Bursaries are fairly common here in Canada. I had one, even despite being Asian. Maybe it helped that I immigrated from Philippines and not China. I also had some OSAP student loans, having just in time become a Canadian citizen. These should be better funded and available to everyone who is doing well enough in their studies. I may be a bit selective and restrictive on what majors should qualify (IMO stuff like Philosophy shouldn't) but it should have absolutely no race, gender, etc component.
-
Features
White Liberals Present Themselves as Less Competent in Interactions with African-Americans
- Thread starter thebeave
- Start date
Bursaries are fairly common here in Canada. I had one, even despite being Asian. Maybe it helped that I immigrated from Philippines and not China. I also had some OSAP student loans, having just in time become a Canadian citizen. These should be better funded and available to everyone who is doing well enough in their studies. I may be a bit selective and restrictive on what majors should qualify (IMO stuff like Philosophy shouldn't) but it should have absolutely no race, gender, etc component.
No, I wasn't. You are now being disingenuous.
No, I didn't. I said that resumes don't give a very good picture. I did refer to Loren in his saying that Lakishas may on the whole be less qualified, articulate, competent, and educated (education is more than a diploma). They as a group may be. I wrote that this doesn't mean a particular Lakisha may not be the most competent, experienced, educated, and qualified person you will ever meet. You need to look to the actual individual, and go beyond looking at mere names on resumes.
Oh, it is very much happening. Your insisting on race based proxies is part of it. As I wrote a few pages back, the equating of black with "unlike me" or of black with poor is a two way door. It means people who happen to be black may get some special "help" from liberals and also that they may get profiled when driving or shopping as being unable to afford what they are holding (and therefore shoplifting / stealing cars / etc). Pushing the base proxy carries over from the one to the other. Pushing racial division and that the other race is "unlike me" isn't helpful either. Focus on us as individuals and race as unimportant is the way out. There are black people you've got way more in common with than you have in common with many white people.
You've judged me since months ago. Lets not pretend otherwise. I got over it and moved on.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Er, come again?
I was using SJW logic against you. Don't worry. I don't really understand or accept it either.
ruby sparks
Contributor
In order to do what? Come to the reasonable conclusion that the results of the studies show naked and commonplace racism against blacks? You think? And as for chiming in with loren, that idiot didn't even realise there were resumes involved, and as for you, you obviously never checked to see what was in them before opining about their supposed shortcomings. What makes you think there was insufficient individual information in them? There wasn't, by the way.
In any case 'actually meeting the individual' would have ruined the point of the experiment (there would have been more potentially uncontrolled variables) or at least been an experiment of a slightly different variety, and in fact there have been a number of similar experiments where actual people of different skin colours go to actual interviews (with the same resumes) and the results of that variant of the experiments also similarly indicate significant racism.
In short, only a fool or a racist denier would question the stated conclusions from those sorts of studies, not least because unlike the OP ones they have been repeated over and over dozens of times with similarly significant results, statistically-speaking.
I still have no definite idea what your point is with all that, especially about proxies.
My insisting on race based proxies (or endorsing them). What is the word proxies doing in that? I am insisting that race and racism are actual, real, everyday and commonplace issues, that's all. Your severe (if somewhat inconsistent) aversion to identity politics seems to have led you as far as doubting that, or thinking that somehow people's responses to it are the bigger issue, rather than the racism itself. A bizarro world indeed, where tails wag dogs.
Oh I do doubt you sometimes, and then sometimes I don't, and then you do stuff like admit that hearing that Dr Who was going to be a woman worried you as regards the role (wtf) or when you say there's a case for Orwell being more right about the American left than about Donald Trump, and try to query reasonable conclusions about certain studies on racism (but not others).
Last edited:
ronburgundy
Contributor
I do not doubt the existence of racial discrimination, but combining 21 piles of shit just gets a big pile of shit. The resume/application studies all have the same problem of using names to imply race that are confounded with not only frequency of the name (most common name versus extremely rare), but also how how foreign or non-English speaking the name sounds and objective associations with education level and SES. The meta-analysis only tells use that employers respond differently to the name "Emily" than "Lakisha", and provide no evidence that this is due to any racial implications of the names.
