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

[Metaphor]

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.

DiAngelo would say the fact that you are justifying the difference in pay with no reference to white privilege and racism is white privilege and racism. Only white people have the privilege of believing in a meritocracy.

Honestly it beggars belief posters to this thread have been so wilfully obtuse in missing the perspective of DiAngelo's own philosophy.

Again: for those playing at home, from DiAngelo:

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?”
The racial status quo is comfortable for most whites. Therefore, anything that maintains white comfort is suspect.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

And DiAngelo would say that's because white people have the luxury of thinking in terms of their own merit.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

You have said yourself you found no evidence that she addressed it after searching for evidence. If you were on the other side of this debate, this is where you'd say "there's no evidence she addressed it"; there's no good reason to believe she's addressed it.

I've been looking on DiAngelo's page to see if she's posted anything, especially on her "accountability" page. If she does I will certainly update this thread.

 

[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.

DiAngelo would say the fact that you are justifying the difference in pay with no reference to white privilege and racism is white privilege and racism. Only white people have the privilege of believing in a meritocracy.

Honestly it beggars belief posters to this thread have been so wilfully obtuse in missing the perspective of DiAngelo's own philosophy.

Again: for those playing at home, from DiAngelo:

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?”
The racial status quo is comfortable for most whites. Therefore, anything that maintains white comfort is suspect.

I don't think DiAngelo's quote means what you think it means.

 

[Jarhyn]

DiAngelo would say the fact that you are justifying the difference in pay with no reference to white privilege and racism is white privilege and racism. Only white people have the privilege of believing in a meritocracy.

Honestly it beggars belief posters to this thread have been so wilfully obtuse in missing the perspective of DiAngelo's own philosophy.

Again: for those playing at home, from DiAngelo:

I don't think DiAngelo's quote means what you think it means.

Yeah, like, suspect doesn't mean "damning" it means "I need to observe this with a critical eye, full of doubt".

Usually. It seems appropriate in context to that end.

 

[Metaphor]

DiAngelo would say the fact that you are justifying the difference in pay with no reference to white privilege and racism is white privilege and racism. Only white people have the privilege of believing in a meritocracy.

Honestly it beggars belief posters to this thread have been so wilfully obtuse in missing the perspective of DiAngelo's own philosophy.

Again: for those playing at home, from DiAngelo:

I don't think DiAngelo's quote means what you think it means.

DiAngelo should look for and find the racism and white privilege in that speaking engagement, according to her own philosophy. Racism and white privilege is proven by unequal outcomes between race.

 

[ZiprHead]

DiAngelo would say the fact that you are justifying the difference in pay with no reference to white privilege and racism is white privilege and racism. Only white people have the privilege of believing in a meritocracy.

Honestly it beggars belief posters to this thread have been so wilfully obtuse in missing the perspective of DiAngelo's own philosophy.

Again: for those playing at home, from DiAngelo:

I don't think DiAngelo's quote means what you think it means.

DiAngelo should look for and find the racism and white privilege in that speaking engagement, according to her own philosophy. Racism and white privilege is proven by unequal outcomes between race.

You're now saying there WAS racism and white privilege in that speaking engagement and DiAngelo failed to find it.

 

[Metaphor]

DiAngelo should look for and find the racism and white privilege in that speaking engagement, according to her own philosophy. Racism and white privilege is proven by unequal outcomes between race.

You're now saying there WAS racism and white privilege in that speaking engagement and DiAngelo failed to find it.

No. I'm saying according to the tenets of DiAngelo's philosophy there was.

Normies like yourself think that non-racist circumstances are sufficient to justify and explain DiAngelo's higher fee. But people who believe in critical race theory, like DiAngelo, should say you are mistaken. And that looking for a meritocratic reason is more evidence of white privilege.

 

[Trausti]

DiAngelo should look for and find the racism and white privilege in that speaking engagement, according to her own philosophy. Racism and white privilege is proven by unequal outcomes between race.

You're now saying there WAS racism and white privilege in that speaking engagement and DiAngelo failed to find it.

No. I'm saying according to the tenets of DiAngelo's philosophy there was.

Normies like yourself think that non-racist circumstances are sufficient to justify and explain DiAngelo's higher fee. But people who believe in critical race theory, like DiAngelo, should say you are mistaken. And that looking for a meritocratic reason is more evidence of white privilege.

Well, right. The “antiracist” incantation is that any disparity between races (except for professional sports) must be due to racism. Presenting a non-racial discriminatory explanation makes you a racist.

 

[ruby sparks]

"When we ask Black, Indigenous and Peoples of Color to join our committees, boards, advisory councils, organizations, and other groups in order to have “diversity,” we should actually pay them for their time and labor. If these positions are already paid positions, we should pay Black, Indigenous and Peoples of Color more for them".

https://www.robindiangelo.com/accountability-statement/

So. "More reimbursement, just for being black etc, except when I'm taking part".


