Are colour and gender 'blindness' the best policies?

[Trausti]

 

[ruby sparks]

A study which suggests one possible downside of 'going colourblind' (in terms of acknowledgement of race as a factor, particularly in the sphere of educating young people):

"Despite receiving little empirical assessment, the color-blind approach to managing diversity has become a leading institutional
strategy for promoting racial equality, across domains and scales of practice. We gauged the utility of color blindness as a means
to eliminating future racial inequity—its central objective—by assessing its impact on a sample of elementary-school students.
Results demonstrated that students exposed to a color-blind mind-set, as opposed to a value-diversity mind-set, were actually
less likely both to detect overt instances of racial discrimination and to describe such events in a manner that would prompt
intervention by certified teachers. Institutional messages of color blindness may therefore artificially depress formal reporting
of racial injustice. Color-blind messages may thus appear to function effectively on the surface even as they allow explicit forms
of bias to persist."

In Blind Pursuit of Racial Equality?
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6fb6/3f1603bbf7dabee27cab425c2eedb2718114.pdf

In other words, it may be the case that psychologically, trying to be blind to race can mean becoming blind to racism as well.

That is stupid and doesn't speak to real strategic neutrality with regards to race. Instead, it just would teach them to be ignorant of their own internal bias rather than teaching them to actively mitigate it.

Color blind policy isn't to be blind to cultural messaging and implied racism. It is to make those who make decisions *literally* blind to the race of the evaluee

I don't agree it's stupid. It's another, related aspect of the colourblindness issue, that's all. In this case it's partly to do with the (often aired here) normative that people should treat other people as individuals and not as members of a race. Also, part of the problem with AA (for example) are the adverse reactions it generates (and furthermore, adverse reactions to AA have been correlated with having racist tendencies) so in the real world, if people are ignorant of their own internal bias and do not see overt racism, or indeed are racist, that feeds in as a relevant factor in the debate about the pros and cons of formal AA policies. Therefore attitudes are not irrelevant.

 

[Jarhyn]

A study which suggests one possible downside of 'going colourblind' (in terms of acknowledgement of race as a factor, particularly in the sphere of educating young people):

"Despite receiving little empirical assessment, the color-blind approach to managing diversity has become a leading institutional
strategy for promoting racial equality, across domains and scales of practice. We gauged the utility of color blindness as a means
to eliminating future racial inequity—its central objective—by assessing its impact on a sample of elementary-school students.
Results demonstrated that students exposed to a color-blind mind-set, as opposed to a value-diversity mind-set, were actually
less likely both to detect overt instances of racial discrimination and to describe such events in a manner that would prompt
intervention by certified teachers. Institutional messages of color blindness may therefore artificially depress formal reporting
of racial injustice. Color-blind messages may thus appear to function effectively on the surface even as they allow explicit forms
of bias to persist."

In Blind Pursuit of Racial Equality?
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6fb6/3f1603bbf7dabee27cab425c2eedb2718114.pdf

In other words, it may be the case that psychologically, trying to be blind to race can mean becoming blind to racism as well.

That is stupid and doesn't speak to real strategic neutrality with regards to race. Instead, it just would teach them to be ignorant of their own internal bias rather than teaching them to actively mitigate it.

Color blind policy isn't to be blind to cultural messaging and implied racism. It is to make those who make decisions *literally* blind to the race of the evaluee

I don't agree it's stupid. It's another, related aspect of the colourblindness issue, that's all. In this case it's partly to do with the (often aired here) normative that people should treat other people as individuals and not as members of a race. Also, part of the problem with AA (for example) are the adverse reactions it generates (and furthermore, adverse reactions to AA have been correlated with having racist tendencies) so in the real world, if people are ignorant of their own internal bias and do not see overt racism, or indeed are racist, that feeds in as a relevant factor in the debate about the pros and cons of formal AA policies. Therefore attitudes are not irrelevant.

No it isn't related to that normative view, because it takes a position that people CAN without any mitigating system, achieve that neutrality.

