Are colour and gender 'blindness' the best policies?

[ruby sparks]

Is there a specific aspect of this you'd like to discuss?

The only study in that chapter that has its full context available via that link is the section entitled Colorblind versus Pro-diversity Orientations.

In it, people chose the Black candidate 92% of the time for admission into a university, where the study of the design would imply a 50/50 admissions ratio if participants were actually 'colorblind'.

People are already making color-conscious decisions in favour of Blacks but they think they're making colorblind ones.

People are already doing what you want. This study does not show that 'colorblind' admissions policies disadvantage minorities, because the admissions practice is not colorblind.

Here is the correct study:

http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/Norton Vandello Biga Darley.pdf

Yes, you are correct, people are making colour-conscious decisions in favour of blacks but they think they are making colourblind ones. In this case, it was college students, but I would not be surprised if it was happening in the population generally, perhaps especially as we move away from the right of the political spectrum. The authors suggest a number of explanations.

I ought not disparage my own qualifications, but 90% of psychological literature is based on the responses of 18-21 year old psychology students. The samples, whatever else you say about them, could certainly benefit from some diversity.

Indeed. One possible explanation offered, in this case, is that college students (for a variety of complicated reasons) may be (a) more inclined towards trying to be non-racist (albeit while not being aware of their own race-consciousness), and/or (b) more inherently and of their own free opinion sympathetic to AA and/or (c) more affected by norms and peer pressures within a university context where it is seen as virtuous to be in favour of diversity and related issues. What the other study (also by Norton) calls 'strategic colourblindness' may also play a part.

As for the study not showing that colourblind admissions policies disadvantage minorities, it does not show that, partly because as you say, the admissions procedures are not really colourblind in practice, some advantages and preferences are given to blacks. In this sense, the universities (and to some extent the judiciary, I believe) seem to be at odds with the wider political climate in the USA in recent years, at least in relation to the right, which has been quite successful, especially since Ronald Reagan became president, in eroding/reducing various social policies intended to actively address racial inequalities, perhaps most notably AA.

Which reductions I realise you will wholeheartedly agree with.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is Multiculturalism or Color Blindness Better for Minorities?

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/plaut_thomas_goren_2009.pdf


“Previous research documents divergent patterns of relationship between these ideologies and racial bias (see Park & Judd, 2005). Among dominant-group members, multiculturalism— whether experimentally manipulated or measured as an individual difference—predicts lower bias, whereas color blindness predicts greater bias (Neville, Lilly, Duran, Lee, & Browne, 2000; Richeson & Nussbaum, 2004; Verkuyten, 2005; Wolsko, Park, & Judd, 2006).

The problem is as usual decreeing that a disparate result is due to discrimination.

 

[ruby sparks]

Is Multiculturalism or Color Blindness Better for Minorities?

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/plaut_thomas_goren_2009.pdf


“Previous research documents divergent patterns of relationship between these ideologies and racial bias (see Park & Judd, 2005). Among dominant-group members, multiculturalism— whether experimentally manipulated or measured as an individual difference—predicts lower bias, whereas color blindness predicts greater bias (Neville, Lilly, Duran, Lee, & Browne, 2000; Richeson & Nussbaum, 2004; Verkuyten, 2005; Wolsko, Park, & Judd, 2006).

The problem is as usual decreeing that a disparate result is due to discrimination.

That doesn't seem to make any sense as a response to my post or be relevant to it. Do you even understand what was being suggested by, "multiculturalism, whether experimentally manipulated or measured as an individual difference, predicts lower bias, whereas colour blindness predicts greater bias"? What 'disparate result' are you even talking about?

Or, if you were not actually responding to the item you quoted and just restating a mantra, I refer you back to my previous comments about racism blindness.

This is not to say that alleging racism where there is none doesn't happen. It does. Some on what passes for the 'left' in the USA seem to do it a fair bit at times. But two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To add....

Poor people commit a large percent of the murders. Black people are disproportionately poor. When you see something that suggests blacks are inferior, start digging--it's almost always a case of race being a proxy for socioeconomic status. Research that "shows" racism is remarkably devoid of attempts to figure out if it's a proxy.

You also routinely ignore that racism is and has been a causal factor in poverty and racial wealth inequalities in the USA in any case. It's not as if copious evidence has not been posted, perhaps most notably in 'The Unequal Opportunity Race' thread, but also previously and elsewhere, by several posters.

Yes, racism caused a lot of disparity in the past. That doesn't mean that we should engage in racism now. That just adds more victims, it does nothing to help the previous victims.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is there a specific aspect of this you'd like to discuss?

The only study in that chapter that has its full context available via that link is the section entitled Colorblind versus Pro-diversity Orientations.

In it, people chose the Black candidate 92% of the time for admission into a university, where the study of the design would imply a 50/50 admissions ratio if participants were actually 'colorblind'.

People are already making color-conscious decisions in favour of Blacks but they think they're making colorblind ones.

People are already doing what you want. This study does not show that 'colorblind' admissions policies disadvantage minorities, because the admissions practice is not colorblind.

Here is the correct study:

http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/Norton Vandello Biga Darley.pdf

Yes, you are right, people are making colour-conscious decisions in favour of blacks but they think they are making colourblind ones. In this case, it was college students, but I would not be surprised if it was happening in the population generally, perhaps especially as we move away from the right of the political spectrum. The authors suggest a number of explanations, some more encouraging than others.

In other words, it's not colorblind! Colorblind systems don't let the people making the decision even know the race! Blind = can't see. Duh!

People simply trying to make race-independent decisions can still be biased.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes, racism caused a lot of disparity in the past.

That does not address what I said about you repeatedly ignoring evidences of both racism and how it affects poverty and wealth inequalities.

And, as for seeing racism as existing in the past, that is on the list of indicators for the problems associated with colourblindness. In fact. it's a classic.

That doesn't mean that we should engage in racism now.

AA (for example) is arguably not racism as usually understood, involving prejudice, bigotry or notions of superiority and inferiority. We've been over this a hundred times. I disagree with you.

That just adds more victims, it does nothing to help the previous victims.

Neither of those have ever been adequately demonstrated. Not even close.

Just so you know, I'm not getting derailed into an argument about the merits and demerits of AA. It's not the topic of the thread and has been done to death in many others, and in fact often invades threads that aren't primarily about it.

 

[ruby sparks]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jetdCVgT3bY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Jarhyn]

To add....

Poor people commit a large percent of the murders. Black people are disproportionately poor. When you see something that suggests blacks are inferior, start digging--it's almost always a case of race being a proxy for socioeconomic status. Research that "shows" racism is remarkably devoid of attempts to figure out if it's a proxy.

You also routinely ignore that racism is and has been a causal factor in poverty and racial wealth inequalities in the USA in any case. It's not as if copious evidence has not been posted, perhaps most notably in 'The Unequal Opportunity Race' thread, but also previously and elsewhere, by several posters.

Yes, racism caused a lot of disparity in the past. That doesn't mean that we should engage in racism now. That just adds more victims, it does nothing to help the previous victims.

Race relations and the situation itself are like a gyroscope. We have a crew of people here who stand testament as to the extant and continued existence of bias against black people. In just the last year there are whole threads started to claim that black people are just inherently violent, ostensibly to further justification of discrimination.

There are people active on these boards using the legacy, the fallout of centuries of racism, as a continued justification for racially biased policies against black people.

These views come from three sources: shitty parents, shitty peers, and a visibly shitty society. We can't do anything about the first two. We can do something about the last one.

You, however, claim that doing something about the last one, diffusing social power (money, education) among various backgrounds of people is "discrimination".

But it isn't. The fact is, people are just people, mostly the same, with only superficial differences. The really deep differences are in our levels of opportunity. White people have more opportunity because white people are more socially connected to people with good jobs. It's this connection that people wish to simulate and account for, because the only way those connections start existing in that community is through offering opportunities even to people who they do not exist for.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That does not address what I said about you repeatedly ignoring evidences of both racism and how it affects poverty and wealth inequalities.

