Depressed about Matt Walsh

[marbel]

I have to say, someone who would refuse to be treated by a female doctor or a "non-Asian" male doctor is a racist. And I'm a little amazed to have to say that, that it is not glaringly obvious! 

 

I can see the philosophical arguments against college admissions on race, though I don't agree with most of those arguments.  But assuming graduates of those programs are incompetent is a whole different  level.

 

Well, if you knew such people, as I have, you might not be so certain of that.    They just felt that they weren't going to risk their family's health on someone who might or might not have gotten into and through medical school on the basis of race.   I don't necessarily agree with them (I've been to poor doctors and good doctors of all races and ethnicities) but based on everything else about those people, I wouldn't call them racist. 

 

[AlmiraGulch]

Well, if you knew such people, as I have, you might not be so certain of that.    They just felt that they weren't going to risk their family's health on someone who might or might not have gotten into and through medical school on the basis of race.   I don't necessarily agree with them (I've been to poor doctors and good doctors of all races and ethnicities) but based on everything else about those people, I wouldn't call them racist. 

 

 

Assuming that someone only got into school because of their race is pretty racist.  Why wouldn't they avoid the white male, since it's just as likely he got into the school because his daddy was an alumnus who wrote fat checks?

 

It's ridiculous.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I was wondering the same thing.

 

When I first saw the thread title, I immediately thought the "America's Most Wanted" guy must have died. And then I remembered that he's John Walsh.

 

Oops.

 

Is this another case where people are paying way too much attention to some idiot blogger whose sole qualifications in life are owning a computer and knowing how to start his own blog? I don't know (or care) about this guy, but I think many bloggers intentionally post controversial stuff because they're hoping it will make them famous.

See, that's who I thought it was and I thought "why should I care what he thinks about this subject?"  and then I thought "it must not be, but then it really isn't anyone famous so again why should I care what he thinks about this subject?"

[BrookValley.]

I believe that diversity in any group is what leads to success and growth; Diversity of race and gender, yes, but even more so it's the diversity of thought that comes from actively recruiting individuals from a wide variety of backgrounds brings that will ensure that success and growth.  

 

I do not believe that affirmative action as it exists today is the most effective way to achieve that diversity.  

 

If I were designing a recruiting strategy for a company (which, by the way, I do), I would ensure they are actively targeting top tier candidates from many different talent pools.  Those talent pools would include (for example...), National Black MBA Association, National Hispanic MBA Association, National Women's MBA Association, Top business schools, top historically black colleges, and a variety of other companies that are competitors, or in parallel industries.  All of those pools will be filtered to create one single, naturally diverse pool of top talent, from which the team could have its pick of qualified candidates from a variety of backgrounds.

 

What I see instead are companies that only go to one primary source (ie, top Business schools), which already have their own issues with diversity.  And then that limited pool joins the organization and refers their friends, all of whom have their same background, be it educational or professional, and then suddenly you have an organization where everyone looks and thinks and acts exactly alike, and the company fails to thrive. 

 

The same holds true for colleges and universities.   If they cast their recruiting net wide enough, the best of each individual, diverse talent pool will rise to the surface, creating a final candidate pool that will be naturally diverse and well qualified.

 

Note that the MBA example I give is clearly not applicable to every circumstance but was used for illustrative purposes only.  I still contend that strategy would prove effective, even if the specific targets would be different, universally.

 

I totally agree. The only problem is you are not designing the recruiting strategy for tons of other companies out there.

 

I know! Let's clone you. :laugh:

 

 

[AlmiraGulch]

I totally agree. The only problem is you are not designing the recruiting strategy for tons of other companies out there.

 

I know! Let's clone you. :laugh:

 

 

 

You're funny.  :laugh:

 

I'm not arguing that the institutionalized discrimination doesn't exist. Clearly, it does.

 

It just seems at this point in time there is a much easier, much more effective way to achieve the desired outcome than aa in its existing form.  It doesn't have to be as hard as we make it.  I guess that's just human nature.  

[poppy]

Well, if you knew such people, as I have, you might not be so certain of that.    They just felt that they weren't going to risk their family's health on someone who might or might not have gotten into and through medical school on the basis of race.   I don't necessarily agree with them (I've been to poor doctors and good doctors of all races and ethnicities) but based on everything else about those people, I wouldn't call them racist. 

 

 

First of all, I applaud the PP who commented that strategy assumes all the white males and Asian males are competent, and other physicians "might or might not" be, but even going to one is "risking their family's health". If that is not racist, what on earth is?  Does there have to be a burning cross on the front yard to qualify?

 

Second, I'll just leave the quoted post here for anyone who is scoffs at the idea that white privilege exists. 

 

Edited to add a link to the Matt Walsh piece in question: http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/04/23/affirmative-action-defeating-perceived-discrimination-with-actual-bigotry/

[marbel]

Assuming that someone only got into school because of their race is pretty racist.  Why wouldn't they avoid the white male, since it's just as likely he got into the school because his daddy was an alumnus who wrote fat checks?

 

It's ridiculous.

 

I'm just reporting an observation/experience, as a response to something someone said about her own experience with AA.  People are complex and their beliefs are based on a variety of factors.   I'm not going to paint someone as a racist based solely on their beliefs (accurate or not) about affirmative action. 

