White Fragility author Robin DiAngelo was paid 70 percent more than a black woman for the same job

[Metaphor]

You have not provided evidence of hypocrisy. You have merely asserted that DiAngelo being paid more than a black woman was hypocrisy on her part, and dismissed all other possible explanations such as her not knowing what other people are paid, and not being in a position to dictate the terms of everyone else's contracts.

You haven't read a word of what I've said. I've already explained that she probably did not know, but that not knowing is not sufficient to excuse her, and I've also explained how her knowing now, but still not doing anything about it, is hypocritical.

I've also explained that she is in a position to withdraw unless she got assurance that keynote speakers of colour were paid at least as much as white keynote speakers, assurance which she did not seek.

I read every word you wrote in this thread. You admit you don't know the details but apparently don't see how that renders your accusation baseless. You don't even know what those speaking fees were based on, or who negotiated them. If her agent negotiated a bigger speaking fee because she sold more books than the other author, how is it hypocrisy for her to accept the offer?

I have already explained in this thread more than once.

Part or all of the reason that DiAngelo was able to command a higher fee, compared to a woman of colour, arose from DiAngelo's white privilege. According to her own ideology, white privilege continually benefits her and works against people of colour. According to her own beliefs, it is not enough to be not racist, you must be actively anti-racist.

 

[Metaphor]

Again y your belief something is true does not make it true. A number of posters agree that you have not made your case. Which, at the least, suggests you need to make a more convincing argument.

It suggests to me that perhaps they do not know how woke minds work.

From my perspective and worldview, DiAngelo's agency has simply negotiated the highest fee she was capable of commanding, and she got more than the other keynote speaker because she was worth more, or the other keynote speaker didn't risk asking for a higher fee.

But that isn't how the woke think. The reason for group differences don't need to be investigated; only the outcome counts. DiAngelo has said this about racial equity and it is a more widely pushed idea in the form of the gender pay gap.

I agree DiAngelo didn't know what the other keynote speaker got, but that's because DiAngelo did not ask. She did not ask the other speaker and she did not seek assurance from the organisers that there was no racial pay gap for paid speakers.

Being anti-racist and giving up privilege takes work. DiAngelo has to do the work, according to her own worldview. In this case, she fell short.

 

[laughing dog]

Again y your belief something is true does not make it true. A number of posters agree that you have not made your case. Which, at the least, suggests you need to make a more convincing argument.

It suggests to me that perhaps they do not know how woke minds work.

From my perspective and worldview, DiAngelo's agency has simply negotiated the highest fee she was capable of commanding, and she got more than the other keynote speaker because she was worth more, or the other keynote speaker didn't risk asking for a higher fee.

But that isn't how the woke think. The reason for group differences don't need to be investigated; only the outcome counts. DiAngelo has said this about racial equity and it is a more widely pushed idea in the form of the gender pay gap.

You can impute any motive or thinking on anyone, but that does not make it true. You cannot show that Ms. DiAngelo believes or thinks that this pay gap is due in anyway to her white privilege.

I agree DiAngelo didn't know what the other keynote speaker got, but that's because DiAngelo did not ask. She did not ask the other speaker and she did not seek assurance from the organisers that there was no racial pay gap for paid speakers.

You have yet to make a convincing case that any of that matters.

Being anti-racist and giving up privilege takes work. DiAngelo has to do the work, according to her own worldview. In this case, she fell short.

So what.

 

[ruby sparks]

Would Michelle Obama do this gig for $12K?

I doubt it.

Ok, but it's about the relative difference in amounts.

Nothing about racism, she's just got more star power.
Tom

Except I checked afterwards and the other woman is also a bestselling author.

To which there is a follow-up question.

Why is the other woman less famous (if she is) when she's writing about similar (but not the same) issues?

Here's a guess. The audience for white women writing about such things (particularly when the book is aimed at white people) is much larger than for a black woman writing about them. A book on White fragility written by a black person? Would that go to the top of the bestseller lists? Would it tap into the same appeals?

I'm speculating. I'm not familiar with the writings in question, other than a general familiarity with the ideas behind 'White Fragility'.

Or it could be that DiAngelo's book(s) and ideas are better reading.

My impressions of the ideas are that there is something to them, but they may be......(a word I overuse)...overstated.

It seems to be a common problem, one way or the other. In some ways it makes for a more interesting read, for books on such topics generally. Especially those which aim for commercial success.

 

[Arctish]

I read every word you wrote in this thread. You admit you don't know the details but apparently don't see how that renders your accusation baseless. You don't even know what those speaking fees were based on, or who negotiated them. If her agent negotiated a bigger speaking fee because she sold more books than the other author, how is it hypocrisy for her to accept the offer?

I have already explained in this thread more than once.

Part or all of the reason that DiAngelo was able to command a higher fee, compared to a woman of colour, arose from DiAngelo's white privilege.

I and others have already explained more than once, you don't know that.

This article says DiAngelo's book was one of many dealing with the issue of racial injustice that had a sudden surge in sales shortly after George Floyd was killed, and hers outsold the others. Her speaking fee could have been entirely due to the popularity of her book.

According to her own ideology, white privilege continually benefits her and works against people of colour. According to her own beliefs, it is not enough to be not racist, you must be actively anti-racist.

If the size of her speaking fee can be shown to be the result of her race, in whole or in part, then you have reason to suspect hypocrisy. But if not, then not.

 

[Axulus]

Metaphor, I'm with you up to the point where you claim she promotes actions like giving up the portion of one's pay to another when that extra pay was a result of white privilege. It wouldn't be hypocritical to point out that "white privilege" exists and is not a good thing and at the same time being ok with enjoying the extra pay that comes with it. Can you point out anything she has said ir written that seems more in line with supporting giving up extra pay to balance things out?

This might not be the best analogy, but it is kind of like a libertarian making the claim that the government social security system is flawed and should be reformed, but still accepting a social security check when offered it. I don't think it is hypocritical to accept the check.

 

[Metaphor]

I and others have already explained more than once, you don't know that.

This article says DiAngelo's book was one of many dealing with the issue of racial injustice that had a sudden surge in sales shortly after George Floyd was killed, and hers outsold the others. Her speaking fee could have been entirely due to the popularity of her book.

According to her own ideology, white privilege continually benefits her and works against people of colour. According to her own beliefs, it is not enough to be not racist, you must be actively anti-racist.

If the size of her speaking fee can be shown to be the result of her race, in whole or in part, then you have reason to suspect hypocrisy. But if not, then not.

I don't believe DiAngelo's theories about white privilege, and I don't know if all or some of DiAngelo's fee difference compared with the other keynote speaker can be explained by white privilege.

The fact of the matter (about whether white privilege or racism was actually involved) is actually completely irrelevant to DiAngelo's hypocrisy.

DiAngelo espouses the belief that racism is everywhere all the time. These are statements from her website.

All white people benefit from racism, regardless of intentions;intentions are irrelevant.
No one here chose to be socialized into racism(so no one is “bad’). But no one is neutral –to not act against racism is to support racism.
Racism must be continually identified, analyzed and challenged; no one is ever done
The question is not ”did racism take place”? but rather “how did racism manifest in that situation?

If DiAngelo expects us to believe that her white privilege did not, in fact, influence her speaker fee to be higher than the other keynote speaker's fee, she must explain how that is compatible with her espoused belief that racism is a constant and all white people benefit all the time.

Note that the number of causative links in the chain don't get DiAngelo out of it. If she wrote a more popular book that enabled the higher fee, it's partly because white people prefer white authors. If she was raised with a more confident speaking style and more confidence in negotiation, it's partly because the stereotype of 'loud' black women helped her as a white woman to seem more acceptable. If she was brought up in a household that valued education and ambition, it's because society has othered black people out of the competition.

Just as a preacher believing and espousing that two men having sex with each other is inherently wrong, he makes himself a hypocrite if he has sex with another man.

This is despite the fact that two men having sex with each other isn't inherently wrong. I don't have to prove two men having sex is wrong before I can label the preacher a hypocrite.

 

[J842P]

My impressions of the ideas are that there is something to them, but they may be......(a word I overuse)...overstated.

No, the anti-racist ideology espoused by Di Angelo, and other authors like Ibram X. Kendi, are vacuous and don't hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. Indeed, they are, by design, built with various barriers to even considering any criticism of them as valid. They are not serious scholarship, and their proponents are not serious thinkers. It is more akin to religion, or various corporate training grifts that have existed for a long time (and even among those, it is particularly vacuous).

 

[J842P]

I and others have already explained more than once, you don't know that.

This article says DiAngelo's book was one of many dealing with the issue of racial injustice that had a sudden surge in sales shortly after George Floyd was killed, and hers outsold the others. Her speaking fee could have been entirely due to the popularity of her book.

According to her own ideology, white privilege continually benefits her and works against people of colour. According to her own beliefs, it is not enough to be not racist, you must be actively anti-racist.

If the size of her speaking fee can be shown to be the result of her race, in whole or in part, then you have reason to suspect hypocrisy. But if not, then not.