And, as for seeing racism as existing in the past, that is on the list of indicators for the problems associated with colourblindness. In fact. it's a classic.

The point is you keep pointing to evidence of racism in the past as evidence of current racism.

AA (for example) is arguably not racism as usually understood, involving prejudice, bigotry or notions of superiority and inferiority. We've been over this a hundred times. I disagree with you.

It's a decision based on race. It's racism by definition.

That just adds more victims, it does nothing to help the previous victims.

Neither of those have ever been adequately demonstrated. Not even close.

Just so you know, I'm not getting derailed into an argument about the merits and demerits of AA. It's not the topic of the thread and has been done to death in many others, and in fact often invades threads that aren't primarily about it.

Where are these supposed victims that are being helped???

Who was kept out of school by discrimination but then admitted to an equivalent school due to AA? Since most people enter college in only one year of their life the number who could possibly benefit is very low.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, racism caused a lot of disparity in the past. That doesn't mean that we should engage in racism now. That just adds more victims, it does nothing to help the previous victims.

Race relations and the situation itself are like a gyroscope. We have a crew of people here who stand testament as to the extant and continued existence of bias against black people. In just the last year there are whole threads started to claim that black people are just inherently violent, ostensibly to further justification of discrimination.

There are people active on these boards using the legacy, the fallout of centuries of racism, as a continued justification for racially biased policies against black people.

Yeah, there are some racists about. That doesn't mean that they have enough power to justify something like AA being used to disarm them.

These views come from three sources: shitty parents, shitty peers, and a visibly shitty society. We can't do anything about the first two. We can do something about the last one.

Source #4: People like you. AA inherently breeds backlash. The more you beat the AA drum the more racism you create.

What we should be doing is pointing out the fact that what is commonly seen as racial problems (mainly the high crime rate) is really socioeconomic.

You, however, claim that doing something about the last one, diffusing social power (money, education) among various backgrounds of people is "discrimination".

Because it is. You're not diffusing it amongst various backgrounds, you're diffusing it amongst races and pretending you're helping people from poor backgrounds--but you're not.

 

[ruby sparks]

The point is you keep pointing to evidence of racism in the past as evidence of current racism.

That is a straight up untruth. Since arriving at this forum, I have often cited recent evidences, including where other possible factors have been controlled for. And you have consistently ignored them. You are a blatant racism denier.

What we should be doing is pointing out the fact that what is commonly seen as racial problems (mainly the high crime rate) is really socioeconomic.

And there you go again. First, you're wrong, and second, a lot of the race wealth gap is and always has been clearly down to racism in the first place. It's undeniable by any reasonable person.

 

[Jarhyn]

The point is you keep pointing to evidence of racism in the past as evidence of current racism.

That is a straight up untruth. Since arriving at this forum, I have often cited recent evidences, including where other possible factors have been controlled for. And you have consistently ignored them. You are a blatant racism denier.

What we should be doing is pointing out the fact that what is commonly seen as racial problems (mainly the high crime rate) is really socioeconomic.

And there you go again. First, you're wrong, and second, a lot of the race wealth gap is and always has been clearly down to racism in the first place. It's undeniable by any reasonable person.

Not to mention that he is ignoring that part in his most recent post where he admits that there are current racists, on these very boards. Apparently direct observation of current racists isn't evidence of current racism either?

Racists, operating openly in society, is 100% evidence that there are going to be systemically embedded sources of racial bias. Period.

We absolutely, 100%, need opportunities and social connections to exist in what are today disconnected communities, else those communities will continue to breed crime and racial tensions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not to mention that he is ignoring that part in his most recent post where he admits that there are current racists, on these very boards. Apparently direct observation of current racists isn't evidence of current racism either?

Racists, operating openly in society, is 100% evidence that there are going to be systemically embedded sources of racial bias. Period.