It is not that attitudes are irrelevant, but rather that it's painfully easy to see that the color-blindness in this "study" isn't about becoming or even encouraging actual color-blindness. It's more color-vision while pretending to be color blind.

To be color-blind, you have to actuallh, literally be blind to color. That isn't possible without either gougung out some eyes, or by withholding the information through systemic means. Calling anything else "colorblind" is a sham and needs to be stamped out with prejudice.

Most people who talk about this may have some pie in the sky romantic hope that they can teach kids to not be racist amid a cultural storm of racially charged messages, some overt but most bearly invisible with how seemlessly they are delivered. These people are naive. It is not to say that they are wrong about color blindness being a good policy, but rather they are wrong about the shape of color blindness in nature and how to achieve it.

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't agree it's stupid. It's another, related aspect of the colourblindness issue, that's all. In this case it's partly to do with the (often aired here) normative that people should treat other people as individuals and not as members of a race. Also, part of the problem with AA (for example) are the adverse reactions it generates (and furthermore, adverse reactions to AA have been correlated with having racist tendencies) so in the real world, if people are ignorant of their own internal bias and do not see overt racism, or indeed are racist, that feeds in as a relevant factor in the debate about the pros and cons of formal AA policies. Therefore attitudes are not irrelevant.

No it isn't related to that normative view, because it takes a position that people CAN without any mitigating system, achieve that neutrality.

It is not that attitudes are irrelevant, but rather that it's painfully easy to see that the color-blindness in this "study" isn't about becoming or even encouraging actual color-blindness. It's more color-vision while pretending to be color blind.

To be color-blind, you have to actuallh, literally be blind to color. That isn't possible without either gougung out some eyes, or by withholding the information through systemic means. Calling anything else "colorblind" is a sham and needs to be stamped out with prejudice

Yeah, but what that study seems to suggest is that trying to be colourblind, by encouraging a psychologically colourblind paradigm that de-emphasises racial differences (which of course doesn't mean 'actually going colourblind') has the adverse effect of reducing the noticing of overt racism.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't agree it's stupid. It's another, related aspect of the colourblindness issue, that's all. In this case it's partly to do with the (often aired here) normative that people should treat other people as individuals and not as members of a race. Also, part of the problem with AA (for example) are the adverse reactions it generates (and furthermore, adverse reactions to AA have been correlated with having racist tendencies) so in the real world, if people are ignorant of their own internal bias and do not see overt racism, or indeed are racist, that feeds in as a relevant factor in the debate about the pros and cons of formal AA policies. Therefore attitudes are not irrelevant.

No it isn't related to that normative view, because it takes a position that people CAN without any mitigating system, achieve that neutrality.

It is not that attitudes are irrelevant, but rather that it's painfully easy to see that the color-blindness in this "study" isn't about becoming or even encouraging actual color-blindness. It's more color-vision while pretending to be color blind.

To be color-blind, you have to actuallh, literally be blind to color. That isn't possible without either gougung out some eyes, or by withholding the information through systemic means. Calling anything else "colorblind" is a sham and needs to be stamped out with prejudice

Yeah, but what that study seems to suggest is that trying to be colourblind, by encouraging a psychologically colourblind paradigm that de-emphasises racial differences (which of course doesn't mean 'actually going colourblind') has the adverse effect of reducing the noticing of overt racism.

And my point is that this isn't a realistic way to be color-blind in the first place, isn't what people here arguing for colorblind policy are arguing for, and so doesn't speak to what the advocates for color blindness here actually advocate for. It is attacking a straw-man

 

[ruby sparks]

Here is a very thorough critique of the (apparently famous) pro-affirmative action book, 'The Shape of the River'. The critique is pretty damning, and not having read the book I have no idea how fair or alternatively how biased the criticisms are. But, I did like how detailed the analysis was and in terms of my stated preferences for facts, data and evidence, it hit the mark quite well, and added to my inclinationt oneas towards thinking that AA on race grounds may not be such a good thing in practice despite its good intentions:

The Changing Shape of the River
Affirmative Action and Recent Social Science Research
https://www.nas.org/images/documents/report_the_changing_shape_of_the_river.pdf

Well worth reading, imo.