[umsami]

 

 

But it s a very small minority of whites who have the privileges you speak of, going to select schools, being able to call someone to get in. Most "white" people I know don't have that type of access. Those points are really an argument against affirmative action. It is not the Harvard grad's son who is not getting in due to affirmative action, it is not the 1450 upper middle class white kid who is losing their spot because of affirmative action. It is the middle class and poor white kids who lose out. The people with the special privileges are still going to get in, affirmative action or not.

 

 

 

No, but they still benefit from having Anglo-Saxon names and just being white as the two studies I posted show. They still have a higher chance of their CV being picked for an interview solely based on their name.  They still have a higher likelihood of professors interacting and mentoring them just because they are white.  When it comes time for grad school applications, those relationships matter, because it will lead to better recommendation letters.  In grad school, those relationships matter for good internships, clerkships, etc.  When it comes time to getting a job through normal channels, having the name Mike Simpson will still get them in the door more than Mohammed Ibrahim, LaTonya Jones, or Dolores Gonzales. 

 

Oh, and since I'm assuming that a majority of the people on this board are women (right or wrong), don't forget that AA programs were crucial to getting women (yes, even white women) into the workforce other than in the accepted jobs of nurse, secretary, flight attendant, or teacher.  (Of course, many of those positions also assumed that a woman would quit upon marriage.)

[katilac]

What is a "white name?"  I've never heard of that before.  I know plenty of people have ethnic names, but not everyone.  What qualifies as a white name?

 

They mean first names: James, David, Michael, Susan, Kathy, and so on are considered white names. Tamiqua, J'amal, Kareem, and so on are considered black names. 

 

Please note that I said they are considered white or black names. 

[katilac]

I have to say, someone who would refuse to be treated by a female doctor or a "non-Asian" male doctor is a racist. And I'm a little amazed to have to say that, that it is not glaringly obvious! 

 

I can see the philosophical arguments against college admissions on race, though I don't agree with most of those arguments.  But assuming graduates of those programs are incompetent is a whole different  level.

 

Exactly. Regardless of how or why they got INTO med school, they did indeed GET OUT of med school successfully (and pass their boards, complete their residency, and so on). 

 

I also have to admit to extreme skepticism of anyone who claim that this or that person would have been accepted or hired except for affirmative action or quotas.  Please.  You don't know why you weren't hired.  Even if someone who was not white WAS hired, that doesn't mean race was the predominant factor or even a factor at all.  I've conducted so many interviews with people who screw up badly and have NO idea.   I once saw a man sneeze directly into his hand, then reach over to shake my hand with a smile. No.

 

Yes, they are very limited circumstances under which one would know they weren't hired due to affirmative action. The only one I can think of would be civil service jobs, where (I think) you know your ranking on the test, and know what preferences are in place. In that case, you might sometimes be relatively certain. 

 

Well, if you knew such people, as I have, you might not be so certain of that.    They just felt that they weren't going to risk their family's health on someone who might or might not have gotten into and through medical school on the basis of race.   I don't necessarily agree with them (I've been to poor doctors and good doctors of all races and ethnicities) but based on everything else about those people, I wouldn't call them racist. 

 

 

I do know such people, and they are racist. Your friends are, too. That doesn't make them horrible people on every level, akin to enthusiastic Nazis; it just makes them racist. "Racist," imo, is not something you are or aren't, but more of a continuum. Most of us strive to avoid racism, but most of us fail at least to some small extent (cue singing: everyone's a little bit racist, if we could all just admit, that we are all racist just a little bit . . .) 

 

Your friends have a pretty hard fail going on in this instance. Yes, a minority might get admission preference to medical school, but I consider it beyond ridiculous to think that they will not be required to learn the material! And, if one is truly concerned about this, then you would not go to a doctor unless he was willing to disclose his MCAT scores and GPA.

 

I'm sure your friends ask for that, right?

 

Oh, joke time: What do you call a medical student who finished last in their class?

 

Doctor. 

[AlmiraGulch]

I'm just reporting an observation/experience, as a response to something someone said about her own experience with AA.  People are complex and their beliefs are based on a variety of factors.   I'm not going to paint someone as a racist based solely on their beliefs (accurate or not) about affirmative action. 

 

The way the person in question is being portrayed implies that he/she believes the doctor may or may not be competent because of his/her race (Black or Asian), while at the same time automatically assuming the competence of the white male.  That is racism, whether or not you or your friend want to call it so.

 

This very discussion illustrates the exact reason why we still have affirmative action programs today. 

[LizzyBee]

I don't know who Matt Walsh is, but as a "person of color" I have experienced being hired specifically because of my race with the budget line for my position being labeled as "diversity" funds. No matter how hard I worked and how well I performed, I was often dismissed by coworkers because they knew why I got the job.

 

I didn't read the entire blog post, but from what I did read, this is exactly why Matt disagrees with affirmative action. It denigrates the very people it's intended to help and thus makes the situation worse instead of better. It implies that non-whites are incapable of getting ahead on their merits.  Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's not (depending on whether the person making hiring or admission decision is racist or not).  I'm sorry for what you experienced.

[AlmiraGulch]

I didn't read the entire blog post, but from what I did read, this is exactly why Matt disagrees with affirmative action. It denigrates the very people it's intended to help and thus makes the situation worse instead of better. It implies that non-whites are incapable of getting ahead on their merits.  Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's not (depending on whether the person making hiring or admission decision is racist or not).  I'm sorry for what you experienced.

