• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

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

This is a situation that I find rather confusing. I get that a whole lot of it is nothing more than knee-jerk opposition to whatever Met says. But step back for a moment and think about this: you, LD, Jarhyn, and several others in this thread have straight up said you don't know anything about DiAngelo or her work or her philosophy. You haven't gone and looked into it to form your own opinion, and seem to have no intention of doing so.
I am confident in my opinion that it is possible that her negligence on the prevention of the gap is due to human fallibility not hypocrisy. Being intimate or ignorant of her views has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

Frankly, anyone who seriously claims (as opposed to hyperbole) that all interactions are racist is too far gone to bother with. Anyone who seriously claims that blacks cannot afford to believe in meritocracy is too far gone to bother with - even within the black community, there is an observable meritocracy.

Sure, it's possible that it's human fallibility. I'd give that a lot more credence and weight if she herself considered human fallibility an acceptable excuse in any situation... but she doesn't.

DiAngelo falls pretty firmly into your second paragraph. It's the combination of that outlook, paired with her lecturing that white people need to actively identify and call out and take direct action when there are inequities (because they're all caused by racism) that makes her lack of action in this case fall into the bucket of hypocrisy for me. It's that she makes a high-income living out of telling white people that they should be doing the thing that she herself did NOT do.
Well, that is a matter of opinion. According to her
“I read that you make $30,000 per speaking engagement”
The statement published in the Washington Free Beacon article that I make 30k per engagement is enormously misleading. Fees are rarely fixed; they rise and fall based on the type of organization and fluctuations in demand. My fee is on a sliding scale; I am paid more by corporate orgs, and much less by non-profits, particularly non-profits that are focused on anti-racist work and/or are BIPOC-led. I also do a lot of reduced-rate, pro bono, and fundraising work. My average fee for an event in 2018 was $6,200. In 2019, it was $9,200. In 2020 (as of August), it has been $14,000. My fees are now negotiated by the agency that books me, and they take a percentage of the fees they negotiate. And again, I am donating 15% of my income.
I am an independent contractor and not employed by any institution. I am taxed at a combined rate of 35% (Federal income tax, payroll taxes and State excise tax). This year thus far, with the popularity of my book and more work in the corporate sector, my fee has ranged from pro bono (zero) to upwards of $30,000, which is well within the standard range for a best-selling author who is in high demand. The higher fees allow me to donate more, do more pro bono work, and request that corporations who hire me donate to a racial justice organization led by people of Color. This is not to minimize my income but to provide some perspective.
Beacon Press, my publisher, is a non-profit press specializing in social justice books. My royalties on White Fragility are 7.5 percent (agents receive 15% of a book’s royalties).
These are, of course, uncomfortable questions to be asked. If I wrote about any other social phenomenon and did not include how racism shapes that phenomenon – which would be a serious omission reinforcing whiteness – I would likely not be asked what I do with my income. We might also ask the same questions of those who do not seek to challenge racism in their work.
(source: https://www.robindiangelo.com/accountability-statement).

And, I found this more interesting -
“Why did you change the information that was on the Accountability page of your website?”
I had listed out all the organizations that benefited financially from my fundraising and donations during 2019 and 2020, but the Washington Free Beacon journalist began to contact these organizations and ask them to verify my donations. I am a private citizen and organizations are not obligated to release who their donors are or how much they donate, and they declined to do so. Further, many of the donations from fund-raising events came through the sponsoring org – Education for Racial Equity – so my name would not be listed as the donor. Declining to reveal my name and amount of donations was used by this journalist to suggest that I was lying about my donations because organizations “did not confirm.”
Further, this journalist was contacting these organizations at the same time that my daughter and I were being doxed by the far-right. Her name, address and relation to me was published on Twitter and members of my family were being emailed and harassed. Pictures and stories about me taken from my husband’s personal website were being circulated. In a panic we removed any information that was open to trolling and harassment. My husband took his website down and made his IG private, and we took the names of organizations benefitting from my fundraising off my website. This level of visibility and the daily hate mail and physical threats that go with it are new to me and I am doing my best to respond with transparency while also keeping myself, my family, and the organizations associated with me safe. Unfortunately, the journalist framed this as “scrubbing” my website.
We have now made the information regarding donations available in the following ways: The list of organizations benefiting from funds raised from my public workshops is available on ERE’s website. The list of organizations to which I donate directly are listed above, in the “What do you do with your income?” section. It is up to readers whether they believe I would lie about this.
(source - same as above).