Maybe I'm just....cynically British, or something, but I do raise my eyebrows a bit, just on principle, at self-made multi-millionaires who reportedly own 4 homes banging on about giving more to others.

"Donate a percentage of your income to racial justice organizations led by BIPOC people. If you earn more than enough to meet your basic economic needs, strive to give until you can “feel it”. Your checkbook is a reflection of your antiracist commitment made tangible through directly addressing the unjust distribution of economic resources based on race".

That doesn't sound a million miles away from something akin to televangelism.

 

[ZiprHead]

DiAngelo should look for and find the racism and white privilege in that speaking engagement, according to her own philosophy. Racism and white privilege is proven by unequal outcomes between race.

You're now saying there WAS racism and white privilege in that speaking engagement and DiAngelo failed to find it.

No. I'm saying according to the tenets of DiAngelo's philosophy there was.

Citations? Because the quote you posted above doesn't cut it.

 

[ruby sparks]

One more small thing, and this is something that, after doing more googling, I can see that many of her critics comment on.

To say "When we ask Black, Indigenous and Peoples of Color to join our committees, boards, advisory councils, organizations, and other groups..." could been described as an example (others have been cited) of an odd way to frame things. 'We' 'ask' them to join 'our' groups. Do they not themselves apply to join or independently earn a place in these groups, that she calls 'ours'?

 

[Metaphor]

No. I'm saying according to the tenets of DiAngelo's philosophy there was.

Citations? Because the quote you posted above doesn't cut it.

If that is not sufficient for you, nothing will be.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Sure, Jan, whatever alleviates your anxiety.

 

[Emily Lake]

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".

Again, I suggest you go do some reading and digging in on the philosophy DiAngelo uses in her book and her lectures. DiAngelo's view does not leave room for this pay gap to be the result of anything other than racism.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

DiAngelo would say the fact that you are justifying the difference in pay with no reference to white privilege and racism is white privilege and racism. Only white people have the privilege of believing in a meritocracy.

Honestly it beggars belief posters to this thread have been so wilfully obtuse in missing the perspective of DiAngelo's own philosophy.

Again: for those playing at home, from DiAngelo:

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?”
The racial status quo is comfortable for most whites. Therefore, anything that maintains white comfort is suspect.

That's a pretty accurate assessment.

 

[laughing dog]

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".

Again, I suggest you go do some reading and digging in on the philosophy DiAngelo uses in her book and her lectures.

No, thanks. As I get older, I find that life is too short to deal with such vapid thinking.

DiAngelo's view does not leave room for this pay gap to be the result of anything other than racism.

If that is true, DiAngelo needs to see a very good ophthamologist because her view is severely limited in scope and depth.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't think DiAngelo's quote means what you think it means.

Having read some of her work, and having listened to and read transcripts of interviews with her... I'm pretty sure it means exactly what Metaphor thinks it means.

 

[Emily Lake]

"When we ask Black, Indigenous and Peoples of Color to join our committees, boards, advisory councils, organizations, and other groups in order to have “diversity,” we should actually pay them for their time and labor. If these positions are already paid positions, we should pay Black, Indigenous and Peoples of Color more for them".

https://www.robindiangelo.com/accountability-statement/

So. "More reimbursement, just for being black etc, except when I'm taking part".


Maybe I'm just....cynically British, or something, but I do raise my eyebrows a bit, just on principle, at self-made multi-millionaires who reportedly own 4 homes banging on about giving more to others.

"Donate a percentage of your income to racial justice organizations led by BIPOC people. If you earn more than enough to meet your basic economic needs, strive to give until you can “feel it”. Your checkbook is a reflection of your antiracist commitment made tangible through directly addressing the unjust distribution of economic resources based on race".

That doesn't sound a million miles away from something akin to televangelism.

This is one of those cases where looking at the portrayal of someone and saying "that sounds pretty crackpot, you must be reading it wrong" is way off base, because the portrayal of DiAngelo that Met has provided is actually a bit less crackpotty than I think she actually is.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, thanks. As I get older, I find that life is too short to deal with such vapid thinking.

If that is true, DiAngelo needs to see a very good ophthamologist because her view is severely limited in scope and depth.

Her view, as far as I can tell, is that of severe myopia with extreme astigmatism, cataracts, and an as-yet-unidentified form of synesthesia.

Honestly, I'm not going to judge you if you don't dig in on her work - it will make you dumber and you can't get back either that time or those brain cells. In this case, however, it's probably worthwhile to let Met take the W on this topic, because he's actually not wrong.

On the other hand, some of her stuff is so incoherently bizarre that I end up giggling:

I make my living from my long term work in antiracist education. I would offer that those who do not make their living from antiracist work are financially benefitting from systemic racism.

This is her counterargument to the fact that she makes a LOT of money as a white person, lecturing about antiracism... and how racist white people are. It also seems to be her rationalization for why she doesn't donate her earnings until it "hurts", despite that being her explicit recommendation for something white people need to do in order to alleviate their white supremacist ways.