 

Honestly, this is where I struggle with it as well. In my small, insulated world, throughout my life, my primary "competitors" in any medium, academia, music, professional environments, etc., have been from both genders, all races, and a wide variety of socio-economic backgrounds.   I have both prevailed and been beaten out in all of those arenas by all variety of people.

 

It would never occur to me that someone would be incapable of winning a position based on race.  

 

However, this is the real world.  I do recognize that large-scale, institutionalized discrimination does still exist, and often people don't even realize they're doing it.  

 

For that reason, until someone comes up with a way to avoid it, I'm not sure what else can be done.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

I didn't read the entire blog post, but from what I did read, this is exactly why Matt disagrees with affirmative action. It denigrates the very people it's intended to help and thus makes the situation worse instead of better. It implies that non-whites are incapable of getting ahead on their merits.  Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's not (depending on whether the person making hiring or admission decision is racist or not).  I'm sorry for what you experienced.

 

It was an eye opening experience, for sure. Now I know to ask the point blank question about where funding for my position would come from if I ever choose to go back into non-profit or government work in the future. If I had known from the outset that I was going to be a diversity hire, I would have turned the offer down. I did really love my job and the work I did for that organization, so it's not a complete loss, but it is also not an experience I care to revisit.

[Crimson Wife]

If college isn't for everyone, then employers need to stop requiring a B.A. for jobs that don't require specific technical skills.

I 100% agree. My last paid position "required" a bachelor's degree but I could've done it straight out of high school. It required good reading and writing skills and a solid grasp of math up to the pre-algebra/early algebra 1 level but that was it. The degree requirement was purely a "check the box" thing.

[DawnM]

Interesting.

 

I remember my father teaching an adult Sunday School class while he was in the States.  He mentioned several things that the class needed to look closely at their own lives to see if they were in error in things.  One of the things was racism.

 

That brought a bit of an uproar and defensive talk.  Many said, "I have a black friend" or "I wouldn't not go to someone like a hairdresser just because he/she was black."

 

My father responded with, "What about when you get on an airplane and the two pilots are both black.  Do you feel comfortable then, when you know your lives are in their hands."

 

He was quite taken by the silence that ensued.   He waited a few silent moments before saying, "That is what I am talking about.  If you are upset by that prospect, you are a racist in your heart."

 

Dawn

 

 

First of all, I applaud the PP who commented that strategy assumes all the white males and Asian males are competent, and other physicians "might or might not" be, but even going to one is "risking their family's health". If that is not racist, what on earth is?  Does there have to be a burning cross on the front yard to qualify?

 

Second, I'll just leave the quoted post here for anyone who is scoffs at the idea that white privilege exists. 

 

Edited to add a link to the Matt Walsh piece in question: http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/04/23/affirmative-action-defeating-perceived-discrimination-with-actual-bigotry/

 

[Crimson Wife]

However, this is the real world.  I do recognize that large-scale, institutionalized discrimination does still exist, and often people don't even realize they're doing it.  

 

For that reason, until someone comes up with a way to avoid it, I'm not sure what else can be done.

Most resumes are now pre-screened via computer. It would be very easy for the computer to assign a number to each resume and then have the hiring managers look at resumes labeled just with a number rather than a name. It's similar to how symphonies started having musicians audition behind a screen in order to reduce bias. Once that blind audition process was instituted, the number of females and non-white musicians being selected jumped dramatically.

[Brilliant]

...

Look, here's the thing: white privilege exists. It just does. And for some reason, people get all panty-bunched when they hear the term "white privilege," which just distracts from getting any meaningful discussion accomplished, IMO. So, because of white privilege, affirmative action is necessary. I agree it's not a perfect solution, but until we get to the root cause of white privilege (which I believe isn't about just race but also income inequality/class gaps/etc.), we're just going to keep having this circular argument over the hot-button terms "affirmative action" and "white privilege."

 

So do we just end the conversation?  Because someone says "it exists.  It just does."?

 

 ..

 

Thanks for this point. I was not going to comment in this thread since I am white. ...

Yes, being white makes it harder to participate in this conversation, because if you're white and disagree with the premise of AA, you're getting all panty-bunched.

 

My ds graduated high school last year with his best friend, the son of a friend of mine.  The best friend is a person of color, but his family is in the same socio-economic status as ours, and his name is "white" (his "color" is from his mom).  When we were talking about the local colleges our sons were applying to, my friend's son was eligible for a whole lot of stuff my son was not eligible for (scholarships, priority admission and/or registration, etc.)  Based solely on race, which had never before been a factor in any of the opportunities either boy had had up to that point.  It's sad.

[umsami]

So do we just end the conversation?  Because someone says "it exists.  It just does."?

 

Yes, being white makes it harder to participate in this conversation, because if you're white and disagree with the premise of AA, you're getting all panty-bunched.

 

My ds graduated high school last year with his best friend, the son of a friend of mine.  The best friend is a person of color, but his family is in the same socio-economic status as ours, and his name is "white" (his "color" is from his mom).  When we were talking about the local colleges our sons were applying to, my friend's son was eligible for a whole lot of stuff my son was not eligible for (scholarships, priority admission and/or registration, etc.)  Based solely on race, which had never before been a factor in any of the opportunities either boy had had up to that point.  It's sad.