We absolutely, 100%, need opportunities and social connections to exist in what are today disconnected communities, else those communities will continue to breed crime and racial tensions.

There are racists about but they don't have the power to actually show up statistically even if some are victims of them.

 

[ruby sparks]

"This paper examines the social and political functions colorblindness serves for whites in the United States. Drawing on interviews and focus groups with whites from around the country I argue that colorblindness maintains white privilege by negating racial inequality. Embracing a post-race, colorblind perspective allows whites to imagine that being white or black or brown has no bearing on an individual's or a group's relative place in the socio-economic hierarchy. Starting with the deeply held belief that America is now a meritocracy, whites are able to imagine that the material success they enjoy relative to racial minorities is a function only of individual hard work, determination, thrift and investments in education. The color-blind perspective removes from personal thought and public discussion any taint or suggestion of white supremacy or white guilt while legitimating the existing social, political and economic arrangements which privilege whites. This perspective insinuates that class and culture, and not institutional racism, are responsible for social inequality. Colorblindness allows many whites to define themselves as politically progressive and racially tolerant as they proclaim their adherence to a belief system that does not see or judge individuals by the "color of their skin." "

COLOR-BLIND PRIVILEGE: THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL FUNCTIONS OF ERASING THE COLOR LINE IN POST RACE AMERICA.
(Abstract only. Cannot find full text)
https://web.a.ebscohost.com/abstrac...te&authtype=crawler&jrnl=10828354&AN=12592845

 

[Jarhyn]

Not to mention that he is ignoring that part in his most recent post where he admits that there are current racists, on these very boards. Apparently direct observation of current racists isn't evidence of current racism either?

Racists, operating openly in society, is 100% evidence that there are going to be systemically embedded sources of racial bias. Period.

We absolutely, 100%, need opportunities and social connections to exist in what are today disconnected communities, else those communities will continue to breed crime and racial tensions.

There are racists about but they don't have the power to actually show up statistically even if some are victims of them.

They represent a huge fraction of users here, and their talking points are echoed by the huge proportion of MAGA hats across the country.

To pretend that they don't have any statistical power is willful ignorance and doublethink.

 

[Trausti]

Apparently the term “racist” has lost its commonly understood meaning and now simply applies to anyone with a different opinion or point of view.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Apparently the term “racist” has lost its commonly understood meaning and now simply applies to anyone with a different opinion or point of view.

Its been stood on its head. Now if you refuse to be racially prejudiced, you are thereby declared racially prejudiced.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not to mention that he is ignoring that part in his most recent post where he admits that there are current racists, on these very boards. Apparently direct observation of current racists isn't evidence of current racism either?

Racists, operating openly in society, is 100% evidence that there are going to be systemically embedded sources of racial bias. Period.

We absolutely, 100%, need opportunities and social connections to exist in what are today disconnected communities, else those communities will continue to breed crime and racial tensions.

There are racists about but they don't have the power to actually show up statistically even if some are victims of them.

They represent a huge fraction of users here, and their talking points are echoed by the huge proportion of MAGA hats across the country.

To pretend that they don't have any statistical power is willful ignorance and doublethink.

A huge fraction of users here?

Even if you count those of us after true colorblindness (as in denying the decision-makers knowledge of race and gender as much as possible) as racists I don't think you get to huge fraction.

And I've met plenty of MAGA types where I saw no hint of racism, their motivation was economic.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And I've met plenty of MAGA types where I saw no hint of racism, their motivation was economic.

As evidenced by them having supported Obama (a black guy) and a higher percentage of them that will consider Andrew Yang (an asian guy) and not other Democrats. Yang because he's speaking to economic issues that Trump did, but he points to robots instead of immigration.

Here's a video from a progressive who is against Yang, but demonstrates my point:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5X4h_XADNs&t=629s[/youtube]

 

[Trausti]

Apparently the term “racist” has lost its commonly understood meaning and now simply applies to anyone with a different opinion or point of view.

Its been stood on its head. Now if you refuse to be racially prejudiced, you are thereby declared racially prejudiced.