus-culture

Maybe it is just the juxtaposition, so I'm not lighting into anyone, but the notion that somehow no means no is even in the mix of solutions is ludicrous on its face. This is not to dismiss its importance, but if it is being raised as a problem of the AA community, that's as pure an example of privilege that one could find.

I think how we got here is by trying to work out to what extent the disparities we see are due to privilege (or whatever term we should use instead, barriers perhaps being one), versus to what extent they are due to factors such as high single parenthood. And thence to the "cause of the cause" if you will.

Personally, I think (a lack of) "no means no" is far less of a root cause of single parenthood than the drastic drug laws which radically reduce the number of (not in prison) single men in poor communities. And leave a lot of those who are out with poor job prospects due to their status as ex-cons. But that probably should be in another thread.

LJ, could not agree more.

There isn't a single word, nor underlying implication, regarding race in my specific answer to wjs sex education comment. Specifically, my view that more or more explicit or earlier sex education wont reduce the number of young single mother households and what I think would.

Marty, I had no problem with your suggestions, (although as you know I disagree with your assumptions about the generally benign influence of families), and did not take them as being aimed particularly at one race (although I think discussion of the issue of young single mothers is often implicitly or explicitly about the AA community), but I think that the original discussion of privilege has mutated strangely, and in ways that pretty much constitute either a denial of its existence or at least a refusal to see how it works.

No, Marty, there's not. However, McT wrote this

Contra BP, every young woman needs guidance and support in the teen and early adult years, validating their decisions to avoid getting pregnant and not being or allowing themselves to be subordinate to stupid, demanding young men. Young men who make babies and leave need their asses beaten and that's just for starters. Feel free to scoff, but then try to tell me that if young, poor women, black or white, avoided pregnancy, finished high school with a starter set of skills or prepped for college, they and their eventual children wouldn't be a hell of a lot better off. Bill Cosby notwithstanding, anyone who thinks early, single female pregnancy is a good start in life should put that into practice in their own home and encourage their daughters to get pregnant whenever they happen to feel like it. I have a life sized picture of that happening.

"Marty points out that whatever white men have, there isn't some white male conspiracy to deny that to others."

This is laughable and you should be ashamed of yourself.

What people like Marty and McKT consistently fail to understand is that racism, misogyny, and religious bigotry are extremely resilient ideas that are thousands or even tens of thousands of years old. They do not evaporate merely because one or two especially salient aspects of them go away. They are passed down from parents to children, and imposed on a wide scale. They are often absorbed and reproduced even by the people they most hurt. They are pernicious and persistent. Rooting them out is difficult and we're not close to finished.

There indisputably were such conspiracies across the country for several centuries, right? The people enforcing segregation, for example. The people serially sexually harassing women and forcing them out of jobs. The people systematically lynching African-Americans in the Jim Crow south. The people beating and murdering and bombing. The people (liberals included--everybody was in on this back then, albeit to different degrees) who designed the New Deal and the GI bill to exclude african-Americans, and who officially adopted redlining to exclude African-Americans from the benefits of home-ownership. Those were white, largely male (by virtue of women being excluded from most positions of power) conspiracies to enforce white male power.

Those white men did not all curl up and die when the CRA was passed, you know. They had children. What do you think they taught their children? What did they say to their children when they pulled them out of integrated schools and resisted busing to integrated schools and put them in segregated private schools; then, when those schools were closed or lost government funding, moved away entirely? Do you think that generation of white people got together and said "Okay, we lost, time to stop being racist?" What year did they all give in? Where was the armistice?

Just to take a recent example, at Fox News there was a multi decade conspiracy to allow Roger Ailes to serially sexually abuse women in his employ. Based on the reporting and legal complaints surrounding that fiasco, multiple senior white male Fox News executives were enlisted to intimidate, nudge, coerce, settle, and otherwise protect Ailes from the consequences of his sexual predation.

And of course THE DAY AFTER Shelby County came down state legislatures started collecting on voting practices by race to figure out how they could enact voter ID laws that would, as much as possible, disenfranchise African-American voters.

So tell me again how there are no more white male conspiracies to protect their power?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad