next »

[beacon1]

E_A is correct on all points (I just brought up the hypergrometric distribution on the grounds there was no reason to confuse the issue with something which is incorrect, no matter by how little). It is interesting that beacon1 reacted defensively as if these arguments were meant to oppose his point of view, when of course they support it.  (I do not agree with his general thesis that the University is anti-white-male but certainly a SC from a pool with a good proportion of both sexes should not be this homogeneous unless it is intentional.) - DvF

I don't feel as if I have ever argued defensively about the probabilities. I know that it is an unusual event to have an all female committee - especially when there was a student representative (new selection pool) and there is some forethought into the selection process. I made the point that we could never really determine odds because it is "intentional selection". If it is intentional (either conscious or subconscious), we must examine the intent. This leads me to believe that there was an intent to load the committee in such a way to get a desired outcome. This selection would be more likely to support an outcome of someone that is similar to the selection committee (i.e. female, emasculated male, minority). DAs engage in this kind of selection all the time. Most prosecutors know that the outcome of a trial is determined in jury selection.

[normative_]

Please excuse my marker post. I've just found this thread.

[historian]

Hey beacon1, I was wondering how do you know it was a "minority" who got the job.

Probably because it was at my U---I have two colleagues who *happily* tell unsucessful candidates that "AA" did them in. I heard one commiserate with a dreadful candidate (imploded out of nerves on campus) over the phone about how "hard" it is for "guys like us these days." 

Funny thing though...three came to campus and one was hired. The man hired was white, his competitors like the sad one on the other end of the phone? white.

Someone just might be lying to you for his own reasons. Seen it personally.

OH, and BTW?  From what I know, virtually all of the sit-com writing staffs and producers are male.  They'd have to tell you why Jim Belushi is a buffoon but ask them also why he's got a hot wife miles out of his "league" too while you are at it. Just sayin'....

[dr_stones]

Probably because it was at my U---I have two colleagues who *happily* tell unsucessful candidates that "AA" did them in.

The first thing you do is admit you have a problem . . .

[carol27]

Higher Education is a bastion of this form of bigotry... In a recent interview I had for a university position, several questions were asked about diversity and its importance in the classroom... I couldn't help but notice the whole selection committee was made up of females

Reminds me of a posting some time back from a department chair bemoaning how her university discriminated against women when it came to administrative positions. Her whining was so intense that someone actually took the time to look up her university and see how bad the situation really was.

Turns out this (female) department chair reported to a (female) dean who reported to a (female) provost.


The facts are simply this. Those who are not white males are using the diversity movement to get ahead. People who cannot compete in an open playing field always resort to these tactics.

Sad really....

[larryc]

Carol27, didn't you used to post here under a different alias?

[larryc]

Specifically, haven't you used the monikers Wow, Fym22 and Pamela11?

[pyshnov]

carol27:

Reminds me of a posting some time back from a department chair bemoaning how her university discriminated against women when it came to administrative positions. Her whining was so intense that someone actually took the time to look up her university and see how bad the situation really was.

Turns out this (female) department chair reported to a (female) dean who reported to a (female) provost.


The facts are simply this. Those who are not white males are using the diversity movement to get ahead. People who cannot compete in an open playing field always resort to these tactics.

Sad really....

Exactly my ideas! No, not plagiarised. Now everyone is seeing this.
I can only add that "social justice" leads to degradation of sci and edu. No, not because the "diversities" are less intelligent, but because THOSE diversities who are quick to use the corrupt system, and therefore are coming to the top, are dumb crooks.

For some period of time, Russia used to promote people coming from working class families. Some wonderfully succeeded as they were deprived of the opportunities before. But, many from politically incorrect background were banned and, on the whole, the country suffered greatly; it was becoming a heaven for illiterate politically correct crooks, including even some "scientists", but mainly - illiterate teachers, poets, writers, painters.