I think you are under the impression that Metaphor actual believes this philosophy. Metaphor is using the basic tenants of anti-racist ideology, as espoused by DiAngelo, to reach that conclusion. Note because he thinks its valid, rather, to point out DiAngelo's hypocrisy.

 

[laughing dog]

If DiAngelo expects us to believe that her white privilege did not, in fact, influence her speaker fee to be higher than the other keynote speaker's fee, she must explain how that is compatible with her espoused belief that racism is a constant and all white people benefit all the time.

I doubt that "benefitting all the time" means every second of every day in every situation, action and decision.

And, of course, there is the question of so what if Ms. DiAngelo is a hypocrite in this regard?

 

[Metaphor]

If DiAngelo expects us to believe that her white privilege did not, in fact, influence her speaker fee to be higher than the other keynote speaker's fee, she must explain how that is compatible with her espoused belief that racism is a constant and all white people benefit all the time.

I doubt that "benefitting all the time" means every second of every day in every situation, action and decision.

The question is not ”did racism take place”? but rather “how did racism manifest in that situation?

And, of course, there is the question of so what if Ms. DiAngelo is a hypocrite in this regard?

It's a question that does not reach the threshold of consideration unless and until people can admit that DiAngelo has acted hypocritically in this situation. Do you believe she has?

 

[Arctish]

I don't believe DiAngelo's theories about white privilege, and I don't know if all or some of DiAngelo's fee difference compared with the other keynote speaker can be explained by white privilege.

The fact of the matter (about whether white privilege or racism was actually involved) is actually completely irrelevant to DiAngelo's hypocrisy.

DiAngelo espouses the belief that racism is everywhere all the time. These are statements from her website.

All white people benefit from racism, regardless of intentions;intentions are irrelevant.
No one here chose to be socialized into racism(so no one is “bad’). But no one is neutral –to not act against racism is to support racism.
Racism must be continually identified, analyzed and challenged; no one is ever done
The question is not ”did racism take place”? but rather “how did racism manifest in that situation?

If DiAngelo expects us to believe that her white privilege did not, in fact, influence her speaker fee to be higher than the other keynote speaker's fee, she must explain how that is compatible with her espoused belief that racism is a constant and all white people benefit all the time.

Note that the number of causative links in the chain don't get DiAngelo out of it. If she wrote a more popular book that enabled the higher fee, it's partly because white people prefer white authors. If she was raised with a more confident speaking style and more confidence in negotiation, it's partly because the stereotype of 'loud' black women helped her as a white woman to seem more acceptable. If she was brought up in a household that valued education and ambition, it's because society has othered black people out of the competition.

Just as a preacher believing and espousing that two men having sex with each other is inherently wrong, he makes himself a hypocrite if he has sex with another man.

This is despite the fact that two men having sex with each other isn't inherently wrong. I don't have to prove two men having sex is wrong before I can label the preacher a hypocrite.

If you had made ^this^ part of your OP, we all could have saved some time trying to get to the substance of your argument.

I'm not saying I agree with you. I suspect DiAngelo was offered a typical speaking fee and she accepted it without making demands about other people's fees. And anyway, nothing on that list suggests she thinks white people should give up their pay. DiAngelo is making an argument against unfair advantages, which IMO implies she thinks we should raise the pay for people who were unfairly shorted due to racial bias, not cut the pay of those who were fairly compensated.

 

[J842P]

I don't believe DiAngelo's theories about white privilege, and I don't know if all or some of DiAngelo's fee difference compared with the other keynote speaker can be explained by white privilege.

The fact of the matter (about whether white privilege or racism was actually involved) is actually completely irrelevant to DiAngelo's hypocrisy.

DiAngelo espouses the belief that racism is everywhere all the time. These are statements from her website.

All white people benefit from racism, regardless of intentions;intentions are irrelevant.
No one here chose to be socialized into racism(so no one is “bad’). But no one is neutral –to not act against racism is to support racism.
Racism must be continually identified, analyzed and challenged; no one is ever done
The question is not ”did racism take place”? but rather “how did racism manifest in that situation?

If DiAngelo expects us to believe that her white privilege did not, in fact, influence her speaker fee to be higher than the other keynote speaker's fee, she must explain how that is compatible with her espoused belief that racism is a constant and all white people benefit all the time.

Note that the number of causative links in the chain don't get DiAngelo out of it. If she wrote a more popular book that enabled the higher fee, it's partly because white people prefer white authors. If she was raised with a more confident speaking style and more confidence in negotiation, it's partly because the stereotype of 'loud' black women helped her as a white woman to seem more acceptable. If she was brought up in a household that valued education and ambition, it's because society has othered black people out of the competition.