In my opinion, if one has no idea what someone else is critiquing, it is pretty hard to take a recommondation about a critique seriously.

I disagree. That one hasn't read the book is, as I said, a caveat to be borne in mind. For example, if a critique says that a pro-AA treatise claims 'X is evidence that Y is happening' and if this is (as is the case here) something that is often suggested in pro-AA arguments, then so long as the critique addresses the claim it doesn't have to have been made in a particular book. Added to which I have no reason to think that the claims addressed in the critique are not in the book.

So, if a pro-AA claim is well-addressed in a critique, it can still validly add to an understanding of whether AA works or not.

The limitation of not being able to compare the original source to the critique of it is not insignificant, but it does not disqualify points made against AA if these are thoroughly dealt with.

So, if you want to 'critique the critique' then I suggest reading it first and responding to the content, which I'm guessing you haven't done. Which if true would have you contradicting your own point.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yeah, but what that study seems to suggest is that trying to be colourblind, by encouraging a psychologically colourblind paradigm that de-emphasises racial differences (which of course doesn't mean 'actually going colourblind') has the adverse effect of reducing the noticing of overt racism.

And my point is that this isn't a realistic way to be color-blind in the first place, isn't what people here arguing for colorblind policy are arguing for, and so doesn't speak to what the advocates for color blindness here actually advocate for. It is attacking a straw-man

Sure, but I specifically said that it is often argued here that people should aspire to be colourblind in their dealings with other people and that it is that aspect of colourblindness that I am thinking about with respect to that study. And also it is in any case related to the issue of formal AA policies, for reasons given, including that reactions to them, which involve perceptions and attitudes, can play a part in whether they are deemed acceptable and efficacious, or not.

For example, one type of anti-AA argument which features in the relevant literature is the claim that AA policies are not needed (nowadays) because there is no longer enough racism to justify them. Well, if the people who say that are saying it partly because they don't notice racism, then that's relevant.

 

[ruby sparks]

There's one very simple problem to "colorblind" and "genderblind" policy - they're necessarily fictional. An example is the disparity in maternal deaths - here's an article that begins with a story of Serena Williams(!) having to repeatedly demand proper treatment from her own doctor after giving birth, and then goes on to discuss the issue in depth, including links from ProPublica and the CDC. Devah Pager found that employers prefer white job applicants to black ones, even when the white applicant just served a year in prison on a felony, and the black applicant has a clean record, when controlling for height, build, dress, and behavior.

Ever wonder why you'd hear Rush Limbaugh, D'Souza, and the like howling about how Obama was here to take revenge for how black people had been treated? You really think the same governments that can't even train cops to not beat and shoot black people for ordinary behaviors is going to be able to pull off "colorblind" road repair, toxin cleanup, or fire department coverage? Do you think that a city like Ferguson would even *try*? The current president damn sure won't bother.

On another note, here's a guardian article on attempting *actual* blind hiring, based on how symphonies use screen to hide applicants from evaluators. I'll freely admit to knowing less about gender bias than racial bias (*much* less), but if you need the musician to be physically hidden to reduce gender bias, you're already saying that yeah, you're not "genderblind".

(and this isn't even going into LGBT people, where the US president, being an all-around bigot, has repeatedly and actively attempted to discriminate. You think other people aren't?)

Thanks for posting.

In light of the actually blind orchestra auditions, what would be your view of the merits and demerits of making other scenarios (such as college applications) similarly actually blind, given the differences between the two scenarios and the issues that are involved? Noting that I think this would not cater for criteria such as measures to counter socio-economic disadvantages and inequalities (unless that specific factor was not 'actually blinded' but everything else was).

