Stephen Breyer to retire at the end of this court session.

[Loren Pechtel]

Did they actually test for the effects of white/black names, or did they test for the effects of common/strange names?

According to the article, they tested for effects of common names associated with major ethnic groups such as African Americans. They could not have tested for every conceivable minority community in the US, but, if there were a similar effect, it wouldn't have undermined their central finding about the groups they did test for.

The names they used were not common to the average American. Thus this does absolutely nothing to exclude the idea that it's a bias against odd names.

I think it depends on what you think of as an average American.

For most people in the US, certain names evoke images of wholesome corn fed all American, often blonde and blue eyed. Kristen, Brett or Brent come to mind. Some names are associated with generations: my firmer workplace hired a woman whose first name was Linda. Her hire was announced a week before we met her and one of my much younger coworkers noted that she must be old: Linda was an old fashioned name associated with the boomer generation. Sure enough, Linda was about 8 years older than I am. Of course, there is the infamous Karen, evoking a privileged white woman of a certain age, with overly done hair. Heidi is a fairly common name among younger (white) women as is Kelly. I knew of zero Liam’s or Ian’s when I was growing up. Now in white middle America, both are common.

In other regions, other names are prevalent and associated with certain groups. People often assumed I was Italian or Catholic or both. Occasionally, going by name only: male. Where I actually grew uo, there were very few Catholics and fewer people of Italian descent.

The average American is still white--white names are far more common than other names. They're also all easy to pronounce.

 

[Copernicus]

The average American is still white--white names are far more common than other names. They're also all easy to pronounce.

Not all of Europe uses English names. English names are the easiest to pronounce in English, but you'll run into a bit of difficulty once you get into Slavic names.

 

[Metaphor]

Did they actually test for the effects of white/black names, or did they test for the effects of common/strange names?

According to the article, they tested for effects of common names associated with major ethnic groups such as African Americans. They could not have tested for every conceivable minority community in the US, but, if there were a similar effect, it wouldn't have undermined their central finding about the groups they did test for.

The names they used were not common to the average American. Thus this does absolutely nothing to exclude the idea that it's a bias against odd names.

I think it depends on what you think of as an average American.

For most people in the US, certain names evoke images of wholesome corn fed all American, often blonde and blue eyed. Kristen, Brett or Brent come to mind. Some names are associated with generations: my firmer workplace hired a woman whose first name was Linda. Her hire was announced a week before we met her and one of my much younger coworkers noted that she must be old: Linda was an old fashioned name associated with the boomer generation. Sure enough, Linda was about 8 years older than I am. Of course, there is the infamous Karen, evoking a privileged white woman of a certain age, with overly done hair. Heidi is a fairly common name among younger (white) women as is Kelly. I knew of zero Liam’s or Ian’s when I was growing up. Now in white middle America, both are common.

In other regions, other names are prevalent and associated with certain groups. People often assumed I was Italian or Catholic or both. Occasionally, going by name only: male. Where I actually grew uo, there were very few Catholics and fewer people of Italian descent.

The average American is still white--white names are far more common than other names. They're also all easy to pronounce.

For some reason, although most of the names and language tangent was moved to Elsewhere, Toni's post was not.

Anglo names are 'white' names but not all 'white' names are Anglo.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The average American is still white--white names are far more common than other names. They're also all easy to pronounce.

Not all of Europe uses English names. English names are the easiest to pronounce in English, but you'll run into a bit of difficulty once you get into Slavic names.

And they should have used some of those as controls.

 

[Copernicus]

The average American is still white--white names are far more common than other names. They're also all easy to pronounce.

Not all of Europe uses English names. English names are the easiest to pronounce in English, but you'll run into a bit of difficulty once you get into Slavic names.

And they should have used some of those as controls.

Perhaps, but one would need to read the actual point of the study to determine that. As I've already pointed out, using other ethnic surnames or first names in such a study might well find that there was also discrimination against such names, but then it would have been interesting to compare those rates against rates for names associated with African Americans. In any case, the results would not have been surprising if they had showed that names, like matters such as gender and physical characteristics like height, had an impact on callbacks. The fact that some significant effect was found was enough to establish a correlation between names and callbacks, even if the set of names studied was not as large as one would have liked. IOW, the claim that the study wasn't broad enough is really a red herring for the purposes of this discussion. Being black still puts an applicant at a disadvantage. That is the whole point of Critical Race Theory--that the system itself is inherently discriminatory.

 

[Metaphor]

The average American is still white--white names are far more common than other names. They're also all easy to pronounce.