Just as a preacher believing and espousing that two men having sex with each other is inherently wrong, he makes himself a hypocrite if he has sex with another man.

This is despite the fact that two men having sex with each other isn't inherently wrong. I don't have to prove two men having sex is wrong before I can label the preacher a hypocrite.

If you had made ^this^ part of your OP, we all could have saved some time trying to get to the substance of your argument.

I'm not saying I agree with you. I suspect DiAngelo was offered a typical speaking fee and she accepted it without making demands about other people's fees. And anyway, nothing on that list suggests she thinks white people should give up their pay. DiAngelo is making an argument against unfair advantages, which IMO implies she thinks we should raise the pay for people who were unfairly shorted due to racial bias, not cut the pay of those who were fairly compensated.

It was pretty obvious from the beginning. And it's pretty obvious if you've read White Fragility. Or have attended a diversity training lecture based on that book. According to the anti-racist ideology, if you are white, then you are benefiting from white privilege, and if you aren't actively opposing white privilege, (i.e. being anti-racist), by for example, using your privilege as a highly sought after lecturer to demand that BIPOC are paid the same then you are being a racist.

I suspect DiAngelo was offered a typical speaking fee and she accepted it without making demands about other people's fees.

Right, and that is precisely what a racist would do, according to the anti-racist ideology, because you aren't actively opposing racism by making that demand. Of all people, DiAngelo should be aware!

 

[ruby sparks]

My impressions of the ideas are that there is something to them, but they may be......(a word I overuse)...overstated.

No, the anti-racist ideology espoused by Di Angelo, and other authors like Ibram X. Kendi, are vacuous and don't hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. Indeed, they are, by design, built with various barriers to even considering any criticism of them as valid. They are not serious scholarship, and their proponents are not serious thinkers. It is more akin to religion, or various corporate training grifts that have existed for a long time (and even among those, it is particularly vacuous).

I can't comment on the quality of the book, because I haven't read it, although I have read extracts and commentaries. It would not surprise me if it had the flaws you describe. However, I don't even need to read the book to accept that there is such a thing as the psychological phenomenon of White Fragility. It would be incredible if there weren't. That is what I meant when I said that there is something to the ideas.

In fact, that the book got to, and stayed at, the top of the bestseller lists, could be argued to be evidence for its existence.

 

[J842P]

My impressions of the ideas are that there is something to them, but they may be......(a word I overuse)...overstated.

No, the anti-racist ideology espoused by Di Angelo, and other authors like Ibram X. Kendi, are vacuous and don't hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. Indeed, they are, by design, built with various barriers to even considering any criticism of them as valid. They are not serious scholarship, and their proponents are not serious thinkers. It is more akin to religion, or various corporate training grifts that have existed for a long time (and even among those, it is particularly vacuous).

I can't comment on the quality of the book, because I haven't read it, although I have read extracts and commentaries. It would not surprise me if it had the flaws you describe. However, I don't even need to read the book to accept that there is such a thing as White Fragility. It would be incredible if there weren't. That is what I meant when I said that there is something to the ideas.

In the sense that any person can become defensive when accused of acting improperly? Sure. So what? In that sense, there is "something" to almost any idea. That banal point hardly makes up for the deeply problematic ideology that is espoused by DiAngelo.

 

[Metaphor]

If you had made ^this^ part of your OP, we all could have saved some time trying to get to the substance of your argument.

That it was not obvious to people from the OP indicates to me that some people who dismiss the impact of critical race theory do not understand what critical race theorists are actually preaching

I'm not saying I agree with you. I suspect DiAngelo was offered a typical speaking fee and she accepted it without making demands about other people's fees. And anyway, nothing on that list suggests she thinks white people should give up their pay. DiAngelo is making an argument against unfair advantages, which IMO implies she thinks we should raise the pay for people who were unfairly shorted due to racial bias, not cut the pay of those who were fairly compensated.

But what makes you think DiAngelo was fairly compensated, according to the theory she espouses? In any case, I've already explained what DiAngelo, if she is being 'anti-racist', could have done. She could have used her white privilege to make sure that not-white keynote speakers were compensated at least as well as white ones. She could have revealed her fee to the other keynote speaker so that ignorance was no excuse.

 

[Metaphor]

In fact, that the book got to, and stayed at, the top of the bestseller lists, could be argued to be evidence for its existence.

Gracious goodness, is 'ruby' an endearment of 'rube'? 'The Secret' has sold 30 million copies. That doesn't make anything in 'The Secret' make sense.