While the analysis includes some studies that used in-person interviews of people with "similar" resumes, those were the older studies because that method is less common now due to the in-person interviews being less common in general. Thus, no conclusions about change of discrimination over time can be made from those studies. Also, the in-person studies have their own problems, since they rely upon an assumption that the different interviewees are acting identically in an actual uncontrolled interpersonal interview situation, which is implausible even for two different people of the same race. Plus, these interviewees are part of the research team and aware of and likely believers in the hypothesis being tested (Thus, making the studies not true experiments). In fact, if the interviewees were acting in a natural authentic manner, then the black interviewees would likely act with less confidence. A growing body of research on "stereotype threat" that shows that if a person merely is aware that their is a stereotype about their group doing worse on a task, then the person will actually perform worse and lower than their real capabilities.
What is needed to get valid data on actual racial discrimination in hiring is situations where all job-relevant information is on "paper" and thus equivalent, and yet race is directly conveyed in some manner that, unlike names, does not confound race with other relevant variables (such as an pic of the applicant or just a racial identification question included as part of the application).
There are studies that have done this, but all were excluded from that meta-analysis.
I will make a separate post about a glaring example of such a study, so we can keep discussion of it separate from the issues raised here
and that apply to the problems with all "name" based studies such as many claiming evidence of racism, whether in hiring or the type in the OP.
Racism agsinst black people, brown people, yellow people, and yes, even white people exists. Some face it more than others. This is not news. But these studies don't show naked or commonplace anything. They show name bias in the participants in regard to resumes.
You may not like Loren. I don't always agree with Loren. But he isn't an idiot. You should apologize.
You're right. I didn't check anything. I took whoever posted it's word that the study was done and found what they said it did. And resumes are resumes. No resume can have sufficient information in it on which you should hire people.
Exactly. Getting to know them would ruin it even further. Because then they would be looked at as the individuals that they are and the racism would be drastically reduced (in most people).
Nobody is questionint the data or findings. Loren and another person upthread theorized why they happen. Their explanations are incomplete but are not entirely wrong.
Racial identity politics usually IS racism. People presuming I will vote a particular way, have particular issues and values, or have particular connections to particular people because of how I look, is racist.
It didn't worry me. It made me a bit suspicious, based on other media that have done so to virtue signal and cash in. I was wrong to be. I admitted a failing in myself. Some would call that noble. You'd rather use it as a weapon against me. I predicted that would happen.
Did you read the article? There is such a case. Both Trump and the iilliberalism growing on the left display Orwellian thought.
There is no dog. There is only a penguin.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 15,184
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
A proxy is a thing used to represent or model a different thing whic is itself "hidden". A stereotypical example is the use of race as a proxy to wealth or education. Wealth and education both correlate with race, so people often on both sides will often use race rather than the actual level of education or wealth when targeting social programs. This is problematic for a number of reasons. In fact, I'm pretty sure I'm the one who started the language he is using, at least here on these forums.
he has some valid points in here that we should be sanitizing our laws of concepts such as race and gender or any age or any other thing that measures someone's "identity", and coming at the issue from the other direction: only those categories explicitly named in law should be applicable in public commerce, or elements directly material to the position at hand (i.e., whether the person robbed the store, sex offender status, etc). To that end, it wouldn't be difficult to pass a law that prohibits (suitably large) employers from having direct access to name, address, gender, or age of applicants, with this information proxied by randomized "standard" names, to prevent bias. Essentially, our laws are gravitating in a direction of "special/explicit" management rather than general principle.
As I keep stating, the largest element of this is generated by the GOP and conservatives clamoring to seek an "other" that they can induce paranoia over, and then the left, while well meaning, seeks to help the "other" without regards to the principle of neutrality; you can't effectively fight an anti-gay movement without being "pro gay" and without doing it at the expense of attention to everyone else who is marginalized and NOT gay. In fact, the whole concept of gay persons came about as an attempt to other, and wouldn't exist in modern discussions if not for the othering. In an attempt to counter the othering, we validated it.
Worldtraveller
Veteran Member
So, to be perfectly clear. You're upset with people who interpreted your words exactly as you wrote them. And you're upset that they attributed yourwords to you (an individual), but you expect us all to be ok with attributing your words to us (a large diverse group with rather varied opinions)? You can fuck right off with that.
ronburgundy
Contributor
So, here is the type of research study I mentioned in my prior post above that actually directly manipulated applicant race, unlike the OP and the studies in ruby's cited meta-analysis that use invalid proxies which are very weakly related to race and more related to other confounding factors.
This study done in 1980 sent randomized resumes to 458 companies various regions of the country and in the 3 job categories of accounting, engineering, and sales/marketing. 81 features of each resume were randomly varied, with one resume for each company randomly chosen to have "Race: Black" typed under a list of "Personal Characteristics". This ensured that the resumes sent to any single company were not oddly identical, yet across all 458 companies, the set of resumes sent were identical for the black and white applicant.