I guess I am more forgiving about human fallibility on non-lethal issues like these than some.
 
For funsies...

The following are the basics of how I seek to be accountable.
...
1. 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.

And...

“What do you do with your income?”
...
To this end, back to the beginning of 2020, I donate 15% of my income quarterly – in cash and in-kind donations – to racial justice organizations led by BIPOC people.

These are on the same page. The first is her outlining the very first item in a list of what white people can do to be anti-racist. We're supposed to give until we "feel it". The second is further down the page, where she's giving 15% of her enormous income in donations. I'm not convinced that she's "feeling it".

Hm. If it is in fact 15%, that's pretty good though. 15% of the $12,750 fee for the OP conference would be nearly $2000. If she's giving 15%, I'm impressed. I agree she's asking more of others, because she's unlikely to be 'feeling it' as much as someone who is merely "earning more than enough to meet their basic economic needs". But imo 15% is more than a decent amount to give away. It's half as much again as tithing. :)
 
Sure, it's possible that it's human fallibility. I'd give that a lot more credence and weight if she herself considered human fallibility an acceptable excuse in any situation... but she doesn't.

DiAngelo falls pretty firmly into your second paragraph. It's the combination of that outlook, paired with her lecturing that white people need to actively identify and call out and take direct action when there are inequities (because they're all caused by racism) that makes her lack of action in this case fall into the bucket of hypocrisy for me. It's that she makes a high-income living out of telling white people that they should be doing the thing that she herself did NOT do.
Well, that is a matter of opinion. According to her
“I read that you make $30,000 per speaking engagement”
The statement published in the Washington Free Beacon article that I make 30k per engagement is enormously misleading. Fees are rarely fixed; they rise and fall based on the type of organization and fluctuations in demand. My fee is on a sliding scale; I am paid more by corporate orgs, and much less by non-profits, particularly non-profits that are focused on anti-racist work and/or are BIPOC-led. I also do a lot of reduced-rate, pro bono, and fundraising work. My average fee for an event in 2018 was $6,200. In 2019, it was $9,200. In 2020 (as of August), it has been $14,000. My fees are now negotiated by the agency that books me, and they take a percentage of the fees they negotiate. And again, I am donating 15% of my income.
I am an independent contractor and not employed by any institution. I am taxed at a combined rate of 35% (Federal income tax, payroll taxes and State excise tax). This year thus far, with the popularity of my book and more work in the corporate sector, my fee has ranged from pro bono (zero) to upwards of $30,000, which is well within the standard range for a best-selling author who is in high demand. The higher fees allow me to donate more, do more pro bono work, and request that corporations who hire me donate to a racial justice organization led by people of Color. This is not to minimize my income but to provide some perspective.
Beacon Press, my publisher, is a non-profit press specializing in social justice books. My royalties on White Fragility are 7.5 percent (agents receive 15% of a book’s royalties).
These are, of course, uncomfortable questions to be asked. If I wrote about any other social phenomenon and did not include how racism shapes that phenomenon – which would be a serious omission reinforcing whiteness – I would likely not be asked what I do with my income. We might also ask the same questions of those who do not seek to challenge racism in their work.
(source: https://www.robindiangelo.com/accountability-statement).