 

And do you also know, that regardless of your son's friend's socioeconomic status or opportunities, he will still be profiled by the police.  He still has to "watch" himself and his behavior will be held to a different standard.  He still brings a different experience to colleges by having lived that.   ALso, you're assuming once again, that the only difference this young man brings to the table is race.  I want to say this gently, but I am 99% sure you would not say the same about a white friend of your son's. That's being racist--as tough as it is to acknowledge….and it happens all the time in this country…even 50 years after the Civil Rights Act.

 

"I was racially profiled in my own driveway"… http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/04/i-was-racially-profiled-in-my-own-driveway/360615/

 

"What I learned about stop-and-frisk from Watching my black son." http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/04/what-i-learned-about-stop-and-frisk-from-watching-my-black-son/359962/

[TianXiaXueXiao]

Clearly "white privilege" exists! White privilege is what created Affirmative Action in the first place! People of color did not get together and say, "Hey all you white mofos, come up with a strategy to even out the playing field since you are the only ones with the power to do so." People of color were tired of being negatively discriminated against and wanted to be taken seriously about it, but it doesn't mean that we wanted to be discriminated against for positive gains. Affirmative Action is an example of White Privilege.

[BrookValley.]

So do we just end the conversation? Because someone says "it exists. It just does."?

 

d.

No, not at all. My entire point was about having a conversation--a conversation about getting to the root of the problems associated with institutionalized racism and affirmative action. Instead of getting hung up on the emotions affirmative action evokes, as you are.

[Crimson Wife]

One reason the notion of "white privilege" upsets a lot of white people is because our ancestors got discriminated against too because they weren't WASP's. Back in the day, a lot of hiring advertisements and signs had "NINA" on them, for "No Irish Need Apply". Italians, Poles, Russians, and many other white immigrants faced similar discrimination. No, it wasn't as bad as the Jim Crow segregation against blacks, but don't use "white privilege" when you really mean "WASP privilege".

[BrookValley.]

I'd like to hear from someone who has recently experienced discrimination as a decendent of Irish, Italian, Polish, etc. immigrants. Really. Third or fourth generation (or more), white, decendants of immigrants, as many white Americans are.

 

We're talking about current discrimination against people of color. I don't see the comparison at all.

 

(FWIW, my mother is first-generation Italian-American and my father is first generation Irish-American. I'm very familiar with what you're talking about. I still maintain it's *white* privilege.)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'd like to hear from someone who has recently experienced discrimination as a decendent of Irish, Italian, Polish, etc. immigrants. Really. Third or fourth generation (or more), white, decendants of immigrants, as many white Americans are.

 

We're talking about current discrimination against people of color. I don't see the comparison at all.

 

(FWIW, my mother is first-generation Italian-American and my father is first generation Irish-American. I'm very familiar with what you're talking about. I still maintain it's *white* privilege.)

 

+1

Also, the discrimination faced by the Irish/Italians/etc was significantly different than that faced by African Americans in numerous ways. 

[AlmiraGulch]

Most resumes are now pre-screened via computer. It would be very easy for the computer to assign a number to each resume and then have the hiring managers look at resumes labeled just with a number rather than a name. It's similar to how symphonies started having musicians audition behind a screen in order to reduce bias. Once that blind audition process was instituted, the number of females and non-white musicians being selected jumped dramatically.

 

This is a common misconception.  I happen to work in HR  consulting, recruiting strategy, process, and software, specifically.  I am intimately familiar with every major recruiting software product available in the U.S. market today, and many of the minor players.  This is not how it works.  Companies can and often do add pre-screen questions to their applications/candidate profiles for ranking purposes, and that pares down the initial pool, but the software doesn't just remove candidate indicative information before presenting to a recruiter or hiring manager.

 

Even if they did, there are still biases that can be made based on a multitude of pieces of information:  Address, school, university, graduation dates, clubs, sororities or fraternities, and that's just to name a few.  The opportunity for bias exists in a multitude of ways, and companies must take great care to assure that the best candidates are all being considered equally and fairly.   

 

I will say that I've met very few people who were just overtly racist, and those are easy to get rid of (and, I'm happy to note, most companies don't want any part of that type of hiring manager).   Most people simply don't even realize they're even doing it.  That's why they pay companies like mine to put processes and systems in place to safeguard against it as much as possible.

[Dana]

One reason the notion of "white privilege" upsets a lot of white people is because our ancestors got discriminated against too because they weren't WASP's. Back in the day, a lot of hiring advertisements and signs had "NINA" on them, for "No Irish Need Apply". Italians, Poles, Russians, and many other white immigrants faced similar discrimination. No, it wasn't as bad as the Jim Crow segregation against blacks, but don't use "white privilege" when you really mean "WASP privilege".

We're currently watching the series The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow.

I hadn't been aware of just how many lynchings went on.

In one year, it was roughly one every 4 days.

 

Even as bad as tenement living was, white privilege still applies.

 

Umsami's post about profiling rings very true as well.

And in the video, I'm also seeing how our prison sentencing isn't that far from Jim Crow as well.

It's sobering.

[Dana]

I will say that I've met very few people who were just overtly racist, and those are easy to get rid of (and, I'm happy to note, most companies don't want any part of that type of hiring manager). Most people simply don't even realize they're even doing it. That's why they pay companies like mine to put processes and systems in place to safeguard against it as much as possible.

When dh first started work out here, one guy told him how much nicer the state fair was when it was segregated.

 

I'd imagine just being female shields you some from some of the more overt racism. Dh was pretty shocked.

[AlmiraGulch]

So do we just end the conversation?  Because someone says "it exists.  It just does."?

 

Yes, being white makes it harder to participate in this conversation, because if you're white and disagree with the premise of AA, you're getting all panty-bunched.

 

My ds graduated high school last year with his best friend, the son of a friend of mine.  The best friend is a person of color, but his family is in the same socio-economic status as ours, and his name is "white" (his "color" is from his mom).  When we were talking about the local colleges our sons were applying to, my friend's son was eligible for a whole lot of stuff my son was not eligible for (scholarships, priority admission and/or registration, etc.)  Based solely on race, which had never before been a factor in any of the opportunities either boy had had up to that point.  It's sad.

 

Being white and disagreeing with affirmative action does not automatically result in panty-bunching.  I've stated here that I'm not a supporter in its existing form, that I think there are better ways to deal with the widespread institutionalized discrimination that has been proven to exist, and nobody jumped on me as being a racist.   

 

I think what gets people's hackles up (or at least this is what does it for mine) is when people try to take their own personal experiences and extrapolate to mean that because they witnessed x, then y cannot possibly be true.  It seems as if that's what you're doing here.  And while I understand why that would be upsetting to you (and, frankly, it would frustrating to me and many as well), it simply does not mean you can dismiss all of the data that proves that women and minorities are still underrepresented and underpaid in the employed and college-bound populations at large compared to their white, male counterparts.  It's not a matter of opinion.  Despite your personal experience or mine or anyone else's, it's simply what the data supports.  

[AlmiraGulch]

When dh first started work out here, one guy told him how much nicer the state fair was when it was segregated.

 

I'd imagine just being female shields you some from some of the more overt racism. Dh was pretty shocked.

 

I should have said I've met very few people in the workplace whose practices there are a result of their being overtly racist or otherwise discriminatory.  Meaning, more often than not, it's more subtle than what you describe.  

 

For example, not too long ago I was consulting with a large retail chain and I was part of a conversation where the manager didn't want to promote Susie Q. to department manager because he honestly thought that the hours, stress, and strain would be too much for her, given that she was a single mother and had a couple of pretty young kids.  He truly, honestly believed it would be unfair to her to do that.  He was not trying to discriminate, he just could not wrap his head around how putting a "great girl" in that environment would be beneficial or "right" for her.  It's definitely an education process.

 

A couple of things about that:  1) I've spent my entire career almost exclusively in large, Fortune 100, corporate professional environments, where education on this sort of thing is mandatory and frequent, so I think that has something to do with it, and 2) none of this is to say I haven't met some horrible a-hole racists.  They're everywhere.  What's most insulting to me is that they quite often assume I share their points of view, or at the very least won't be offended by them, because I also happen to be white.  Unfortunately for them, holding my tongue is not something I do well.  I simply do not tolerate it and I've gotten in the face of more bigots than i can count.  So....yeah.

[poppy]

I 100% agree. My last paid position "required" a bachelor's degree but I could've done it straight out of high school. It required good reading and writing skills and a solid grasp of math up to the pre-algebra/early algebra 1 level but that was it. The degree requirement was purely a "check the box" thing.

 

I have done a lot of hiring where the skills required were high school level, but the poise, maturity and professionalism were not.  I know  that there are 18 years perfectly capable of jumping into a professional environment, but for the most part, most are not. The years spent in college (along with, typically, a couple of internships) are very useful. 

 

I have also seen people come from a few years into a retail or service background and become reasonably successful.  And then go to get a degree to be eligible for more advanced positions.  That does seem silly to me.

[poppy]

One reason the notion of "white privilege" upsets a lot of white people is because our ancestors got discriminated against too because they weren't WASP's. Back in the day, a lot of hiring advertisements and signs had "NINA" on them, for "No Irish Need Apply". Italians, Poles, Russians, and many other white immigrants faced similar discrimination. No, it wasn't as bad as the Jim Crow segregation against blacks, but don't use "white privilege" when you really mean "WASP privilege".

 

I don't mean WASP privilege. At all.  The people who will only go to a white male doctor really don't care if four generations ago, the doctor's relatives were Irish Catholics facing discrimination.  I understand it upsets people that their own personal histories aren't what this is about, but, it really isn't.

[solascriptura]

Well, if you knew such people, as I have, you might not be so certain of that. They just felt that they weren't going to risk their family's health on someone who might or might not have gotten into and through medical school on the basis of race. I don't necessarily agree with them (I've been to poor doctors and good doctors of all races and ethnicities) but based on everything else about those people, I wouldn't call them racist.

 

This is interesting. I could understand this if they were concerned of communication problems, but because they feared the doctor had an "easy pass" through medical school? Wow. They will certainly have greater difficulty finding white, male doctors: I believe their numbers are shrinking.

[solascriptura]

You know what makes me cringe?

 

"this white guy's Facebook page"

 

"a whole bunch of white people"

 

 

Oh well. I had never even heard of Matt Walsh until I read the title of your post. I guess I've been living under a white rock.

Can I ask you a question? What would "white people" rather be called?

[DawnM]

You need to ask them what brand of white they are and then from then on refer to them as Irish-American, Polish-American, French-American, etc....

 

On the very off chance (seriously, it so rarely happens) they are a mix of several nationalities, you may call them "American of multiple, but well respected heritage."

 

Dawn

 

 

Can I ask you a question? What would "white people" rather be called?

