Discrimination -- the reality

[Metaphor]

Let's say an organisation did have a policy of favouring non-white candidates, and sometimes ruled out hiring a white man for a position. Do you think that would be a problematic practice, or an acceptable one?

I would be concerned if there were tangible evidence of hiring discrimination, in a way that consistently hurt white applicants.

And what would you consider tangible evidence?

 

[Politesse]

I am asking you about what you believe about institutional discrimination against white people in America.

There is no evidence of institutional discrimination against white people in America.

 

[Politesse]

Let's say an organisation did have a policy of favouring non-white candidates, and sometimes ruled out hiring a white man for a position. Do you think that would be a problematic practice, or an acceptable one?

I would be concerned if there were tangible evidence of hiring discrimination, in a way that consistently hurt white applicants.

And what would you consider tangible evidence?

A written policy. A settled legal case. Data showing that whites are disproportionately under-empoloyed, unhoused, under-educated, or under-paid relative to other demographic groupings.

Even this survey data would be more interesting, if it matched the claims you're making rather than contradicting them.

 

[TomC]

I am asking you about what you believe about institutional discrimination against white people in America.

There is no evidence of institutional discrimination against white people in America.

That's ridiculous.

Affirmative Action has been a big thing for over 50 years.

You might consider institutional discrimination a good thing under certain circumstances. I do as well. But pretending it isn't there is ridiculous.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Affirmative Action has been a big thing for over 50 years.

And yet, no tangible evidence that whites are under-employed, under-educated, or disproportionately unhoused.

Strongly suggesting that your understanding of affirmative action, and the reality of affirmative action, do not in fact match, or at least are not coherent with the observed realities of the American labor market.

Edit to add for clarity's sake: If you're saying that combatting discrimination is always discrimination, even if what is on the table is outreach and empowerment of under-privileged groups rather than direct discrimination against those who are in power, I do not agree with that sentiment as you should well realize by my postings in this thread alone.

 

[TomC]

Affirmative Action has been a big thing for over 50 years.

And yet, no tangible evidence that whites are under-employed, under-educated, or disproportionately unhoused.

Strongly suggesting that your understanding of affirmative action, and the reality of affirmative action, do not in fact match, or at least are not coherent with the observed realities of the American labor market.

I thought we were talking about institutional racial discrimination.

My bad, I guess.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Affirmative Action has been a big thing for over 50 years.

And yet, no tangible evidence that whites are under-employed, under-educated, or disproportionately unhoused.

Strongly suggesting that your understanding of affirmative action, and the reality of affirmative action, do not in fact match, or at least are not coherent with the observed realities of the American labor market.

I thought we were talking about institutional racial discrimination.

My bad, I guess.
Tom

Feel free to start. I'm here for it.

Are you confused about the definition of institutional racism? If it is not the institutional policy of practice of an organization, or does not have the effect of disproportionately privileging or disenfranchising a class of people on the basis of their perceived race, it is not institutional racism.

 

[Metaphor]

Let's say an organisation did have a policy of favouring non-white candidates, and sometimes ruled out hiring a white man for a position. Do you think that would be a problematic practice, or an acceptable one?

I would be concerned if there were tangible evidence of hiring discrimination, in a way that consistently hurt white applicants.

And what would you consider tangible evidence?

A written policy.

For the kinds of discrimination we are talking about, I would never expect a written policy to emerge as evidence. Written policies would be scrutinised by legal departments; any written policy that unmistakeable referred to clearly prohibited activity (like passing over a particular race) would never be sanctioned.

A settled legal case.

You will get such a thing in 2023, though I suspect you will not find the judgment convincing.

Data showing that whites are disproportionately under-empoloyed, unhoused, under-educated, or under-paid relative to other demographic groupings.

That data would not necessarily be evidence that there is no institutional discrimination against whites. Institutional discrimination against whites can operate and indeed, I believe does operate, even when other forces shape those statistics.

Even this survey data would be more interesting, if it matched the claims you're making rather than contradicting them.

I'm sorry: what survey data contradicts my claims?

 

[Politesse]

For the kinds of discrimination we are talking about, I would never expect a written policy to emerge as evidence. Written policies would be scrutinised by legal departments; any written policy that unmistakeable referred to clearly prohibited activity (like passing over a particular race) would never be sanctioned.

Interesting.

