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

[laughing dog]

No, I am not an expert on Ms. DiAnglo's views. Frankly, I don't have time for minor views and theories.

So... I understand the compulsion to oppose anything Met writes...

I suggest you read responses - I am simply pointing out there may be another reasonable explanation other than hypocrisy. I am tired of people confusing hyperbole and pedantry with reasonableness. I don't care if someone thinks I have "white fragility" or that I (or every white person) is inherently racist because the term "racist" has so little meaning now.

 

[laughing dog]

I am sorry that you have particular deficits processing language, and are unable to understand that words can sometimes be uttered that are counterfactual but are not lies nor hypocritical.

I understand sarcasm and I understand stupid. Too bad you cannot tell the difference.

For example, when I wrote the words, 'nothing is hypocrisy', the literal words were not a reflection of my beliefs.

I never claimed you did.

It doesn't make them anything of the kind. Believing things that you have a good reason to believe is enough to make a belief rational.

No, it is not and that is not what you wrote before.

I do not believe in libertarian free will and that includes the freedom to choose beliefs. I'm sorry if you cling to your fantasy of freedom or you think it's necessary to make a person 'rational'.

I am sorry you feel the need to babble so much.

Luv, the response was honest, certainly. It was an honest expression of how not alright your response was, and how responding to your continual desperate attempts to explain away DiAngelo's obvious hypocrisy and your nasty attacks on me is just not worth the mental energy.

Sure Jan. Anything to keep your tiresome faith-based bubble and personal attacks intact.

 

[Metaphor]

No, it is not and that is not what you wrote before.

I said people cannot choose what they believe. You said that makes somebody unable to control their beliefs and therefore irrational. Being unable to choose your beliefs does not mean your beliefs are irrational. It just does not follow.

 

[Arctish]

Here's an interesting review of the book, as well as DiAngelo's entire premise, written by a black man.

The Dehumanizing Condescension of White Fragility
The popular book aims to combat racism but talks down to Black people.

White Fragility is, in the end, a book about how to make certain educated white readers feel better about themselves. DiAngelo’s outlook rests upon a depiction of Black people as endlessly delicate poster children within this self-gratifying fantasy about how white America needs to think—or, better, stop thinking. Her answer to white fragility, in other words, entails an elaborate and pitilessly dehumanizing condescension toward Black people. The sad truth is that anyone falling under the sway of this blinkered, self-satisfied, punitive stunt of a primer has been taught, by a well-intentioned but tragically misguided pastor, how to be racist in a whole new way.

Did you read her book or articles, or see the text of her presentations yourself? If so, you're probably the only one here who can answer my question: would DiAngelo following Metaphor's suggestion to publicly bestow money on the other author as a way to atone for benefiting from racism, be in opposition to DiAngelo's views or in accordance with them?

Would she be neutralizing the effects of racism or displaying "dehumanizing condescension toward Black people" she's accused of harboring in the linked article? Because bestowing money on a black female author whose book didn't sell as well as hers and hasn't made as much of a name for herself, implies she thinks we have to reward black people for lesser achievements because we simply can't expect them to do as well as whites. That can be construed as condescending. It can also be considered pragmatic.

Does DiAngelo believe a multitude of factors lead to disparate outcomes between women of different races (Intersectional Feminism), or does she see Racism in more simple terms?

 

[laughing dog]

No, it is not and that is not what you wrote before.

I said people cannot choose what they believe. You said that makes somebody unable to control their beliefs and therefore irrational. Being unable to choose your beliefs does not mean your beliefs are irrational. It just does not follow.

First, people can choose their beliefs - they do all of the time. But that does not mean people always choose their beliefs. Second, in my view, at some point, a person makes a choice to believe or to not believe. If they really do not make a choice, then that belief is irrational since it has no conscious basis whatsoever.

 

[ruby sparks]

Here's an interesting review of the book, as well as DiAngelo's entire premise, written by a black man.

The Dehumanizing Condescension of White Fragility
The popular book aims to combat racism but talks down to Black people.

White Fragility is, in the end, a book about how to make certain educated white readers feel better about themselves. DiAngelo’s outlook rests upon a depiction of Black people as endlessly delicate poster children within this self-gratifying fantasy about how white America needs to think—or, better, stop thinking. Her answer to white fragility, in other words, entails an elaborate and pitilessly dehumanizing condescension toward Black people. The sad truth is that anyone falling under the sway of this blinkered, self-satisfied, punitive stunt of a primer has been taught, by a well-intentioned but tragically misguided pastor, how to be racist in a whole new way.

That's classic 'cranky' John McWhorter. I'm not sure how many black people he speaks for, and I'm not sure his alternative 'black victimology' thesis is any better (as an explanation for or an analysis of a very complicated set of issues) than the one he's criticising. They're both a bit overwrought, imo. I hate to say it, because I'm always saying it, but I think the truth of this is where it usually is, imo, namely somewhere in between, in amongst the detail and the nuance.

I think some of the criticisms aimed at DiAngelo hit the mark, but I'm not sure how many. The ideas seem useful in principle, but I'm not familiar with how they play out, in for example the workshops you mention.

 

[ruby sparks]

.....would DiAngelo following Metaphor's suggestion to publicly bestow money on the other author as a way to atone for benefiting from racism, be in opposition to DiAngelo's views or in accordance with them?

I doubt there is/was anything as explicit as that from her prior to this. Nor is 'publicly bestowing money' after the event, necessarily the only subsequent option for her (though I do realise you are referring to a suggestion at least along those lines or similar by metaphor).

This is the nearest semi-relevant prior comment I've seen, from a 2018 interview:

Interviewer: WE SHOULD MAYBE TALK ABOUT THE POWER DYNAMICS OF THIS EXCHANGE. WE ARE TWO WHITE WOMEN TALKING ABOUT RACISM. DO YOU SEE ANY PARTICULAR VALUE IN THAT?

DiAngelo: I think it is a critical part of the process. Because of the nature of implicit bias, white people are generally a little more open to hearing about it from other white people. You don't automatically assume I'm biased, oversensitive, or playing the race card. And there's another important reason to do this, which is that we don't want our learning to be at the expense of people of color. Now, there are many people of color who do this, who write and speak, and who present, and who expect to be paid for that, and should be. The average person of color should not be put on the spot to bear that burden.

(my bold)

Why Are White Women So Terrified Of Being Called Racist?
https://www.elle.com/culture/career...te-women-so-terrified-of-being-called-racist/

Bear in mind that we are not (I hope) limiting ourselves to countering metaphor here. Metaphor's criticisms are a little bit myopic and opportunist.

Would she be neutralizing the effects of racism or displaying "dehumanizing condescension toward Black people" she's accused of harboring in the linked article? Because bestowing money on a black female author whose book didn't sell as well as hers and hasn't made as much of a name for herself, implies she thinks we have to reward black people for lesser achievements because we simply can't expect them to do as well as whites. That can be construed as condescending. It can also be considered pragmatic.

(my bold)

Personally, I think there is not much doubt that DiAngelo's book, or a similar one (not necessarily aimed at white people), if written by a black person, probably would not have sold nearly so many copies. As such, are the other writer's books really 'lesser achievements'? I think you are using a 'neutral market forces' argument here that you might not use in other situations, given that you probably accept that market forces in the USA are generally not especially race-neutral phenomena.

Does DiAngelo believe a multitude of factors lead to disparate outcomes between women of different races (Intersectional Feminism), or does she see Racism in more simple terms?

I'm not sure of her exact views on Feminism, but on race she has said:

1. Racism is the foundation of Western society; we are socialized into a racial hierarchy
2. All of us are shaped by the forces of racism; no one is exempt
3. All white people benefit from the racial hierarchy, regardless of intentions
4. No one chose to be socialized into racism (so no one is “bad”)
5. Racism must be continually identified, analyzed and challenged; no one is ever done
6. The question is not if racism is at play, but how is it at play?
7. The racial hierarchy is invisible and taken for granted for most white people

https://www.robindiangelo.com/services/



From what I can gather, DiAngelo has arguably been at least a little bit remiss or inconsistent here, measured by her own high standards (which is an important caveat, because we are not talking about 'the average white person in the street' here, we're talking about someone who has become very successful indeed on the back of making certain pronouncements and advocations). Would you disagree (with me, ignoring metaphor)?

 

[Arctish]

.....would DiAngelo following Metaphor's suggestion to publicly bestow money on the other author as a way to atone for benefiting from racism, be in opposition to DiAngelo's views or in accordance with them?

I doubt there is/was anything as explicit as that from her prior to this. Nor is 'publicly bestowing money' after the event, necessarily the only option for her (though I do realise you are referring to a suggestion at least along those lines or similar by metaphor).

This is the nearest semi-relevant prior comment I've seen, from a 2018 interview:

Interviewer: WE SHOULD MAYBE TALK ABOUT THE POWER DYNAMICS OF THIS EXCHANGE. WE ARE TWO WHITE WOMEN TALKING ABOUT RACISM. DO YOU SEE ANY PARTICULAR VALUE IN THAT?

DiAngelo: I think it is a critical part of the process. Because of the nature of implicit bias, white people are generally a little more open to hearing about it from other white people. You don't automatically assume I'm biased, oversensitive, or playing the race card. And there's another important reason to do this, which is that we don't want our learning to be at the expense of people of color. Now, there are many people of color who do this, who write and speak, and who present, and who expect to be paid for that, and should be. The average person of color should not be put on the spot to bear that burden.

(my bold)

Why Are White Women So Terrified Of Being Called Racist?
https://www.elle.com/culture/career...te-women-so-terrified-of-being-called-racist/

Thanks for posting that. It's always better to see someone's actual words in context when trying to suss out their meaning.

Bear in mind that we are not (I hope) limiting ourselves to countering metaphor here. Metaphor's criticisms are a little bit myopic.

(my bold)

Personally, I think there is not much doubt that DiAngelo's book, or a similar one (not necessarily aimed at white people), if written by a black person, probably would not have sold nearly so many copies. As such, are the other writer's books really 'lesser achievements'? I think you are using a 'neutral market forces' argument here that you might not use in other situations, given that you probably accept that market forces in the USA are not especially race-neutral.

I agree that a book like DiAngelo's, if written by a black person, probably would not have sold nearly so many copies. But that doesn't mean we can simply assume the reason Brown's book sales didn't equal DiAngelo's is racism. Her book, being a memior, might have been less appealing to men. It might not have been perceived as 'helpful' in 2020 the way DiAngelo's was, and so got pushed down further on people's "want to read" list. Brown might not be quite as good a writer as DiAngelo. Her book might be a lesser achievement in the way that winning a Division title is a lesser achievement than winning the World Series.

Does DiAngelo believe a multitude of factors lead to disparate outcomes between women of different races (Intersectional Feminism), or does she see Racism in more simple terms?

I'm not sure of her exact views on feminism, but on race she has said:

1. Racism is the foundation of Western society; we are socialized into a racial hierarchy
2. All of us are shaped by the forces of racism; no one is exempt
3. All white people benefit from the racial hierarchy, regardless of intentions
4. No one chose to be socialized into racism (so no one is “bad”)
5. Racism must be continually identified, analyzed and challenged; no one is ever done
6. The question is not if racism is at play, but how is it at play?
7. The racial hierarchy is invisible and taken for granted for most white people

https://www.robindiangelo.com/services/

From what I can gather, DiAngelo has arguably been at least a little bit remiss here, measured by her own high standards. Would you disagree?

It depends on how much control she has over things like the fees her agent negotiates for her, and the fees that will be paid to other people appearing at the same event. Literary rock stars like Susan Collins, Neil Gaiman, and J. K. Rowling probably could dictate terms like that, but DiAngelo is no where near their level. I'm not sure what she can do about it other than take note and maybe raise an objection on Brown's behalf.

I think as long as she was mindful of the points on that list and is making a genuine effort to understand how much racism played a part in the difference in fees, then she practices what she preaches. If she incorporates what she's learned into future presentations and pressures institutions to eliminate pay disparities rooted in racism, even better.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm not sure of her exact views on Feminism, but on race she has said:

1. Racism is the foundation of Western society; we are socialized into a racial hierarchy
2. All of us are shaped by the forces of racism; no one is exempt
3. All white people benefit from the racial hierarchy, regardless of intentions
4. No one chose to be socialized into racism (so no one is “bad”)
5. Racism must be continually identified, analyzed and challenged; no one is ever done
6. The question is not if racism is at play, but how is it at play?
7. The racial hierarchy is invisible and taken for granted for most white people

https://www.robindiangelo.com/services/

https://www.robindiangelo.com/services/

I already posted this earlier in the thread.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm not sure what she can do about it other than take note and maybe raise an objection on Brown's behalf.

I wouldn't even think the latter is necessary. If she has read the criticisms and herself accepts them, even to an extent, that would be enough, imo. Possibly she may publicly comment along those lines. Or, she may fully defend herself, but I'm not sure how. Or just say nothing. I can't imagine that no one has made her aware of the reports. In any case, the episode is a bit of a mountain being made out of a molehill, imo. I think her track record speaks for itself regarding the well-meaningness of her intentions, and if she fails to be perfect, I think that's something that the rest of us in our glass houses shouldn't throw big stones about. Also, if she wanted to get very rich indeed (which I think she has done) that's a slightly separate issue, at least in some ways, but it doesn't help her image when it's linked to things like the OP. In general terms, she has either deliberately cashed in (which I sort of doubt, given her personal history) or accidentally/fortunately caught a big woke* wave. Or maybe it's a bit of both.

I'm not saying I agree with her whole thesis or approach, but as I've said, I'm good with identifying a phenomenon that can be called White Fragility.

Since the book apparently stayed at the top of the NYT bestsellers list for over a year, it would presumably be possible to read online reviews from purchasers, and perhaps many of them are more positive than negative. I doubt all the white readers who enjoyed the book are merely self-flagellating.

* not automatically or necessarily a pejorative term, imo.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, I am not an expert on Ms. DiAnglo's views. Frankly, I don't have time for minor views and theories.

So... I understand the compulsion to oppose anything Met writes...

I suggest you read responses - I am simply pointing out there may be another reasonable explanation other than hypocrisy. I am tired of people confusing hyperbole and pedantry with reasonableness. I don't care if someone thinks I have "white fragility" or that I (or every white person) is inherently racist because the term "racist" has so little meaning now.

I get you, LD. What I'm trying to get across here is that by DiAngelo's own teachings - the things she charges other people a lot of money to lecture them about - there IS no other explanation that hypocrisy. By her own philosophy, she is colluding with racism by failing to address the pay disparity as soon as it was brought to her attention. By the things that she actively teaches and berates other people for... there is no other acceptable explanation.

It really is a case of gross hypocrisy by her own metric of it.

 

[Emily Lake]

Here's an interesting review of the book, as well as DiAngelo's entire premise, written by a black man.

The Dehumanizing Condescension of White Fragility
The popular book aims to combat racism but talks down to Black people.

White Fragility is, in the end, a book about how to make certain educated white readers feel better about themselves. DiAngelo’s outlook rests upon a depiction of Black people as endlessly delicate poster children within this self-gratifying fantasy about how white America needs to think—or, better, stop thinking. Her answer to white fragility, in other words, entails an elaborate and pitilessly dehumanizing condescension toward Black people. The sad truth is that anyone falling under the sway of this blinkered, self-satisfied, punitive stunt of a primer has been taught, by a well-intentioned but tragically misguided pastor, how to be racist in a whole new way.

Did you read her book or articles, or see the text of her presentations yourself? If so, you're probably the only one here who can answer my question: would DiAngelo following Metaphor's suggestion to publicly bestow money on the other author as a way to atone for benefiting from racism, be in opposition to DiAngelo's views or in accordance with them?

By her own philosophy, she should either bestow the difference in pay herself, or she should be lobbying the school to pay the other speaker as much as she made.

Would she be neutralizing the effects of racism or displaying "dehumanizing condescension toward Black people" she's accused of harboring in the linked article? Because bestowing money on a black female author whose book didn't sell as well as hers and hasn't made as much of a name for herself, implies she thinks we have to reward black people for lesser achievements because we simply can't expect them to do as well as whites. That can be construed as condescending. It can also be considered pragmatic.

You're kind of inherently assuming that her philosophy is rational and internally consistent... which it isn't. I'm certain that if she were observing this from her high-horse, she would insist that the black author's book didn't sell as well because of the racism of white people who are keeping her down, and that it's white people's fault for having so much whiteness... and that if the speaker were someone other than her, she would be berating them for not actively addressing the problem. By her own philosophy, staying silent is just as bad as actively discriminating personally.

Does DiAngelo believe a multitude of factors lead to disparate outcomes between women of different races (Intersectional Feminism), or does she see Racism in more simple terms?

She sees racism in ultra simplistic terms. Like I said, it's idiotic, and insulting to pretty much everyone of every race. Here entire premise is pretty horrid.

 

[laughing dog]

I suggest you read responses - I am simply pointing out there may be another reasonable explanation other than hypocrisy. I am tired of people confusing hyperbole and pedantry with reasonableness. I don't care if someone thinks I have "white fragility" or that I (or every white person) is inherently racist because the term "racist" has so little meaning now.

I get you, LD. What I'm trying to get across here is that by DiAngelo's own teachings - the things she charges other people a lot of money to lecture them about - there IS no other explanation that hypocrisy. By her own philosophy, she is colluding with racism by failing to address the pay disparity as soon as it was brought to her attention. By the things that she actively teaches and berates other people for... there is no other acceptable explanation.

It really is a case of gross hypocrisy by her own metric of it.

Not if it is due to a lapse in judgment. It is quite possible Ms. DiAngelo did not foresee such an outcome and so did not act to prevent it. It is a rare person who anticipates everything that may happen.

As for an after the fact rectification of the pay gap, no one here has a clue what (if anything) is happening or has happened.

 

[Jarhyn]

I suggest you read responses - I am simply pointing out there may be another reasonable explanation other than hypocrisy. I am tired of people confusing hyperbole and pedantry with reasonableness. I don't care if someone thinks I have "white fragility" or that I (or every white person) is inherently racist because the term "racist" has so little meaning now.

I get you, LD. What I'm trying to get across here is that by DiAngelo's own teachings - the things she charges other people a lot of money to lecture them about - there IS no other explanation that hypocrisy. By her own philosophy, she is colluding with racism by failing to address the pay disparity as soon as it was brought to her attention. By the things that she actively teaches and berates other people for... there is no other acceptable explanation.

It really is a case of gross hypocrisy by her own metric of it.

Not if it is due to a lapse in judgment. It is quite possible Ms. DiAngelo did not foresee such an outcome and so did not act to prevent it. It is a rare person who anticipates everything that may happen.

As for an after the fact rectification of the pay gap, no one here has a clue what (if anything) is happening or has happened.

And you can sure as shit bet that the right wing rag that ran with the hit piece didn't do due diligence to find out.

 

[Emily Lake]

I suggest you read responses - I am simply pointing out there may be another reasonable explanation other than hypocrisy. I am tired of people confusing hyperbole and pedantry with reasonableness. I don't care if someone thinks I have "white fragility" or that I (or every white person) is inherently racist because the term "racist" has so little meaning now.

I get you, LD. What I'm trying to get across here is that by DiAngelo's own teachings - the things she charges other people a lot of money to lecture them about - there IS no other explanation that hypocrisy. By her own philosophy, she is colluding with racism by failing to address the pay disparity as soon as it was brought to her attention. By the things that she actively teaches and berates other people for... there is no other acceptable explanation.

It really is a case of gross hypocrisy by her own metric of it.

Not if it is due to a lapse in judgment. It is quite possible Ms. DiAngelo did not foresee such an outcome and so did not act to prevent it. It is a rare person who anticipates everything that may happen.

As for an after the fact rectification of the pay gap, no one here has a clue what (if anything) is happening or has happened.

Her own purported view, the one she lectures other people about, is that staying silent is equivalent to active racist collusion. By her own philosophy, she should be speaking out and making a statement. Her failure to do so, her silence on the issue, shows her to be actively engaging in white supremacy by her own logic.

 

[jab]

And I don't value your opinion about 'balanced opinions'.



I accept things based on evidence.

The second part makes no sense given that the first part says the opposite.

No. Perhaps I will make it a little easier for you.

Male Christian preacher: it is morally wrong for two men to have sex with each other.
Male Christian preacher has sex with another man.
Male Christian preacher is a hypocrite.

He is a hypocrite whether or not I accept that it is morally wrong for two men to have sex with each other.

Just like DiAngelo is a hypocrite whether or not I agree with her theories.

agreed: I am very tired of this bipartisan mode of when someone on our side does something which we would excoriate someone from an/the other side for doing, we extenuate, spin, deflect.

 

[ZiprHead]

So it seems to come down to, for me at least, the value of each speaker's worth to the audience at this conference.

One author has written three best selling books and has a PHD in the field of study of those books and has done research in that field of study and is a college professor in multi-cultural education.

The other author has written one best selling book, a memoir, inspired by the George Floyd protests. Has a B.A. in business management and an M.A. in social justice. Works as a media producer by trade.

The speaking engagement in question was created by the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Division of Diversity, Equity, and Educational Achievement. The Uni division's purpose, according their their website is "Under the direction of the Deputy Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Inclusion & Chief Diversity Officer, the Division of Diversity, Equity & Educational Achievement (DDEEA) supports the mission of the University of Wisconsin–Madison as it works to create a diverse, inclusive and excellent learning and work environment for all students, faculty, staff, alumni and partners at the university."

It seems quite clear to me that the first author's input into the UoW-M's mission would be far more valuable than the second author's.

This OP is a nothing burger.

 

[laughing dog]

Not if it is due to a lapse in judgment. It is quite possible Ms. DiAngelo did not foresee such an outcome and so did not act to prevent it. It is a rare person who anticipates everything that may happen.

As for an after the fact rectification of the pay gap, no one here has a clue what (if anything) is happening or has happened.

Her own purported view, the one she lectures other people about, is that staying silent is equivalent to active racist collusion. By her own philosophy, she should be speaking out and making a statement. Her failure to do so, her silence on the issue, shows her to be actively engaging in white supremacy by her own logic.

Your charge of hypocrisy is founded on a different basis than Metaphor's charge. From my inefficient internet skills, it does appear that Ms. DiAngelo or her employees have not done anything to address the situation. Doesn't mean that they have not done anything, but I could find no evidence.

Of course, it is possible that this pay gap is not viewed as the result of "racism".

 

[Jarhyn]

Not if it is due to a lapse in judgment. It is quite possible Ms. DiAngelo did not foresee such an outcome and so did not act to prevent it. It is a rare person who anticipates everything that may happen.

As for an after the fact rectification of the pay gap, no one here has a clue what (if anything) is happening or has happened.

Her own purported view, the one she lectures other people about, is that staying silent is equivalent to active racist collusion. By her own philosophy, she should be speaking out and making a statement. Her failure to do so, her silence on the issue, shows her to be actively engaging in white supremacy by her own logic.

Your charge of hypocrisy is founded on a different basis than Metaphor's charge. From my inefficient internet skills, it does appear that Ms. DiAngelo or her employees have not done anything to address the situation. Doesn't mean that they have not done anything, but I could find no evidence.

Of course, it is possible that this pay gap is not viewed as the result of "racism".

In credentials, on resume alone, I would offer the former a bigger ticket, in Ziprhead's description. Note, he didn't mention race at all there.

 

[Metaphor]

Not if it is due to a lapse in judgment. It is quite possible Ms. DiAngelo did not foresee such an outcome and so did not act to prevent it. It is a rare person who anticipates everything that may happen.

As for an after the fact rectification of the pay gap, no one here has a clue what (if anything) is happening or has happened.

Her own purported view, the one she lectures other people about, is that staying silent is equivalent to active racist collusion. By her own philosophy, she should be speaking out and making a statement. Her failure to do so, her silence on the issue, shows her to be actively engaging in white supremacy by her own logic.

Your charge of hypocrisy is founded on a different basis than Metaphor's charge. From my inefficient internet skills, it does appear that Ms. DiAngelo or her employees have not done anything to address the situation. Doesn't mean that they have not done anything, but I could find no evidence.

Of course, it is possible that this pay gap is not viewed as the result of "racism".

Excuse me, what? My charge of racism is on the exact same basis that Emily has explicated in previous posts. Emily has articulated another, additional basis - that quietly making restitution would not be sufficient.