 

[Mom in High Heels]

Can I ask you a question? What would "white people" rather be called?

 

From what I interpreted from her post (I could be wrong) I don't think it's the "white people" as a name, but the fact that it was necessary to point out "white people" over and over.  Why not just "people?"  

 

BTW, for those who are black, do you prefer to be called black or African American?  I don't know a single black person who prefers AA.  Some of them are down right angry about it, as they feel it takes away from their "Americanism."  They have said it's not necessary to point out their cultural background, because they are simply American.  They have told me that white people don't insist on being called Caucasian American or European American or whatever, because it's just silly, and feel the same about AA.

[umsami]

Can I ask you a question? What would "white people" rather be called?

 

I'm white. 99% of the time I'm called white.  I suppose I could be called Caucasian, but then again, my ancestors are not from the Caucasus region. 

 

If you want to get in terms of ethnicity, it gets more confusing…. I don't see myself going by English-Irish-Scandinavian-American.

[AlmiraGulch]

From what I interpreted from her post (I could be wrong) I don't think it's the "white people" as a name, but the fact that it was necessary to point out "white people" over and over.  Why not just "people?"  

 

 

 

Because in this particular case, it's completely relevant that the people in question were white people.  

[Ali in OR]

I don't feel like I live in a world of white privilege. From where I sit, large corporations and highly selective universities are very actively trying to hire and promote minorities. In my dh's high tech company they are trying very hard to increase the number of women and minorities in management and in technical jobs. A qualified female/minority candidate will get the job over a qualified white male candidate every time because it helps their numbers.

 

Way up thread, someone posted about people being angry about other things and blaming it on Affirmative Action. I see some truth in that. Our world is getting more and more competitive and it is getting harder (sometimes it seems close to impossible) to get into a top university or to get that career-path job with good pay and health benefits. I think the anger is about lack of opportunities that all (or most) people are experiencing. I get angry thinking about how my dds have virtually no chance of getting into my alma mater, Stanford University. The admission rate is down to 5% (slightly higher for legacies--10-15%. That means 85% of legacies do not get in). My kids are not Olympic level athletes. They're good students, but won't be winning science talent search competitions. Stanford is now 34% white. If they admit 2000 people for their class of 1600 students, that would mean 680 might be white. Half of those will be female--340. Maybe 100 of those are athletes. Doesn't leave many spots for people like my dds--I doubt they will be in the top 250 of all of the top female students in this country (or world-wide--Stanford also attracts students from many other countries). I very much agree that universities and companies should be diverse places, but it is easy to feel angry when we don't see opportunities for ALL of the great students and applicants out there. And I don't think Stanford's attitude is unique--I think most/all top-tier universities actively pursue minority candidates, as demonstrated by the black male student who got into all eight Ivies. I can't imagine that happening for a white female--they have enough of those candidates!

[marbel]

From what I interpreted from her post (I could be wrong) I don't think it's the "white people" as a name, but the fact that it was necessary to point out "white people" over and over.  Why not just "people?"  

 

BTW, for those who are black, do you prefer to be called black or African American?  I don't know a single black person who prefers AA.  Some of them are down right angry about it, as they feel it takes away from their "Americanism."  They have said it's not necessary to point out their cultural background, because they are simply American.  They have told me that white people don't insist on being called Caucasian American or European American or whatever, because it's just silly, and feel the same about AA.

 

That's the impression I got.  I think if another group was named rather than "white" it would have been considered offensive.   

[solascriptura]

From what I interpreted from her post (I could be wrong) I don't think it's the "white people" as a name, but the fact that it was necessary to point out "white people" over and over. Why not just "people?"

 

BTW, for those who are black, do you prefer to be called black or African American? I don't know a single black person who prefers AA. Some of them are down right angry about it, as they feel it takes away from their "Americanism." They have said it's not necessary to point out their cultural background, because they are simply American. They have told me that white people don't insist on being called Caucasian American or European American or whatever, because it's just silly, and feel the same about AA.

Actually, I was asking about the race part. A while ago, a friend of mine said that she was offended that I referred to her as Caucasian. I thought this was the standard, non-offensive way of describing her color, but apparently she felt that it was better to be called white. White people in this country have blended so ethnicities cannot often be summed up in one word such as Irish American. So what is wrong with being called white or Caucasian?

 

When I meet a person for the first time, the first thing they notice about me is my skin color. They often ask me, "where are you from? China, Japan?" Um, no. I am not and I speak perfect Standard American English. I have no Asian accent! When I tell them that I'm from Ohio, you should see the funny, confused looks that I get. Hehehe... They then are sometimes embarrassed so they stop questioning me, but some continue to ask where I REALLY am from. I then get annoyed (but i sweetly smile). and specify my town when obviously that is not what they are asking for. So, the point of this story is, why is it okay to question a person of color about their color, but white Americans get upset when others bring up the issue?

 

You know, I used to feel the same way about being referred to as an American instead of stating that I was Asian American. I no longer care either way. One thing that I realize is that my ethnicity is such a huge part of who I am.

[AlmiraGulch]

I don't feel like I live in a world of white privilege. From where I sit, large corporations and highly selective universities are very actively trying to hire and promote minorities. In my dh's high tech company they are trying very hard to increase the number of women and minorities in management and in technical jobs. A qualified female/minority candidate will get the job over a qualified white male candidate every time because it helps their numbers.