The researchers consulted with personnel directors, college placement directors, and affirmative action officers to ensure their method would not raise suspicion and would seem ordinary given the practices of the time. These were not applications for specific advertised jobs, but rather "write-in" resumes sent in to a random selection of companies who list themselves in the "College Placement Annual" in order to welcome unsolicited resumes.
Of the 458 companies:
54 contacted both the white and black applicant with an offer for either an interview or sent them a formal application to complete.
24 contacted only the white applicant with an offer for either an interview or sent them a formal application to complete.
50 contacted only the black applicant with an offer for either an interview or sent them a formal application to complete.
IOW, when only 1 applicant was given and interview or application, it was twice as often the black applicant rather than the white applicant. Thus, even if a few companies engaged in racism to offer only the white applicant and interview, twice as many companies did the reverse and offered interviews solely on the basis that the resume indicated "black" as the race.
This pattern emerged for all regions and job types included, but it wasn't statistically significant for Western states or for Engineering jobs.
Is the study perfect? No, but it's limitations are far less damning than those that prevent any valid interpretation of the "Emily-Lakisha" studies. The biggest limitation with this study is that the companies were listed in the College Placement publication, which may not be representative of all types of companies. Although over a thousand companies were listed there in 1980 with many employing 10,000 to 20,000 people. The resumes were for more skilled positions typically filled by college grads, but were also entry-level in these jobs.
Regardless, the study shows that even 40 years ago, racism in entry-level hiring was not so pervasive that it was reflected by these types of firms that employ a sizable % of the workforce. In fact, the data strongly suggest that many firms even 40 years ago felt enough social/political/legal pressure to avoid the appearance of racial discrimination that they engaged in race-based discrimination against white applicants when the opportunity to hire qualified minorities arose.
That still allows for plenty of room for anti-minority racism in both promotion and advancement and in hiring for positions that do not typically entail college degrees. But the studies in the previously cited meta-analysis are not valid evidence of it.
This study done in 1980 sent randomized resumes to 458 companies various regions of the country and in the 3 job categories of accounting, engineering, and sales/marketing. 81 features of each resume were randomly varied, with one resume for each company randomly chosen to have "Race: Black" typed under a list of "Personal Characteristics". This ensured that the resumes sent to any single company were not oddly identical, yet across all 458 companies, the set of resumes sent were identical for the black and white applicant.
The researchers consulted with personnel directors, college placement directors, and affirmative action officers to ensure their method would not raise suspicion and would seem ordinary given the practices of the time. These were not applications for specific advertised jobs, but rather "write-in" resumes sent in to a random selection of companies who list themselves in the "College Placement Annual" in order to welcome unsolicited resumes.
Of the 458 companies:
54 contacted both the white and black applicant with an offer for either an interview or sent them a formal application to complete.
24 contacted only the white applicant with an offer for either an interview or sent them a formal application to complete.
50 contacted only the black applicant with an offer for either an interview or sent them a formal application to complete.
IOW, when only 1 applicant was given and interview or application, it was twice as often the black applicant rather than the white applicant. Thus, even if a few companies engaged in racism to offer only the white applicant and interview, twice as many companies did the reverse and offered interviews solely on the basis that the resume indicated "black" as the race.
This pattern emerged for all regions and job types included, but it wasn't statistically significant for Western states or for Engineering jobs.
Is the study perfect? No, but it's limitations are far less damning than those that prevent any valid interpretation of the "Emily-Lakisha" studies. The biggest limitation with this study is that the companies were listed in the College Placement publication, which may not be representative of all types of companies. Although over a thousand companies were listed there in 1980 with many employing 10,000 to 20,000 people. The resumes were for more skilled positions typically filled by college grads, but were also entry-level in these jobs.
Regardless, the study shows that even 40 years ago, racism in entry-level hiring was not so pervasive that it was reflected by these types of firms that employ a sizable % of the workforce. In fact, the data strongly suggest that many firms even 40 years ago felt enough social/political/legal pressure to avoid the appearance of racial discrimination that they engaged in race-based discrimination against white applicants when the opportunity to hire qualified minorities arose.
That still allows for plenty of room for anti-minority racism in both promotion and advancement and in hiring for positions that do not typically entail college degrees. But the studies in the previously cited meta-analysis are not valid evidence of it.
Worldtraveller
Veteran Member
The more interesting point, lost in all the idiocy from JP and LP, is the little tidbit about how conservatives try to act smarter around minorities. That is, IMO, and even more racist tell as they try to make themselves look better.