And, I found this more interesting -
“Why did you change the information that was on the Accountability page of your website?”
I had listed out all the organizations that benefited financially from my fundraising and donations during 2019 and 2020, but the Washington Free Beacon journalist began to contact these organizations and ask them to verify my donations. I am a private citizen and organizations are not obligated to release who their donors are or how much they donate, and they declined to do so. Further, many of the donations from fund-raising events came through the sponsoring org – Education for Racial Equity – so my name would not be listed as the donor. Declining to reveal my name and amount of donations was used by this journalist to suggest that I was lying about my donations because organizations “did not confirm.”
Further, this journalist was contacting these organizations at the same time that my daughter and I were being doxed by the far-right. Her name, address and relation to me was published on Twitter and members of my family were being emailed and harassed. Pictures and stories about me taken from my husband’s personal website were being circulated. In a panic we removed any information that was open to trolling and harassment. My husband took his website down and made his IG private, and we took the names of organizations benefitting from my fundraising off my website. This level of visibility and the daily hate mail and physical threats that go with it are new to me and I am doing my best to respond with transparency while also keeping myself, my family, and the organizations associated with me safe. Unfortunately, the journalist framed this as “scrubbing” my website.
We have now made the information regarding donations available in the following ways: The list of organizations benefiting from funds raised from my public workshops is available on ERE’s website. The list of organizations to which I donate directly are listed above, in the “What do you do with your income?” section. It is up to readers whether they believe I would lie about this.
(source - same as above).

I guess I am more forgiving about human fallibility on non-lethal issues like these than some.

I think if you are inclined to be critical of her, and/or you don't like the ideas involved, you can read that whole accountability statement (and other stuff by her) in a negative light, and if you are inclined towards her and the ideas in question, you can read it in a positive light.

Maybe she's just complicated.
 
Jarhyn's already shown quite well that the quote doesn't mean what both you and metaphor think it means.

You seem to know DiAngelo's work. Personally I've never heard of her before. So far, the case you and metaphor have provided here has come up short. Perhaps you can provide a better quote?

This is a situation that I find rather confusing. I get that a whole lot of it is nothing more than knee-jerk opposition to whatever Met says. But step back for a moment and think about this: you, LD, Jarhyn, and several others in this thread have straight up said you don't know anything about DiAngelo or her work or her philosophy. You haven't gone and looked into it to form your own opinion, and seem to have no intention of doing so.

Yet you're still extremely confident that you are absolutely correct to oppose what people who DO have familiarity with her work are saying of it?

I am only countering Metaphor's assertion that DiAngelo's acceptance of her pay for a speaking gig while another speaker was paid less is hypocritical. I explained why it may be not by posting her bona fides in comparison to the other speaker's and also how much better it fit into the mission statement of the organization that arranged the conference. Something you did not address also.

The only proof having been supplied is a statement from DiAngelo's website that, as Jarhyn pointed out, is not proof of her hypocrisy.

Instead of chastising us for not being aware of this person that most people never heard of, educate us with statements this person has made to support the argument she is a hypocrite. Frankly, Metaphor's continual stream of ott, hyperbolic screeds against anyone he doesn't like doesn't inspire confidence that he is right this time. Body of work and all that.
 
This is a situation that I find rather confusing. I get that a whole lot of it is nothing more than knee-jerk opposition to whatever Met says. But step back for a moment and think about this: you, LD, Jarhyn, and several others in this thread have straight up said you don't know anything about DiAngelo or her work or her philosophy. You haven't gone and looked into it to form your own opinion, and seem to have no intention of doing so.
I am confident in my opinion that it is possible that her negligence on the prevention of the gap is due to human fallibility not hypocrisy. Being intimate or ignorant of her views has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

Frankly, anyone who seriously claims (as opposed to hyperbole) that all interactions are racist is too far gone to bother with. Anyone who seriously claims that blacks cannot afford to believe in meritocracy is too far gone to bother with - even within the black community, there is an observable meritocracy.

Sure, it's possible that it's human fallibility. I'd give that a lot more credence and weight if she herself considered human fallibility an acceptable excuse in any situation... but she doesn't.