 

[ZiprHead]

There's one very simple problem to "colorblind" and "genderblind" policy - they're necessarily fictional. An example is the disparity in maternal deaths - here's an article that begins with a story of Serena Williams(!) having to repeatedly demand proper treatment from her own doctor after giving birth, and then goes on to discuss the issue in depth, including links from ProPublica and the CDC. Devah Pager found that employers prefer white job applicants to black ones, even when the white applicant just served a year in prison on a felony, and the black applicant has a clean record, when controlling for height, build, dress, and behavior.

Ever wonder why you'd hear Rush Limbaugh, D'Souza, and the like howling about how Obama was here to take revenge for how black people had been treated? You really think the same governments that can't even train cops to not beat and shoot black people for ordinary behaviors is going to be able to pull off "colorblind" road repair, toxin cleanup, or fire department coverage? Do you think that a city like Ferguson would even *try*? The current president damn sure won't bother.

On another note, here's a guardian article on attempting *actual* blind hiring, based on how symphonies use screen to hide applicants from evaluators. I'll freely admit to knowing less about gender bias than racial bias (*much* less), but if you need the musician to be physically hidden to reduce gender bias, you're already saying that yeah, you're not "genderblind".

(and this isn't even going into LGBT people, where the US president, being an all-around bigot, has repeatedly and actively attempted to discriminate. You think other people aren't?)

Thanks for posting.

In light of the actually blind orchestra auditions, what would be your view of the merits and demerits of making other scenarios (such as college applications) similarly actually blind, given the differences between the two scenarios and the issues that are involved? Noting that I think this would not cater for criteria such as measures to counter socio-economic disadvantages and inequalities (unless that specific factor was not 'actually blinded' but everything else was).

Not sure that would be possible for college apps. Many organizations in the background would give clues to gener, ethnicity, etc. Boy Scouts, Girls Club memberships, for example.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah, but what that study seems to suggest is that trying to be colourblind, by encouraging a psychologically colourblind paradigm that de-emphasises racial differences (which of course doesn't mean 'actually going colourblind') has the adverse effect of reducing the noticing of overt racism.

And my point is that this isn't a realistic way to be color-blind in the first place, isn't what people here arguing for colorblind policy are arguing for, and so doesn't speak to what the advocates for color blindness here actually advocate for. It is attacking a straw-man

Sure, but I specifically said that it is often argued here that people should aspire to be colourblind in their dealings with other people and that it is that aspect of colourblindness that I am thinking about with respect to that study. And also it is in any case related to the issue of formal AA policies, for reasons given, including that reactions to them, which involve perceptions and attitudes, can play a part in whether they are deemed acceptable and efficacious, or not.

For example, one type of anti-AA argument which features in the relevant literature is the claim that AA policies are not needed (nowadays) because there is no longer enough racism to justify them. Well, if the people who say that are saying it partly because they don't notice racism, then that's relevant.

And my point is that there is a real way in the universe to BE colorblind (by gouging out one's eyes, metaphorically), and that being "colorblind" by claiming that you are magically immune to cultural momentum is not it.

We need to be clear that not noticing racism is not the same thing as not making REAL changes to prevent the inappropriate knowledge of race in the decision making process.

At any rate, you offered it as a criticism of being "colorblind". It isn't. It is merely a criticism of the wishy-washy low-effort people on both sides merely paying lipservice.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

For example, one type of anti-AA argument which features in the relevant literature is the claim that AA policies are not needed (nowadays) because there is no longer enough racism to justify them. Well, if the people who say that are saying it partly because they don't notice racism, then that's relevant.

One may ask: Does racism "justify" AA policies, or do AA policies "justify" racism? Or Both? Or Neither?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Not sure that would be possible for college apps. Many organizations in the background would give clues to gener, ethnicity, etc. Boy Scouts, Girls Club memberships, for example.

Why include Boy Scouts membership in a college application or leave it in one when evaluating people? The easy answer is to do it based on academic achievement. You can throw in economic status if you want too.