 

Way up thread, someone posted about people being angry about other things and blaming it on Affirmative Action. I see some truth in that. Our world is getting more and more competitive and it is getting harder (sometimes it seems close to impossible) to get into a top university or to get that career-path job with good pay and health benefits. I think the anger is about lack of opportunities that all (or most) people are experiencing. I get angry thinking about how my dds have virtually no chance of getting into my alma mater, Stanford University. The admission rate is down to 5% (slightly higher for legacies--10-15%. That means 85% of legacies do not get in). My kids are not Olympic level athletes. They're good students, but won't be winning science talent search competitions. Stanford is now 34% white. If they admit 2000 people for their class of 1600 students, that would mean 680 might be white. Half of those will be female--340. Maybe 100 of those are athletes. Doesn't leave many spots for people like my dds--I doubt they will be in the top 250 of all of the top female students in this country (or world-wide--Stanford also attracts students from many other countries). I very much agree that universities and companies should be diverse places, but it is easy to feel angry when we don't see opportunities for ALL of the great students and applicants out there. And I don't think Stanford's attitude is unique--I think most/all top-tier universities actively pursue minority candidates, as demonstrated by the black male student who got into all eight Ivies. I can't imagine that happening for a white female--they have enough of those candidates!

 

And why do you think these companies and universities have these programs in place in the first place?

[poppy]

 

From what I interpreted from her post (I could be wrong) I don't think it's the "white people" as a name, but the fact that it was necessary to point out "white people" over and over.  Why not just "people?"  

 

That's the impression I got.  I think if another group was named rather than "white" it would have been considered offensive.   

 

Let me ask this.  If you stumbled across a post by -- let's say an Indian, about how white American are just terrible screwed up and awful, and you saw a whole bunch of Indians replying 'yes, yes they are, you're so right!', would you feel like the ethnicity of the original commentator and the responders was completely irrelevant?   

 

This is not to say in a conversation about the relative merits of the US, people from India are "not allowed" to comment or have an opinion.   Just that seeing an echo chamber of people from one group talking about another, and referring to that group as "they", can be uncomfortable.

[Brilliant]

No, not at all. My entire point was about having a conversation--a conversation about getting to the root of the problems associated with institutionalized racism and affirmative action. Instead of getting hung up on the emotions affirmative action evokes, as you are.

 

Hmm, I'm going to say the one "getting hung on on the emotions" is the one who uses loaded language like "panty bunching." 

 

I was truly questioning the logical fallacy of your statement "It just does" as an argument.

[Ali in OR]

And why do you think these companies and universities have these programs in place in the first place?

 

To create a diverse environment. In Stanford's case, they have clearly succeeded--34% white means 2 out of 3 people there are not white. But that means that fewer white kids today have the opportunity that I had to go to this fantastic school. I think you can be pro-diversity and still have hopes and dreams for your children or other fantastic students to have this opportunity (no one from our town seems to get in--except Division I level athletes). The sad thing is that they can't--there aren't enough spaces.

 

I know my kids will get a good college education somewhere. I know they have advantages, probably due more to the level of education of their parents rather than their race. I don't wish Stanford was less diverse. I just wish that particular opportunity was available to more people.

[AlmiraGulch]

To create a diverse environment. In Stanford's case, they have clearly succeeded--34% white means 2 out of 3 people there are not white. But that means that fewer white kids today have the opportunity that I had to go to this fantastic school. I think you can be pro-diversity and still have hopes and dreams for your children or other fantastic students to have this opportunity (no one from our town seems to get in--except Division I level athletes). The sad thing is that they can't--there aren't enough spaces.

 

I know my kids will get a good college education somewhere. I know they have advantages, probably due more to the level of education of their parents rather than their race. I don't wish Stanford was less diverse. I just wish that particular opportunity was available to more people.

 

I completely agree with you here.  But then I suppose that's the nature of exclusivity.  

 

There simply are not enough spaces for everyone who wants to go.  I can't say, though, that I wish there were more spots for white kids.  I wish there were more spots, period. 

[Brilliant]

Being white and disagreeing with affirmative action does not automatically result in panty-bunching.  I've stated here that I'm not a supporter in its existing form, that I think there are better ways to deal with the widespread institutionalized discrimination that has been proven to exist, and nobody jumped on me as being a racist.   

 

I think what gets people's hackles up (or at least this is what does it for mine) is when people try to take their own personal experiences and extrapolate to mean that because they witnessed x, then y cannot possibly be true.  It seems as if that's what you're doing here.  And while I understand why that would be upsetting to you (and, frankly, it would frustrating to me and many as well), it simply does not mean you can dismiss all of the data that proves that women and minorities are still underrepresented and underpaid in the employed and college-bound populations at large compared to their white, male counterparts.  It's not a matter of opinion.  Despite your personal experience or mine or anyone else's, it's simply what the data supports.  

 

I understand what you're saying.  But data is made up of data points, which in the case of affirmative action means PEOPLE - the very real personal experiences you mention.  Others on this thread (not just me) have pointed out there are real, negative outcomes for some people because of affirmative action.  We need to decide as a society if we want to raise the outcome for some members of the minority group, at the cost of both other members of that group and ALL members of the non-included group.