DiAngelo falls pretty firmly into your second paragraph. It's the combination of that outlook, paired with her lecturing that white people need to actively identify and call out and take direct action when there are inequities (because they're all caused by racism) that makes her lack of action in this case fall into the bucket of hypocrisy for me. It's that she makes a high-income living out of telling white people that they should be doing the thing that she herself did NOT do.

both racism and hypocrisy are human fallibilities. . .
 
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'?

Clear evidence that she still needs to work non her subconsciously entrenched sense of white privilege.
 
Clear evidence that she still needs to work on her subconsciously entrenched sense of white privilege.

It would seem so. And I am sure the same could be said of me. And in her defence, in her writings and statements, she is at pains to include herself. The subject matter is marshy ground for white people. In fact, it's a marshy minefield, even for the well-intentioned. :)

I do not know if she is being disingenuous. It's possible, but I'm more inclined to think 'over-zealous', which is not as damning. Also, it's possible that at some point, she realised 'this will sell bucketloads of books and I will be rich and famous'. If so, one only hopes that that has not had an undue influence on what she says and writes.
 
Jarhyn's already shown quite well that the quote doesn't mean what both you and metaphor think it means.

You seem to know DiAngelo's work. Personally I've never heard of her before. So far, the case you and metaphor have provided here has come up short. Perhaps you can provide a better quote?

This is a situation that I find rather confusing. I get that a whole lot of it is nothing more than knee-jerk opposition to whatever Met says. But step back for a moment and think about this: you, LD, Jarhyn, and several others in this thread have straight up said you don't know anything about DiAngelo or her work or her philosophy. You haven't gone and looked into it to form your own opinion, and seem to have no intention of doing so.

Yet you're still extremely confident that you are absolutely correct to oppose what people who DO have familiarity with her work are saying of it?

I am only countering Metaphor's assertion that DiAngelo's acceptance of her pay for a speaking gig while another speaker was paid less is hypocritical. I explained why it may be not by posting her bona fides in comparison to the other speaker's and also how much better it fit into the mission statement of the organization that arranged the conference. Something you did not address also.

The only proof having been supplied is a statement from DiAngelo's website that, as Jarhyn pointed out, is not proof of her hypocrisy.

Instead of chastising us for not being aware of this person that most people never heard of, educate us with statements this person has made to support the argument she is a hypocrite. Frankly, Metaphor's continual stream of ott, hyperbolic screeds against anyone he doesn't like doesn't inspire confidence that he is right this time. Body of work and all that.

Pretty much. Like, I have been doing my best to learn how to communicate that (someone being a hypocrite) doesn't mean (something that person wrote is untrue).

She can BE a hypocrite. But I don't think she is, at least not from this. She's also, like "SUPER EXTRA".

I don't think, for example, that the HP books are bad. Or the fantastic beasts movies... Sure, the author is an "I'm not a transexclusionist but.. ", but that doesn't make her words any less enjoyable, her blog bullshit notwithstanding, nor would the words of DiAngelo be any more or less false were she tomorrow to go out, throw on a SS Luftwaffe uniform, and start trying to load gay people onto trains so they can go to camp and take some showers.

Rather, I think first of all, that if Metaphor wishes to say anything about what DiAngelo has to write, he should criticise it directly, rather than coming at it from a very NOT rational direction of Ad-Hom attacks. Then, though, he would have to defend his hate of her words without using appeals to fallacy. I tried doing that for a number of years with my own views, defending them without respecting to fallacy, and, well, this is where I ended up: on the left.
 

I'll just leave you to your own humiliation.


Indeed. I'm devastated that an obviously right-wing site was exposed as right wing. In fact, I'm starting to think Robin DiAngelo doesn't exist at all; that she's a deepfake cooked up by a shadowy cabal as an extreme parody of the left.
 