 

[Jarhyn]

There's one very simple problem to "colorblind" and "genderblind" policy - they're necessarily fictional. An example is the disparity in maternal deaths - here's an article that begins with a story of Serena Williams(!) having to repeatedly demand proper treatment from her own doctor after giving birth, and then goes on to discuss the issue in depth, including links from ProPublica and the CDC. Devah Pager found that employers prefer white job applicants to black ones, even when the white applicant just served a year in prison on a felony, and the black applicant has a clean record, when controlling for height, build, dress, and behavior.

Ever wonder why you'd hear Rush Limbaugh, D'Souza, and the like howling about how Obama was here to take revenge for how black people had been treated? You really think the same governments that can't even train cops to not beat and shoot black people for ordinary behaviors is going to be able to pull off "colorblind" road repair, toxin cleanup, or fire department coverage? Do you think that a city like Ferguson would even *try*? The current president damn sure won't bother.

On another note, here's a guardian article on attempting *actual* blind hiring, based on how symphonies use screen to hide applicants from evaluators. I'll freely admit to knowing less about gender bias than racial bias (*much* less), but if you need the musician to be physically hidden to reduce gender bias, you're already saying that yeah, you're not "genderblind".

(and this isn't even going into LGBT people, where the US president, being an all-around bigot, has repeatedly and actively attempted to discriminate. You think other people aren't?)

Thanks for posting.

In light of the actually blind orchestra auditions, what would be your view of the merits and demerits of making other scenarios (such as college applications) similarly actually blind, given the differences between the two scenarios and the issues that are involved? Noting that I think this would not cater for criteria such as measures to counter socio-economic disadvantages and inequalities (unless that specific factor was not 'actually blinded' but everything else was).

Not sure that would be possible for college apps. Many organizations in the background would give clues to gener, ethnicity, etc. Boy Scouts, Girls Club memberships, for example.

In these situations, this is more a failure of how we evaluate membership value. For instance, we could easily have state colleges sanitize (boy) or (girl) or (Woodland) or (black) scouts into merely "member of scouting organization". If it really needs validation, we can easily add a second layer to the process, where one layer validates claims and sanitizes the claim to neutrality, and the second layer has no access to specifics which could key the evaluators. In a real sense, it is more the participation and membership in student organizations, clubs, etc, and the fact that serious progress was made in those organizations than the specifics of the organization itself.

What we are asking for, in asking for being colorblind in policy, is to enforce the blind orchestra model everywhere across society where racism is currently an issue.

And as for interviews, I think the research is pretty conclusive on interviewing being an objectively terrible way to gauge fitness and ability anyway.

 

[ruby sparks]

And my point is that there is a real way in the universe to BE colorblind (by gouging out one's eyes, metaphorically), and that being "colorblind" by claiming that you are magically immune to cultural momentum is not it.

We need to be clear that not noticing racism is not the same thing as not making REAL changes to prevent the inappropriate knowledge of race in the decision making process.

Fine. I was not disagreeing with your point, only clarifying why I posted that study.

At any rate, you offered it as a criticism of being "colorblind". It isn't. It is merely a criticism of the wishy-washy low-effort people on both sides merely paying lipservice.

(my bold)

No I never said being blind. My exact words were:

A study which suggests one possible downside of 'going colourblind' (in terms of acknowledgement of race as a factor, particularly in the sphere of educating young people).....In other words, it may be the case that psychologically, trying to be blind to race can mean becoming blind to racism as well.

(my bold)

By which qualifying words (and inverted commas) I meant to indicate that I was not talking about the possibility of actually being or becoming fully colourblind, psychologically.

 

[ruby sparks]

Not sure that would be possible for college apps. Many organizations in the background would give clues to gener, ethnicity, etc. Boy Scouts, Girls Club memberships, for example.

Why include Boy Scouts membership in a college application or leave it in one when evaluating people? The easy answer is to do it based on academic achievement. You can throw in economic status if you want too.

Because there are many valid and relevant types of merit other than SAT or exam scores. Such as leadership abilities, motivations, social skills, confidence, ability to take initiative, ability to mix with diverse people, etc etc

My daughter, for example, went to the World Scout Jamboree in Japan as a troop leader while she was at secondary school, and included it in her Personal Statement for university applications. Also, my wife is a head careers teacher and advises students what to put in their applications to universities, and knows exactly what criteria universities apply and what qualities they look for, beyond exam scores.