The activism will cost US more than it cost Russia, because America never actually had an established for centuries culture. America has very little to remember from its past. The really unfortunate situation in US is in the blown out of all proportions "social sciences", where criteria for good product are nonexistent and one crook becomes a founder of a school of crooks.
Remember the Sokal's joke? :-))

[daurousseau]

This is the thread of the undead.

[beacon1]

carol27:

Reminds me of a posting some time back from a department chair bemoaning how her university discriminated against women when it came to administrative positions. Her whining was so intense that someone actually took the time to look up her university and see how bad the situation really was.

Turns out this (female) department chair reported to a (female) dean who reported to a (female) provost.


The facts are simply this. Those who are not white males are using the diversity movement to get ahead. People who cannot compete in an open playing field always resort to these tactics.

Sad really....

Exactly my ideas! No, not plagiarised. Now everyone is seeing this.
I can only add that "social justice" leads to degradation of sci and edu. No, not because the "diversities" are less intelligent, but because THOSE diversities who are quick to use the corrupt system, and therefore are coming to the top, are dumb crooks.

For some period of time, Russia used to promote people coming from working class families. Some wonderfully succeeded as they were deprived of the opportunities before. But, many from politically incorrect background were banned and, on the whole, the country suffered greatly; it was becoming a heaven for illiterate politically correct crooks, including even some "scientists", but mainly - illiterate teachers, poets, writers, painters.

The activism will cost US more than it cost Russia, because America never actually had an established for centuries culture. America has very little to remember from its past. The really unfortunate situation in US is in the blown out of all proportions "social sciences", where criteria for good product are nonexistent and one crook becomes a founder of a school of crooks.
Remember the Sokal's joke? :-))

Social justice always breeds injustice - namely because fairness can only be distributed on an individual basis... The perpetuation of injustice brings feelings of shame and inadequacy to the individual who has been treated unfairly. His or her response will most likely be one of hostility and revenge. Imagine having someone of another race promoted ahead of you because you heard "more diversity was needed in management". How is that fair? Granted if the other person were more qualified... but what if they were less qualified? This system is used by race baiters to stir up hostility amongst races and it is ultimately used as a political tool.

[bigstateu]

De Facto - hmm... sounds like those are things that I received that I didn't know about.

Well the benefits of privilege are generally invisible to recipients of that privilege. It's not as if the person who hires us because we are white says "well I hired you because you're white like me and have similar forms of cultural capital and thus I am really comfortable with the idea of working with you" or the police officer who let me off of a speeding ticket says "well since you aren't a black male I'll let you off with just a warning because I don't think you're really a criminal."

Individuals are not experts on how privilege affects them, they are experts on their own perceptions of how privilege and stigma affect them.

I believe you are an expert on your perception that your race has never benefited you in any way. I do not believe that makes you an expert, however, on the issue of how race actually structures your life or on the variable impact that your being white might have across different interactional and institutional settings.

I suppose its my training as a social scientist, but we are taught that when we study criminals, the homeless, gang members and the like, that the only things that people are experts on is their own perception of their experience, not how various structural forces and demographic factors indirectly affect their lives.

I agree and I think the same logic applies to folks who we don't usually study.

[beacon1]

De Facto - hmm... sounds like those are things that I received that I didn't know about.

Well the benefits of privilege are generally invisible to recipients of that privilege. It's not as if the person who hires us because we are white says "well I hired you because you're white like me and have similar forms of cultural capital and thus I am really comfortable with the idea of working with you" or the police officer who let me off of a speeding ticket says "well since you aren't a black male I'll let you off with just a warning because I don't think you're really a criminal."

Individuals are not experts on how privilege affects them, they are experts on their own perceptions of how privilege and stigma affect them.

I believe you are an expert on your perception that your race has never benefited you in any way. I do not believe that makes you an expert, however, on the issue of how race actually structures your life or on the variable impact that your being white might have across different interactional and institutional settings.

I suppose its my training as a social scientist, but we are taught that when we study criminals, the homeless, gang members and the like, that the only things that people are experts on is their own perception of their experience, not how various structural forces and demographic factors indirectly affect their lives.