Not all of Europe uses English names. English names are the easiest to pronounce in English, but you'll run into a bit of difficulty once you get into Slavic names.

And they should have used some of those as controls.

Perhaps, but one would need to read the actual point of the study to determine that. As I've already pointed out, using other ethnic surnames or first names in such a study might well find that there was also discrimination against such names, but then it would have been interesting to compare those rates against rates for names associated with African Americans. In any case, the results would not have been surprising if they had showed that names, like matters such as gender and physical characteristics like height, had an impact on callbacks. The fact that some significant effect was found was enough to establish a correlation between names and callbacks, even if the set of names studied was not as large as one would have liked. IOW, the claim that the study wasn't broad enough is really a red herring for the purposes of this discussion. Being black still puts an applicant at a disadvantage. That is the whole point of Critical Race Theory--that the system itself is inherently discriminatory.

Except that the study doesn't establish that. A black person with an Anglo-sounding name would not have been discriminated against for callbacks.

Note that I am not saying black people should have to change or disguise their identity in order not to be discriminated against, or that they wouldn't be discriminated against after callbacks that might establish their blackness (or non-whiteness).

 

[Copernicus]

The average American is still white--white names are far more common than other names. They're also all easy to pronounce.

Not all of Europe uses English names. English names are the easiest to pronounce in English, but you'll run into a bit of difficulty once you get into Slavic names.

And they should have used some of those as controls.

Perhaps, but one would need to read the actual point of the study to determine that. As I've already pointed out, using other ethnic surnames or first names in such a study might well find that there was also discrimination against such names, but then it would have been interesting to compare those rates against rates for names associated with African Americans. In any case, the results would not have been surprising if they had showed that names, like matters such as gender and physical characteristics like height, had an impact on callbacks. The fact that some significant effect was found was enough to establish a correlation between names and callbacks, even if the set of names studied was not as large as one would have liked. IOW, the claim that the study wasn't broad enough is really a red herring for the purposes of this discussion. Being black still puts an applicant at a disadvantage. That is the whole point of Critical Race Theory--that the system itself is inherently discriminatory.

Except that the study doesn't establish that. A black person with an Anglo-sounding name would not have been discriminated against for callbacks.

Note that I am not saying black people should have to change or disguise their identity in order not to be discriminated against, or that they wouldn't be discriminated against after callbacks that might establish their blackness (or non-whiteness).

All we have is an online source that discusses the study, which is behind a paywall. So it's premature to jump to conclusions about what the study actually establishes or not. It's an interesting study, but the reported results are hardly surprising, as we know that race affects the rate at which people can get jobs. And the point made in this thread is that KBJ's race would have been such a barrier throughout her entire life, not just in matters such as appointments to high judicial position.

The primary reason that someone of her gender and race has finally made it to the Supreme Court, despite her excellent credentials, is that Joe Biden made a campaign promise in order to get an endorsement critical to his nomination. So race and politics played a factor in her getting the position, but race and politics have figured in just about every Supreme Court nomination in the past. Politics, because presidents and senators are politicians. Race, because race is a deeply emotional factor for Americans in political appointments. Systemic racism is real. That has nothing to do with whether there are other forms of discrimination at play. Even many of the senators who voted against KBJ acknowledged her qualification to serve on the court, but some have sought to justify their votes on purely political grounds rather than racial. In the past, senators would not even have embarrassed themselves to that extent, but hyperpartisanship, especially among Republicans, is considered more socially acceptable these days. It isn't about legal experience and qualifications anymore. It is about winning votes for their social agenda.

 

[Metaphor]

All we have is an online source that discusses the study, which is behind a paywall. So it's premature to jump to conclusions about what the study actually establishes or not. It's an interesting study, but the reported results are hardly surprising, as we know that race affects the rate at which people can get jobs. And the point made in this thread is that KBJ's race would have been such a barrier throughout her entire life, not just in matters such as appointments to high judicial position.

Except that it is not that simple. Harvard does not disguise it uses race in its admission policies, and it favours Latino and black applicants over white and Asian applicants in that respect.

The primary reason that someone of her gender and race has finally made it to the Supreme Court, despite her excellent credentials, is that Joe Biden made a campaign promise in order to get an endorsement critical to his nomination. So race and politics played a factor in her getting the position, but race and politics have figured in just about every Supreme Court nomination in the past. Politics, because presidents and senators are politicians. Race, because race is a deeply emotional factor for Americans in political appointments. Systemic racism is real. That has nothing to do with whether there are other forms of discrimination at play. Even many of the senators who voted against KBJ acknowledged her qualification to serve on the court, but some have sought to justify their votes on purely political grounds rather than racial. In the past, senators would not even have embarrassed themselves to that extent, but hyperpartisanship, especially among Republicans, is considered more socially acceptable these days. It isn't about legal experience and qualifications anymore. It is about winning votes for their social agenda.