So you would say that if someone wishes to investigate the realities of institutional racism, they would first need to think critically about what forms of evidence are and are not likely, and the many avenues other than clearly stated law or policy by which institutional racism might occur?

You might find the published works of former Harvard Law professor Derrick Bell quite interesting, as he dedicated his life and writings to assessing American law through just such a rubric of critical race theory.

 

[Shadowy Man]

For the kinds of discrimination we are talking about, I would never expect a written policy to emerge as evidence. Written policies would be scrutinised by legal departments; any written policy that unmistakeable referred to clearly prohibited activity (like passing over a particular race) would never be sanctioned.

Interesting.

So you would say that if someone wishes to investigate the realities of institutional racism, they would first need to think critically about what forms of evidence are and are not likely, and the many avenues other than clearly stated law or policy by which institutional racism might occur?

You might find the published works of former Harvard Law professor Derrick Bell quite interesting, as he dedicated his life and writings to assessing American law through just such a rubric of critical race theory.

Yes. It’s great stuff. My kids are learning about it in kindergarten right now!

 

[Metaphor]

For the kinds of discrimination we are talking about, I would never expect a written policy to emerge as evidence. Written policies would be scrutinised by legal departments; any written policy that unmistakeable referred to clearly prohibited activity (like passing over a particular race) would never be sanctioned.

Interesting.

So you would say that if someone wishes to investigate the realities of institutional racism,

I would say institutional discrimination by race, as it is my understanding that certain parties consider racism against white people (whether individual or systemic) as impossible by definition in America.

they would first need to think critically about what forms of evidence are and are not likely,

Yes, absolutely.

and the many avenues other than clearly stated law or policy by which institutional racism might occur?

Yes.

For example, written policy that clearly and unmistakably contradicts American law would not exist, and so the absence of it is not evidence of absence (of institutional discrimination by race).

You might find the published works of former Harvard Law professor Derrick Bell quite interesting, as he dedicated his life and writings to assessing American law through just such a rubric of critical race theory.

I might find it interesting, though as I disagree to some of the foundations of critical race theory, I suspect I would not agree with all of Bell's conclusions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is all kinds of discrimination against minorities in the US to this day, even if some employers have been told to hire more Black folks and women.

For example, anyone who follows the real estate market like I do, knows that Black homeowners are usually discriminated against when it comes to home appraisals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/25/realestate/blacks-minorities-appraisals-discrimination.html

Yes, this keeps coming up.

There's a little problem with it. It's standard advice in preparing your house for showing to remove personalization (such as the pictures mentioned) from it because any clash between what you have and the prospective buyers tends to make them not see themselves in the house as easily.

They failed to do this basic step in preparing it--what else did they not do? And was the original appraiser victim to the same thing that dissuades buyers?

(Note that this isn't about scrubbing blackness, it's about scrubbing anything non-generic.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My observation is that in my state, white people cannot do enough to prove how not racist they are ....with regards to black people who immigrated from Africa and their children. You know: the ones who came here the 'right' way. Not the ones who descended from enslaved people.

Alternately, there's a difference in the two populations.

Hint: Immigrants tend to be above average. Slaves have no such benefit.

 

[Toni]

My observation is that in my state, white people cannot do enough to prove how not racist they are ....with regards to black people who immigrated from Africa and their children. You know: the ones who came here the 'right' way. Not the ones who descended from enslaved people.

Alternately, there's a difference in the two populations.

Hint: Immigrants tend to be above average. Slaves have no such benefit.

WTF Loren. WTactual Fuck. NO BODY has been a slave in this country (legally) for over 150 years.

I can't even......

 

[Swammerdami]

People on this forum and elsewhere often seem puzzled when, say, blacks or women vote Republican, they are voting against their self interests. Or as Sunny Hostin on The View* so eloquently puts it, "White women voting Republican is like roaches voting for Raid". Based on this survey in the OP, couldn't the same be said of white men (and white women)? Why would whites want to be voting Democrat when discriminating against white people seems to be embraced and normalized by the party? Or at least not outright condemned. Seems to me to be a losing strategy if the Democrat party wants to maintain power going forward. White people are still a substantial share of the US population, and want/need a fair chance at getting employment.

You're missing two key points.

(1) The whole "discrimination against white" meme is nonsense promulgated by right-wingers to delude gullible whites. Can affirmative action be called "discrimination"? Sure. Is it on the Top Five list for worst forms of discrimination operating in the U.S. today? Of course not. Did you look at the unemployment figures upthread? Here's an easy question for you @thebeave to see if you're "on the page." On balance who suffers most from discrimination in the U.S., blacks or whites?