[Brilliant]

And do you also know, that regardless of your son's friend's socioeconomic status or opportunities, he will still be profiled by the police.  He still has to "watch" himself and his behavior will be held to a different standard.  He still brings a different experience to colleges by having lived that.   ALso, you're assuming once again, that the only difference this young man brings to the table is race.  I want to say this gently, but I am 99% sure you would not say the same about a white friend of your son's. That's being racist--as tough as it is to acknowledge….and it happens all the time in this country…even 50 years after the Civil Rights Act.

...

 

Can you please explain what you mean by the bolded part?   How would it be possible for me to say that any of my son's white friends bring a different race to the table?  :confused1:     The only thing I can think you mean is that I "assumed" scholarships & acceptances etc. for the friend based on his race.  Not at all, and I agree that would be racist!  I am not denigrating my son's friend or his abilities at all.  The discussion my friend and I had was about the fact that her son was eligible for many programs and scholarships that my son couldn't even apply for because he didn't meet the ethnic criteria.

[ktgrok]

I don't feel like I live in a world of white privilege. From where I sit, large corporations and highly selective universities are very actively trying to hire and promote minorities.

Yes, because for the most part those coporations and universities are already skewed to the point where they are almost all white. 

 

In my dh's high tech company they are trying very hard to increase the number of women and minorities in management and in technical jobs. A qualified female/minority candidate will get the job over a qualified white male candidate every time because it helps their numbers.

 

And why do they need to help their numbers? Because without AA they hired mostly white men. 

 

Way up thread, someone posted about people being angry about other things and blaming it on Affirmative Action. I see some truth in that. Our world is getting more and more competitive and it is getting harder (sometimes it seems close to impossible) to get into a top university or to get that career-path job with good pay and health benefits. I think the anger is about lack of opportunities that all (or most) people are experiencing. I get angry thinking about how my dds have virtually no chance of getting into my alma mater, Stanford University. The admission rate is down to 5% (slightly higher for legacies--10-15%. That means 85% of legacies do not get in). My kids are not Olympic level athletes. They're good students, but won't be winning science talent search competitions. Stanford is now 34% white. If they admit 2000 people for their class of 1600 students, that would mean 680 might be white. Half of those will be female--340. Maybe 100 of those are athletes. Doesn't leave many spots for people like my dds--I doubt they will be in the top 250 of all of the top female students in this country (or world-wide--Stanford also attracts students from many other countries). I very much agree that universities and companies should be diverse places, but it is easy to feel angry when we don't see opportunities for ALL of the great students and applicants out there. And I don't think Stanford's attitude is unique--I think most/all top-tier universities actively pursue minority candidates, as demonstrated by the black male student who got into all eight Ivies. I can't imagine that happening for a white female--they have enough of those candidates!

 

Wait, so white students are a minority of the admissions, and that seems bad? Huh, funny to be on the other side of things. If they are admitting MOSTLY minority students you can't blame that on AA. That's beyond what diversity requires, and seems to be based on merit. The very thing you were championing a few sentences ago. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

To create a diverse environment. In Stanford's case, they have clearly succeeded--34% white means 2 out of 3 people there are not white. But that means that fewer white kids today have the opportunity that I had to go to this fantastic school. I think you can be pro-diversity and still have hopes and dreams for your children or other fantastic students to have this opportunity (no one from our town seems to get in--except Division I level athletes). The sad thing is that they can't--there aren't enough spaces.

 

I know my kids will get a good college education somewhere. I know they have advantages, probably due more to the level of education of their parents rather than their race. I don't wish Stanford was less diverse. I just wish that particular opportunity was available to more people.

 

But why did more white kids in the past have that opportunity as opposed to minority students? Why was that fair?

And throwing affirmative action aside, even if we flipped those enrollment numbers, you would only be looking at 500 white female students being enrolled in a given year.  Considering the total population of the US that still seems rather insignificant.  And of course if we opened up Stanford enrollment even further, well then that would defeat the purpose.

[T'smom]

I don't feel like I live in a world of white privilege. From where I sit, large corporations and highly selective universities are very actively trying to hire and promote minorities. In my dh's high tech company they are trying very hard to increase the number of women and minorities in management and in technical jobs. A qualified female/minority candidate will get the job over a qualified white male candidate every time because it helps their numbers.

 

Way up thread, someone posted about people being angry about other things and blaming it on Affirmative Action. I see some truth in that. Our world is getting more and more competitive and it is getting harder (sometimes it seems close to impossible) to get into a top university or to get that career-path job with good pay and health benefits. I think the anger is about lack of opportunities that all (or most) people are experiencing. I get angry thinking about how my dds have virtually no chance of getting into my alma mater, Stanford University. The admission rate is down to 5% (slightly higher for legacies--10-15%. That means 85% of legacies do not get in). My kids are not Olympic level athletes. They're good students, but won't be winning science talent search competitions. Stanford is now 34% white. If they admit 2000 people for their class of 1600 students, that would mean 680 might be white. Half of those will be female--340. Maybe 100 of those are athletes. Doesn't leave many spots for people like my dds--I doubt they will be in the top 250 of all of the top female students in this country (or world-wide--Stanford also attracts students from many other countries). I very much agree that universities and companies should be diverse places, but it is easy to feel angry when we don't see opportunities for ALL of the great students and applicants out there. And I don't think Stanford's attitude is unique--I think most/all top-tier universities actively pursue minority candidates, as demonstrated by the black male student who got into all eight Ivies. I can't imagine that happening for a white female--they have enough of those candidates!

Should more consideration be given to a student because they are a legacy?