Do you believe Biden would have made a fairer search (by fairer, I mean not discriminated based on race and sex) for a Supreme Court justice had he not made a public promise to look for a black woman?

 

[Toni]

The average American is still white--white names are far more common than other names. They're also all easy to pronounce.

Not all of Europe uses English names. English names are the easiest to pronounce in English, but you'll run into a bit of difficulty once you get into Slavic names.

And they should have used some of those as controls.

Perhaps, but one would need to read the actual point of the study to determine that. As I've already pointed out, using other ethnic surnames or first names in such a study might well find that there was also discrimination against such names, but then it would have been interesting to compare those rates against rates for names associated with African Americans. In any case, the results would not have been surprising if they had showed that names, like matters such as gender and physical characteristics like height, had an impact on callbacks. The fact that some significant effect was found was enough to establish a correlation between names and callbacks, even if the set of names studied was not as large as one would have liked. IOW, the claim that the study wasn't broad enough is really a red herring for the purposes of this discussion. Being black still puts an applicant at a disadvantage. That is the whole point of Critical Race Theory--that the system itself is inherently discriminatory.

Except that the study doesn't establish that. A black person with an Anglo-sounding name would not have been discriminated against for callbacks.

Note that I am not saying black people should have to change or disguise their identity in order not to be discriminated against, or that they wouldn't be discriminated against after callbacks that might establish their blackness (or non-whiteness).

All we have is an online source that discusses the study, which is behind a paywall. So it's premature to jump to conclusions about what the study actually establishes or not. It's an interesting study, but the reported results are hardly surprising, as we know that race affects the rate at which people can get jobs. And the point made in this thread is that KBJ's race would have been such a barrier throughout her entire life, not just in matters such as appointments to high judicial position.

The primary reason that someone of her gender and race has finally made it to the Supreme Court, despite her excellent credentials, is that Joe Biden made a campaign promise in order to get an endorsement critical to his nomination. So race and politics played a factor in her getting the position, but race and politics have figured in just about every Supreme Court nomination in the past. Politics, because presidents and senators are politicians. Race, because race is a deeply emotional factor for Americans in political appointments. Systemic racism is real. That has nothing to do with whether there are other forms of discrimination at play. Even many of the senators who voted against KBJ acknowledged her qualification to serve on the court, but some have sought to justify their votes on purely political grounds rather than racial. In the past, senators would not even have embarrassed themselves to that extent, but hyperpartisanship, especially among Republicans, is considered more socially acceptable these days. It isn't about legal experience and qualifications anymore. It is about winning votes for their social agenda.

Or Biden thought it was just about damn time that a black woman got a place on the court.

 

[TomC]

Do you believe Biden would have made a fairer search (by fairer, I mean not discriminated based on race and sex) for a Supreme Court justice had he not made a public promise to look for a black woman?

No.

I understand that you don't understand Americans all that well.

But Trump politicized SCOTUS nominations. Unfortunate, but it's true. He promised to appoint SCOTUS judges on the basis of their likelihood to ignore what the American people want, and further his unpopular political career. By appointing SCOTUS judges who would not be judicially impartial. That was his stated goal, Trump's campaign promise.

Biden promised to find an impartial SCOTUS judge. One who helped the SCOTUS more resemble the American people as a whole, improving the credibility of SCOTUS. Finding a nominee that fit both goals wasn't difficult. KBJ is better than a standard issue impartial judge, because of other credentials. Credentials which matter in the big picture scheme of things.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Do you believe Biden would have made a fairer search (by fairer, I mean not discriminated based on race and sex) for a Supreme Court justice had he not made a public promise to look for a black woman?

No.

I understand that you don't understand Americans all that well.

But Trump politicized SCOTUS nominations. Unfortunate, but it's true. He promised to appoint SCOTUS judges on the basis of their likelihood to ignore what the American people want, and further his unpopular political career. By appointing SCOTUS judges who would not be judicially impartial. That was his stated goal, Trump's campaign promise.

Biden promised to find an impartial SCOTUS judge. One who helped the SCOTUS more resemble the American people as a whole, improving the credibility of SCOTUS. Finding a nominee that fit both goals wasn't difficult. KBJ is better than a standard issue impartial judge, because of other credentials. Credentials which matter in the big picture scheme of things.
Tom

I can't make any sense of what you are saying.