(2) Contrary to the "Greed is Good" mantra of many right-wingers, a very large portion of people are generous and have humanitarian values. Democratic voters are, on average, even more humanitarian than the average American.

Nice anecdotes. Thanks for sharing. Here's mine. My grandpa smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for 60 years and lived to be 95 when he got hit by a bus. So, therefore the "smoking causes lung cancer" thing seems waqy overblown to me.

I am rather confident that this anecdote is untrue. Your grandpa may have been a smoker but he did not live to age 95, and he was not killed by a bus. Two questions:

(1) What do I win?
(2) An anecdote is just an anecdote, right? Why do I consider it relevant that you made up this story? After all, you could have written "Sam's grandpa" instead of "My grandpa" and then the anecdote would likely have been true for some value of "Sam."

 

[Swammerdami]

There is all kinds of discrimination against minorities in the US to this day, even if some employers have been told to hire more Black folks and women.

For example, anyone who follows the real estate market like I do, knows that Black homeowners are usually discriminated against when it comes to home appraisals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/25/realestate/blacks-minorities-appraisals-discrimination.html

Yes, this keeps coming up.

There's a little problem with it. It's standard advice in preparing your house for showing to remove personalization (such as the pictures mentioned) from it because any clash between what you have and the prospective buyers tends to make them not see themselves in the house as easily.

They failed to do this basic step in preparing it--what else did they not do? And was the original appraiser victim to the same thing that dissuades buyers?

(Note that this isn't about scrubbing blackness, it's about scrubbing anything non-generic.)

You do realize, I hope, that in the context of southernhybrid's anecdote, your "generic" translates as "white."

 

[Elixir]

Hilarious to see who is playing the victim card around here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Let's say an organisation did have a policy of favouring non-white candidates, and sometimes ruled out hiring a white man for a position. Do you think that would be a problematic practice, or an acceptable one?

I would be concerned if there were tangible evidence of hiring discrimination, in a way that consistently hurt white applicants.

And what would you consider tangible evidence?

If you need to ask... you don't have it.

 

[Politesse]

My observation is that in my state, white people cannot do enough to prove how not racist they are ....with regards to black people who immigrated from Africa and their children. You know: the ones who came here the 'right' way. Not the ones who descended from enslaved people.

Alternately, there's a difference in the two populations.

Hint: Immigrants tend to be above average. Slaves have no such benefit.

WTF Loren. WTactual Fuck. NO BODY has been a slave in this country (legally) for over 150 years.

I can't even......

That's factually untrue. Slavery of prisoners is legal (and used) in two states, and most states take advantage of the Constitutional exemption around slavery to justify severely "underpaying" (read: often less than a dollar an hour) their prisoners. No, that is not directly relevant to Loren's repugnant and incorrect claim, but I don't like to let it go unchallenged. Too few Americans are aware (or care) about the extent to which the threat of legal enslavement or effective enslavement is still being wielded as a weapon against black men in this country.

 

[Toni]

My observation is that in my state, white people cannot do enough to prove how not racist they are ....with regards to black people who immigrated from Africa and their children. You know: the ones who came here the 'right' way. Not the ones who descended from enslaved people.

Alternately, there's a difference in the two populations.

Hint: Immigrants tend to be above average. Slaves have no such benefit.

WTF Loren. WTactual Fuck. NO BODY has been a slave in this country (legally) for over 150 years.

I can't even......

That's factually untrue. Slavery of prisoners is legal (and used) in two states, and most states take advantage of the Constitutional exemption around slavery to justify severely "underpaying" (read: often less than a dollar an hour) their prisoners. No, that is nnot directly relevant to Metaphor's repugnant and incorrect claim, but I don't like to let it go unchallenged. Too few Americans are aware (or care) about the extent to which the possibility legal enslavement is still being wielded as a weapon against black men in this country.

You are correct, of course. And yes, it is too easy to forget about how many people are imprisoned and exploited for their labor in the US, disproportionately black men. I actually knew that and responded to Loren's comment out of emotion because I find his views so absolutely repugnant.

Not as repugnant and horrific as the prison system in some places, although attitudes such as the ones expressed by Loren are partly the reason we have such a corrupt prison system in the US. We badly need reforms up and down.