 

[ruby sparks]

One may ask: Does racism "justify" AA policies, or do AA policies "justify" racism? Or Both? Or Neither?

Well, the critique of 'The Shape of the River' I posted had plenty of interesting evidence to offer about the question in bold (and made a case that AA can reinforce racism in some ways). I hope you've read it, and that you might post something similarly analytical to inform answers to all your questions.

 

[ruby sparks]

What we are asking for, in asking for being colorblind in policy, is to enforce the blind orchestra model everywhere across society where racism is currently an issue.

Yes, or other discriminations (there were gender outcomes for the blind orchestra auditions).

I'm wondering if similar scenarios can, in practice, be 'as blind'. Even if not, there would be a case for making them 'blinder' or 'as blind as is reasonably possible'. And also, there might be a case for not blinding certain things, such as socio-economic disadvantages. In that way, they would be 'as blind' as, say, social welfare policies.

Im my opinion, and I realise that not everyone agrees, there is also a case, in principle, for not going blind to for example race and/or gender, and I am more swayed by the pragmatic reasons, including outcomes, for not having much or any AA for race, for example, especially for things like college applications.

 

[Jarhyn]

What we are asking for, in asking for being colorblind in policy, is to enforce the blind orchestra model everywhere across society where racism is currently an issue.

Yes, or other discriminations (there were gender outcomes for the blind orchestra auditions).

I'm wondering if similar scenarios can, in practice, be 'as blind'. Even if not, there would be a case for making them 'blinder' or 'as blind as is reasonably possible'. And also, there might be a case for not blinding certain things, such as socio-economic disadvantages. In that way, they would be 'as blind' as, say, social welfare policies.

Im my opinion, and I realise that not everyone agrees, there is also a case, in principle, for not going blind to for example race and/or gender, and I am more swayed by the pragmatic reasons, including outcomes, for not having much or any AA for race, for example, especially for things like college applications.

Even socioeconomic outcomes with regards to race can be sanitized. It requires a bit of cleverness, for example: Tom is trying to find an apartment. In applying for housing in 30 rental properties, he is asked for a face to face showing of the house, after having his application reviewed. He is denied 30 times, for miscellaneous reasons, all of which seem vaguely reasonable on paper. The national average is 3 denials (warning this is an asspull here), particularly for people who are offered a showing at the same rate as Tom. Tom can demonstrate that he is "an individual against whom there is social bias", particularly with regards to housing. Thus Tom should be authorized to unilaterally turn down the showing after moving forward on his application to a direct and undeniable demand that his application be approved.

Without ever actually bringing Tom's race into it.

 

[ruby sparks]

Even socioeconomic outcomes with regards to race can be sanitized. It requires a bit of cleverness, for example: Tom is trying to find an apartment. In applying for housing in 30 rental properties, he is asked for a face to face showing of the house, after having his application reviewed. He is denied 30 times, for miscellaneous reasons, all of which seem vaguely reasonable on paper. The national average is 3 denials (warning this is an asspull here), particularly for people who are offered a showing at the same rate as Tom. Tom can demonstrate that he is "an individual against whom there is social bias", particularly with regards to housing. Thus Tom should be authorized to unilaterally turn down the showing after moving forward on his application to a direct and undeniable demand that his application be approved.

Without ever actually bringing Tom's race into it.

I think I follow your scenario, but I'm not sure. For example, what, in reality, is/are the real reasons this Tom is discriminated against?

Whatever they are, if he does face to face interviews, that part (the selection process) is not blind?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In Blind Pursuit of Racial Equality?
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6fb6/3f1603bbf7dabee27cab425c2eedb2718114.pdf

In other words, it may be the case that psychologically, trying to be blind to race can mean becoming blind to racism as well.

And this is a good reason to perpetuate racism??