3 ms·
I think a lot of the papers and essays that are opposed to Affirmative Action and/or deny the existence of institutional racism seem to share a few characterist
by badRNG 6y ago
I think a lot of the papers and essays that are opposed to Affirmative Action and/or deny the existence of institutional racism seem to share a few characteristics, down to even the the words used (like being honest and decent.) Examining the tone of the piece:
> But I’m afraid that a segment of the community [people of color] – either well-intentioned or not – has chosen to weaponize the issue of diversity in a way that is not only hostile and disingenuous, but counterproductive to its own cause.
> Recklessly and indiscriminately warmongering over diversity is the business world’s equivalent of breaking windows and looting.
While some might characterize the piece as a little tone-deaf, they're the same sort of arguments that've been made since the introduction of Affirmative Action. First, a misrepresentation of sociological concepts like "institutional racism," and the conflation those who discuss its effects or potential solutions to "weaponizing" diversity or claiming that it is caused by malicious actors. The author even goes as far as to say:
> There are historical, cultural, and socioeconomic reasons ... that explain why a disproportionately small number of people in certain ethnic/minority groups are able to achieve the high levels of performance and economic success
But the author doesn't seem to even touch on what those are, other than drilling into the issue being "cultural." The "culture" of people of color has long been blamed as the cause of inequality since at least the Civil Rights Movement. Other, rather cryptic references exist for what the real reason for inequality is, right before the author jumps to a different point:
> If we’re honest, we’ll first acknowledge all of the nuances and complexities – some of them clearly uncomfortable – about the background sources of the problem.
I'm not sure what exactly what that's supposed to mean.
I think articles like this gain momentum due to the "Candice Owens" effect, and the defensiveness of all people to perceived claims of racism. It is a fundamental misrepresentation of what diversity advocates actually advocate, in the name of being "honest" or "decent." It's unfortunate that the author doesn't engage with actual strong arguments in favor of diverse workforces, namely the clear, well documented benefits to both businesses and individuals that a diverse workplace provides, rather than this strawman of someone "weaponizing diversity."
- happytoexplain 6y agoVery well articulated. The author unfortunately uses generic phrasing to paint a mischaracterizing image. Like so many other examples, it appears to be an attempt to fit words over preconceived, negative feelings. There are good versions of this argument, but this isn't one of them.
- jdkee 6y ago“ But the author doesn't seem to even touch on what those are, other than drilling into the issue being "cultural." ” The author very clearly described how: 1. His community prized shorter term economic gains over longer term ones. 2. How he was denigrated, called a “coconut” and accused of acting white, for choosing to study and perform academically.
- badRNG 6y agoI think I wrote that sentence a bit weird, what I meant to convey was that the "cultural" reasons were the only ones drilled into. The claim that non-white cultures are inferior to white culture in some way has historically been a justification for inequality (and for colonialism, slavery, and other systems we'd likely agree are manifestly unjust.) I'm disappointed the author didn't engage with diversity advocates or their claims in a more meaningful way. He acknowledges the well-researched sociological evidence for institutional racism, and I feel like a discussion that starts there is more valuable than one that knocks down this strawman of the person who "weaponizes diversity." Though to the author's credit, the piece doesn't read like it's intended to dismantle an entire field of study, rather it seems to jump between sharing anecdotes and extrapolating widespread political solutions from those experiences.
- TheOperator 6y agoI rarely hear opponents of affirmative action deny institutional racism as much as its proponents. It's proponents would rather eat their own hat than admit that systemic efforts to favor specific racism groups for employment (for the noble ends of countervailing other forms of systemic discrimination) are in themselves a form of institutional racism. This denialism has run so deep hacks in sociology have gone to the extreme of outright redefining the word racism to allow for the concept of "non-racist" racial biases in hiring. This is what I would characterize as "extreme defensiveness". I don't actually think proponents of affirmative action are without a point I'm just tired of seeing a group of people in such deep denial of their own systemic racism seeing everybody else as the deniers and acting above it all when they're not even as non-racist as the average moderate.
- firethief 6y agoI agree with your point but must take issue with your phrasing. Your conflation of racial bias with racism trivializes racism.