I agree and I think the same logic applies to folks who we don't usually study.

I would call the idea of "privilege" into question. It makes it sound like I receive something that 1) I do not deserve and, and 2) that someone else does deserve it. Example : Because I'm white I don't deserve my job, home or family... I'm only privileged to have them. Once more Phil (who is black) does deserve them because he doesn't have them. Once again there is failed logic here... The assumption is made that all whites are undeserving because they are white or minorities are deserving because they are minority is clearly racist. I believe our hard work and talents should be rewarded, not skin color - and this can only be done on an individual basis.

If you are a good social scientist, you also understand the limitations of social science research. To look at correlational studies on violence (for example) and conclude causality is faulty observation.

[bigstateu]

I would call the idea of "privilege" into question. It makes it sound like I receive something that 1) I do not deserve

We do receive something we don't deserve. We receive preferential treatment in many social settings because we are white.

Example : Because I'm white I don't deserve my job, home I'm only privileged to have them.

If someone better qualified didn't get the job because the white employer was more comfortable hiring his own race, then you may well deserve the job but you don't deserve the job over that more qualified minority. If a black person was steered away from your home because of his race and would have purchased the home before you, you do not deserve preference over him because of your race.

Once again there is failed logic here... The assumption is made that all whites are undeserving because they are white or minorities are deserving because they are minority is clearly racist.

No that's not the assumption or the logic. You are making a straw argument. The assumption is that all whites and all minorities have a combination of earned advantages and disadvantages and unearned advantages and disadvantages. Whites are not undeserving of everything they have, they are undeserving of those unearned advantages they have only because they are white. White privilege refers to those advantages.

[beacon1]

I would call the idea of "privilege" into question. It makes it sound like I receive something that 1) I do not deserve

We do receive something we don't deserve. We receive preferential treatment in many social settings because we are white.

Example : Because I'm white I don't deserve my job, home I'm only privileged to have them.

If someone better qualified didn't get the job because the white employer was more comfortable hiring his own race, then you may well deserve the job but you don't deserve the job over that more qualified minority. If a black person was steered away from your home because of his race and would have purchased the home before you, you do not deserve preference over him because of your race.

Once again there is failed logic here... The assumption is made that all whites are undeserving because they are white or minorities are deserving because they are minority is clearly racist.

No that's not the assumption or the logic. You are making a straw argument. The assumption is that all whites and all minorities have a combination of earned advantages and disadvantages and unearned advantages and disadvantages. Whites are not undeserving of everything they have, they are undeserving of those unearned advantages they have only because they are white. White privilege refers to those advantages.

Preferential treatment is different that privilege. Tall people are given preferential treatment in the NBA. Attractive women are given preferential treatment at cosmetic stores. The list goes on... Does this mean that the tall man is privileged to play in the NBA or talented? I would only agree that it is a privilege if he could not play basketball to the level of the NBA. You should be real careful with language because it has many hidden meanings.

The lie is that whites have inherent privileges. This suggests that we are given a "whites only" card to certain social events which is misleading. Are we treated preferentially by some because of our race - sometimes. Does this cause social inequality - certainly. Is the way to fix it through racial promotion - never. Reward should be based on achievement and talent alone. Laws are designed to prevent preferential treatment based on race, gender, religion, etc....

[bigstateu]

Are we treated preferentially by some because of our race - sometimes. Does this cause social inequality - certainly. Is the way to fix it through racial promotion - never.

Not fixing it is also racial promotion.

You're complaining because your racial and sex advantages have been chipped away at (and as such you have to rely more on your earned advantages to compete for a smaller number of slots than what were historically allocated to white males). I'm not complaining because I don't mind losing those benefits or competing against a wider pool of applicants, because I can still compete in a world of fewer white, male slots. I don't need the disproportionate representation of my race and sex that the past held, to compete.

Instead of wanting to go back to the old way, why not prepare oneself to compete in a new reality where the pool is greater and more diverse and you can't coast on white race and male sex as variables that give one the market edge they once had?