I've so far only listened to/watched the first 15 minutes of that, and already I think she's overstating. For example, she feels that racially progressive whites do the most daily damage to the lives of people of colour. I could accept that such people are often not as progressive as they think they/we are and that they/we could examine their/our attitudes and behaviours (and indeed the wider, subtle, even covert social aspects of racism and their/our complicity with them) more, but to say that they are the chief culprits seems too much.

Also, the....caricature (it seems to me) that she describes early in the talk, of a white person entering a diversity workshop already angry at even the suggestion that they have anything to learn or to acknowledge, and as DiAngelo puts it 'slamming their notebooks down on the table' before the workshop has even begun, while I'm sure this happens, I would be surprised if it was the norm, albeit it may be more common in certain places compared to others in the USA. Perhaps the USA is different to here, because of the racial history and the ongoing segregation in many parts of the country. But the UK is not so different in those terms. So, I feel she may be overstating the extent of White Fragility itself. If she had been describing the 1950s, 60s or 70s it would feel more plausible. It does not describe the white Americans I know or have met personally, but that is a very small sample. But it does not seem to tally with the impressions I get from watching or listening from afar either. I would be surprised if it were a characterisation of modern American whites deserving of the degree of widespread generality she ascribes it. I'm not saying it's uncommon, and obviously, it came to the fore (as I see it) during what I would call the Trump Phenomenon, but still, surely it does a disservice. I think this is borne out in the remarks about progressives specifically that I mentioned above, that despite being at least comparatively progressive, they do the most damage.
 
Broadly speaking, as I understand it (from what I've read and heard by him) that the key explanation for (at least a good deal of) the extant racial inequalities we see, in somewhere like the USA, is.......blacks themselves (and in particular their sense of victimhood, which holds them back).

I've been saying this for years--so long as they think of themselves as victims they won't see the internal failings that are actually keeping them back.

(This is not to say that blacks are the only ones that suffer from this by any means.)
 
Broadly speaking, as I understand it (from what I've read and heard by him) that the key explanation for (at least a good deal of) the extant racial inequalities we see, in somewhere like the USA, is.......blacks themselves (and in particular their sense of victimhood, which holds them back).

I've been saying this for years--so long as they think of themselves as victims they won't see the internal failings that are actually keeping them back.

No kidding. You should make friends with John McWhorter, if you aren't already bosom buddies. :)

My view, as I've said, is that while that view may be true, it's only true up to a point. It's only one factor. The idea that whites are, also, at the same time, culpable or at least complicit, or at least in denial (eg about systemic racism), is also true, up to a point.

But correct me if I'm wrong, but you focus only on the former; the part where people of colour are to blame for their own problems.

Which is why I've always thought of your perspective as skewed.
 
Last edited:
Broadly speaking, as I understand it (from what I've read and heard by him) that the key explanation for (at least a good deal of) the extant racial inequalities we see, in somewhere like the USA, is.......blacks themselves (and in particular their sense of victimhood, which holds them back).

I've been saying this for years--so long as they think of themselves as victims they won't see the internal failings that are actually keeping them back.

No kidding. You should make friends with John McWhorter, if you aren't already bosom buddies. :)

My view, as I've said, is that while that view may be true, it's only true up to a point. It's only one factor. The idea that whites are, also, at the same time, culpable or at least complicit, or at least in denial (eg about systemic racism), is also true, up to a point.

But correct me if I'm wrong, but you focus only on the former; the part where people of colour are to blame for their own problems.

Which is why I've always thought of your perspective as skewed.

If there is that much systematic racism why do the researchers keep resorting to garbage research?
 
If there is that much systematic racism why do the researchers keep resorting to garbage research?

That's pathetic on every level. And false.

Nice strawman though, 'that much systematic racism'.

Loren, you're clearly a racism denialist, specifically via minimisation, and as such and for that reason, you are to some extent complicit in and an accessory to racism, even if you are not racist yourself.
 
Back
Top Bottom