I've intentionally done the same thing to people (like a certain college professor of mine who tried to use vocabulary to intimidate his students), but only as a reaction to their attempts to do it to me or others.
- - - Updated - - -
No offense, but you should leave the snark to Tom Sawyer. You're not very good at this.
Worldtraveller
Veteran Member
I don't interpret the results that way at all.
Just to be clear, JP and LP are advocating for the situation on the left.
http://i2.wp.com/interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IISC_EqualityEquity.png
Exactly. White nationalism was the initial and still possibly the ugliest and most pervasive identity politic. It created many of the labels and divisions that the illiberal left pushes today, which started as push back to racism/sexism/etc from the right, and understandably so. Gay Pride exists only because of Gay Shame. And being proud to be gay (as incredibly stupid as that is; are people proud to be hetero, or are they just hetero?) is really a way to show you are not ashamed of it, despite pressure being put on you that you should be. It makes sense on that level. The old feminist mantra of "anything you can do, I can do!" is noble.
But that push back took on a life of its own as things are prone to do, and now we have people being judged by the left and the right both by their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. And as the old racist anti-minority laws are struck down, new racist pro-minority laws are being pushed into being. We've seen re-emergence of Jim Crow like scenarios where white people are asked to stay home from school (Weinstein) or white people or men are told to stay out of "safe spaces" where their presence will upset people because of their race/gender. We are seeing race and gender quotas and race based admissions, appointment, or hiring actions and policies.
It is all based on the same root from which the original white nationalism came and on which that racism thrives: Othering, using race as proxy, and stressing the importance of how so very different people from different races are, instead of how irrelevant race is. It should be no surprise that we've seen a rise of white nationalism in an age when even many on the left are pushing for race based identity politics. As Peterson put it, the white people listened, and a bunch of them said ok, split us up by race, but then they refused to roll over or step aside, and decided to fight for their group. If you scream "You're A White Male!" "Nazi!" "White Privilege!" "White Fragility" "Only whites can be racist" "Whites are all racist" at people simply trying to have a reasoned discussion, don't be surprise if some of them grow into these labels, both as trolls and as legit increases in white nationalism.
I haven't been. I've been saying do it based on individual need and not on group identity. My version of your graphic is the one on the right. The one I've been speaking against isn't depicted here. That one would have all three of these people (all seemingly the same race) hoisted up on blocks, still at uneven level to one another, she short one probably still not able to see. These blocks would be taken from the white people off screen, most of which are at or above their level, and some of which are sunk way down even further below the fence line, below these three, and buried underground. I'm not an artist but I think you can picture the graphic in your head. My graphic would also show the white people up on high screaming down at these brown people about race, since race has been made the focus.
PyramidHead
Contributor
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
So now not dumbing yourself down is a sort of racism. Talk about the "soft" bigotry of low expectations.
Not discriminating by race is the new racism. Up is down. Left is right. War is peace. It really is quite orwellian, isn't it?
ruby sparks
Contributor
Some good points there.
However, I am going to politely suggest that you are being (a) too dismissive of the 21 studies which don't use explicit race information in the resumes (such as stating ethnicity) and (b) too accepting of the study you posted shortly after which did explicitly state it (but only in some resumes).
In reverse order, doing (b) first. It is a single study, and also, partly as a result of this the sample size is much smaller than for the meta-analysis of the 21 studies (for which the sample size was a total of approximately 55,500 resumes). Third, the study is older than any in the 21, being from 1980, and may represent out of date information (the situation regarding the prevalence of affirmative action policies may have differed for example, and I read in a very recent article in The New Yorker that businesses were 'expansive in their efforts to adopt affirmative action throughout the 70's'). I am aware of one other study from around the time of the one you posted which showed similar results (blacks favoured over whites) but in that 1978 study, resumes were only sent to companies which were operating an affirmative action hiring policy, which may have skewed the results, which were slight in any case.
Regarding (a). First Lakisha was only one name used. In the first study cited, there were 36 names used altogether, including 9 different ones for 'African-American female'. Second, surnames were also included, so for example Lakisha was paired with the surname Washington, thereby adding to the racial clue and reducing the possibility of the person being mistaken for a foreigner. Finally, all names were matched against the most frequently used names, for the ethnic group they were intended to represent, in the region to which the resumes were sent.
In view of that, I feel your choice of words like 'shit', 'damning limitations' and 'preventing valid interpretation' for the 21 studies not using explicit race designation may be less warranted.
Last edited:
Exactly. I favor helping those that are both needing help and willing to use it in a productive fashion. They should be evaluated individually, though, not by group membership.