 

[ruby sparks]

I can't comment on the quality of the book, because I haven't read it, although I have read extracts and commentaries. It would not surprise me if it had the flaws you describe. However, I don't even need to read the book to accept that there is such a thing as White Fragility. It would be incredible if there weren't. That is what I meant when I said that there is something to the ideas.

In the sense that any person can become defensive when accused of acting improperly? Sure. So what? In that sense, there is "something" to almost any idea. That banal point hardly makes up for the deeply problematic ideology that is espoused by DiAngelo.

Well, anyone, sure, but a western white person may have specific reasons, so I'm ok with saying there is a phenomenon we could call 'white fragility'. So imo it's not a banal idea. Obviously, a particular thesis about it can be problematical, and DiAngelo's may be that, but imo there is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In other words, the idea itself is worth discussing, in my opinion.

 

[ruby sparks]

In fact, that the book got to, and stayed at, the top of the bestseller lists, could be argued to be evidence for its existence.

Gracious goodness, is 'ruby' an endearment of 'rube'? 'The Secret' has sold 30 million copies. That doesn't make anything in 'The Secret' make sense.

I am not familiar with that book so can't comment. I would still say what I said about White Fragility though. Obviously, I am not going as far as to say that an idea is necessarily worthwhile just and only because a book about it is a bestseller.

In this case though, given that White Fragility is a psychological phenomenon, it seems likely to me that for it to be so well-received, it may have struck a psychological chord in the heads of many of those who deemed it worth buying (and there aren't enough non-white book-buyers in the USA to make a book a bestseller, I don't think). Which I find completely unsurprising, since I find the idea of White Fragility unsurprising, because there are reasons for white people to feel their status is coming under attack and for it to be perceived as being under threat. This of course would be and probably is true of any traditionally privileged human group during a time of change and adjustment, and so the idea is not restricted to white people necessarily, except where they are/were the traditionally privileged group.

I wouldn't mind agreeing that the book may be skewed, or that it has monetarized a topical socio-political issue by tapping into it. But I have not read the book. My guess (based on what I've read of and about it) is that it goes a bit too far with the idea, which is something that could probably be said about many bestsellers, for which part of the appeal may be simplicity of presentation rather than nuance.

ETA: Googling 'The Secret' it seems to be a book about the power of positive thinking.

If so, then I would say the same about it, that there is something in that idea.

 

[Arctish]

If you had made ^this^ part of your OP, we all could have saved some time trying to get to the substance of your argument.

That it was not obvious to people from the OP indicates to me that some people who dismiss the impact of critical race theory do not understand what critical race theorists are actually preaching.

Indeed.

Some people might have only taken a cursory glance at critical race theory. Some people might not be familiar with the current trends or schools of thought on the subject. Some people might know a thing or two about the subject and still be unable to see your point in the OP, what with all your talk about racist conservative blowhards and their mindset. I understand you were being sarcastic, but that's only because I know you well enough to expect a lot of sarcasm.

I'm not saying I agree with you. I suspect DiAngelo was offered a typical speaking fee and she accepted it without making demands about other people's fees. And anyway, nothing on that list suggests she thinks white people should give up their pay. DiAngelo is making an argument against unfair advantages, which IMO implies she thinks we should raise the pay for people who were unfairly shorted due to racial bias, not cut the pay of those who were fairly compensated.

But what makes you think DiAngelo was fairly compensated, according to the theory she espouses?

Whether she was fairly compensated depends on what is typically offered to authors of popular books and the quality of the speech she delivered. If her fee was typical and she gave a typical address, then there's nothing noteworthy about either.

Whether she was fairly compensated "according to the theory she espouses" depends on what her theory says about fair compensation. It also depends on whether her compensation was too much, or the other author's compensation was too little. I have no idea what she says about fair compensation beyond her thinking it can't be fair when racial bias is allowed to influence the amounts offered to different people.

In any case, I've already explained what DiAngelo, if she is being 'anti-racist', could have done. She could have used her white privilege to make sure that not-white keynote speakers were compensated at least as well as white ones. She could have revealed her fee to the other keynote speaker so that ignorance was no excuse.

You are assuming she could have done that even though you admit she probably did not know what the other speakers were paid. You also assume she would take the word of a far-right publication at face value and immediately take action without doing any research or outreach or verification of her own. And you assume that she would agree with you on the correct course of action once she learned about it.

BTW, the Washington Free Beacon article the Post Millennial quoted says:

The payments were negotiated with the Harry Walker Agency, a New York-based speakers bureau that represents both women.

So this appears to be a matter for the authors to take up with their agents, no public rending of garments and gnashing of teeth required.