There is no such thing as an 'impartial' SCOTUS judge. That's why there is such a fuss about which President appoints them.

 

[Toni]

No. the goal is impartial judges at all levels. Of course all judges have perspectives and opinions about interpreting the the abs the constitution. Of course some POTUS attempt to choose candidates that will reflect the political view they want reflected. It does not necessarily work out that way, with justices often displaying different philosophies than previously assumed.

This is one article that notes several examples where justices did not vote the way they were presumed to be voting:

When Supreme Court justices defy expectations

Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the Supreme Court as a conservative. But his ruling in a major civil rights case is part of a pattern of justices setting aside ideology to address historic injustices.

theconversation.com

 

[TomC]

There is no such thing as an 'impartial' SCOTUS judge.

I know that.

The best we can do (in this scenario) is support presidents who nominate competent impartial folks who also help make the SCOTUS more credible to the American people.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

There is no such thing as an 'impartial' SCOTUS judge.

I know that.

The best we can do (in this scenario) is support presidents who nominate competent impartial folks who also help make the SCOTUS more credible to the American people.
Tom

You can't nominate 'impartial' 'folks'. There is no such thing.

 

[TomC]

There is no such thing as an 'impartial' SCOTUS judge.

I know that.

The best we can do (in this scenario) is support presidents who nominate competent impartial folks who also help make the SCOTUS more credible to the American people.
Tom

You can't nominate 'impartial' 'folks'. There is no such thing.

But you can nominate judges without promising your base to choose one based on their lack of impartiality.

That's what Trump did.


It's very different from what Biden promised his base.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

There is no such thing as an 'impartial' SCOTUS judge.

I know that.

The best we can do (in this scenario) is support presidents who nominate competent impartial folks who also help make the SCOTUS more credible to the American people.
Tom

You can't nominate 'impartial' 'folks'. There is no such thing.

But you can nominate judges without promising your base to choose one based on their lack of impartiality.

That's what Trump did.


It's very different from what Biden promised his base.
Tom

What Biden did is worse.

All presidents nominate judges according to the judge's promise in upholding 'liberal' or 'conservative' bias in their rulings. In that respect, KJB is no different. But Biden added race and sex discrimination according to his particular taste to the mix.

In other words, had Trump found a reliably conservative black woman, there would be no bar to Trump nominating her. But Biden restricted his search by sex and race.

 

[blastula]

The derail on racial language has been split and moved to ~elsewhere
This one is about Justice Breyer’s retirement and his replacement

 

[TomC]

What Biden did is worse.

All presidents nominate judges according to the judge's promise in upholding 'liberal' or 'conservative' bias in their rulings. In that respect, KJB is no different. But Biden added race and sex discrimination according to his particular taste to the mix.

In other words, had Trump found a reliably conservative black woman, there would be no bar to Trump nominating her. But Biden restricted his search by sex and race.

The kindest way in can think of to describe this nonsense is Dunning-Kruger effect
You don't know much about the USA, but you think you do.

Trump promised SCOTUS nominees that support a view most Americans do not. That weren't impartial.

Biden promised SCOTUS nominees that matched the USA population as a whole. He didn't make a campaign promise to get SCOTUS judges who oppose the American people and their views. Only that one be black and female. That isn't the same as impartial.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

What Biden did is worse.

All presidents nominate judges according to the judge's promise in upholding 'liberal' or 'conservative' bias in their rulings. In that respect, KJB is no different. But Biden added race and sex discrimination according to his particular taste to the mix.

In other words, had Trump found a reliably conservative black woman, there would be no bar to Trump nominating her. But Biden restricted his search by sex and race.

The kindest way in can think of to describe this nonsense is Dunning-Kruger effect
You don't know much about the USA, but you think you do.

I know words mean things, and "impartial" does not mean what you appear to think.

Trump promised SCOTUS nominees that support a view most Americans do not. That weren't impartial.

Biden promised SCOTUS nominees that matched the USA population as a whole. He didn't make a campaign promise to get SCOTUS judges who oppose the American people and their views. Only that one be black and female. That isn't the same as impartial.
Tom

Biden nominated a judge that he regards as reliably liberal. The judge is not impartial because no judge is.

I have no idea what SCOTUS nominee could possibly "match the US population as a whole".

I have no idea why you think Trump could promise a judge that was against the desires of the population, make that clear in his campaign, and then win despite actively promising to go against the population.

 

[TomC]

I have no idea why you think Trump could promise a judge that was against the desires of the population, make that clear in his campaign, and then win despite actively promising to go against the population.

Again, Dunning-Kruger.

You must think that the American electorate votes in POTUS.
They don't.
Tom