5 ms·

> As a minority, this is the part of the “woke” university system that I find most appalling. I don't know, I think your frustration may be a little misplaced.

by pen2l 4y ago

> As a minority, this is the part of the “woke” university system that I find most appalling. I don't know, I think your frustration may be a little misplaced. This recent tide in American culture of being on tippy-toes (limited as it may be to the liberals and closed circles in academia), I don't find it appalling, I find it... silly, if not admirable, because I understand it's coming from a good place. Imagine you're talking to a little Latina girl, you wouldn't skip a beat if you had to say something like "And these latinos, they did x"? We're in the midst of working through some tough problems in our society, being encouraging to a little girl is not a thing I'd admonish someone for. The worst that happens when someone says Latinx is they might looks silly, a reasonable trade I'd say given the stakes. > Or to use another example, they have almost uniformly adopted the consideration of race in admissions and hiring decisions, even though the majority of every minority group opposes that practice I think you and I have been through this in the past, but: the jury is out on this one, folks of a certain race were systemically oppressed for generations and as a result they are at the bottom of the barrel in terms of house-ownership, savings, etc. To not make the slightest of effort to undo the actions of this extant government is a ludicrous idea. When I see an educated person argue against this, I see it as a mark on their morals.

JamesBarney 4y ago
I don't hear the "whats the worst that can happen from calling a group of people a term they don't like or identify as" from the left very often. > When I see an educated person argue against this, I see it as a mark on their morals. You think the majority of minorities are either uneducated or morally flawed?
- pen2l 4y ago
  Majority of minorities support it: https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/uw7mvg3vnk-fxxtsc12lvq.png https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Pro... The ones who don't, IME, tend to at least sympathize with the point of view to some degree.
  - JamesBarney 4y ago
    There is a big difference between "affirmative action programs" and race based admission. Affirmative action programs could entail something as simple as opening up a booth at a historically black job fair (which everyone is in favor of) to race quotas which are far less popular. The question below is much closer to the what Rayiner mentioned "consideration of race in admissions and hiring decisions. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americans-say-colleges-should-not-consider-race-or-ethnicity-in-admissions/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americ...
  - rayiner 4y ago
    “Affirmative action” is a much broader category than explicitly race-conscious admissions and hiring policies. Indeed, the term was coined by JFK to mean the exact opposite context of race-conscious policies. Executive Order 10925 requires government contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” The majority of minorities oppose explicit consideration of race both for college admissions (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americans-say-colleges-should-not-consider-race-or-ethnicity-in-admissions https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americ...) and hiring (https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/05/08/americans-see-advantages-and-challenges-in-countrys-growing-racial-and-ethnic-diversity https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/05/08/america...). Both practices have become common in academia because it’s run by white liberals, who do like those policies. Also note that California’s Prop 16, which would have allowed racial discrimination in public sector hiring, was defeated in every single majority Hispanic county.
rayiner 4y ago
> don't know, I think your frustration may be a little misplaced. This recent tide in American culture of being on tippy-toes (limited as it may be to the liberals and closed circles in academia), I don't find it appalling, I find it... silly, if not admirable, because I understand it's coming from a good place. You’re missing the point. I’m not talking about white people being helpful or “encouraging.” I’m talking about white people claiming the power to decide what is good for minorities and who gets to define the identity of those minorities and how they relate to society as a whole? To use a specific example: It’s not about whether calling Hispanics “Latinx” is a good idea or not. It’s about “who gets to decide what we call Hispanics?” And on that front, university wokeness is not “coming from a good place.” “Latinx” happened because white liberals used their institutional power to adopt a label for Latinos that reflected the intersectional value system of liberal whites. They co-opted the power of the community to decide for themselves even the simple question of how they are identified. Musa Al-Gharbi’s analysis hits the nail on the head: “White elites —who play an outsized role in defining racism in academia, the media, and the broader culture — instead seem to define ‘racism’ in ways that are congenial to their own preferences and priorities. Rather than actually dismantling white supremacy or meaningfully empowering people of color, efforts often seem to be oriented towards consolidating social and cultural capital in the hands of the ‘good’ whites.” (See: https://contexts.org/blog/who-gets-to-define-whats-racist/ https://contexts.org/blog/who-gets-to-define-whats-racist/) You see this on issue after issue: policing, gender norms, religion, etc. > The worst that happens when someone says Latinx is they might looks silly, a reasonable trade I'd say given the stakes. Wrong. When someone says Latinx, they are imposing white liberal notions of Latino identity on Latinos. > I think you and I have been through this in the past, but: the jury is out on this one, folks of a certain race were systemically oppressed for generations and as a result they are at the bottom of the barrel in terms of house-ownership, savings, etc. To not make the slightest of effort to undo the actions of this extant government is a ludicrous idea. Respectfully, who cares what you think? I’m not saying that to be glib, but to get to the fundamental question: who gets to decide what’s good for minorities? Any effort to address the consequences of discrimination has trade offs. White liberals don’t have to live with the social and economic consequences of those policies. It’s completely indefensible to argue that white elites should be able to overrule the views of minorities themselves on those questions. > When I see an educated person argue against this, I see it as a mark on their morals. When I see a person argue in favor of white elites choosing how society should relate to a minority group—against the majority opinion of people in that minority group—I consider it a mark on their morals. Such people consider minorities as mere subjects on which to apply their own ideological notions, and that’s morally wrong.

by pen2l 4y ago

JamesBarney 4y ago

I don't hear the "whats the worst that can happen from calling a group of people a term they don't like or identify as" from the left very often. > When I see an educated person argue against this, I see it as a mark on their morals. You think the majority of minorities are either uneducated or morally flawed?

pen2l 4y ago
Majority of minorities support it: https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/uw7mvg3vnk-fxxtsc12lvq.png https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Pro... The ones who don't, IME, tend to at least sympathize with the point of view to some degree.
- JamesBarney 4y ago
  There is a big difference between "affirmative action programs" and race based admission. Affirmative action programs could entail something as simple as opening up a booth at a historically black job fair (which everyone is in favor of) to race quotas which are far less popular. The question below is much closer to the what Rayiner mentioned "consideration of race in admissions and hiring decisions. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americans-say-colleges-should-not-consider-race-or-ethnicity-in-admissions/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americ...
- rayiner 4y ago
  “Affirmative action” is a much broader category than explicitly race-conscious admissions and hiring policies. Indeed, the term was coined by JFK to mean the exact opposite context of race-conscious policies. Executive Order 10925 requires government contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” The majority of minorities oppose explicit consideration of race both for college admissions (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americans-say-colleges-should-not-consider-race-or-ethnicity-in-admissions https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americ...) and hiring (https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/05/08/americans-see-advantages-and-challenges-in-countrys-growing-racial-and-ethnic-diversity https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/05/08/america...). Both practices have become common in academia because it’s run by white liberals, who do like those policies. Also note that California’s Prop 16, which would have allowed racial discrimination in public sector hiring, was defeated in every single majority Hispanic county.

rayiner 4y ago

> don't know, I think your frustration may be a little misplaced. This recent tide in American culture of being on tippy-toes (limited as it may be to the liberals and closed circles in academia), I don't find it appalling, I find it... silly, if not admirable, because I understand it's coming from a good place. You’re missing the point. I’m not talking about white people being helpful or “encouraging.” I’m talking about white people claiming the power to decide what is good for minorities and who gets to define the identity of those minorities and how they relate to society as a whole? To use a specific example: It’s not about whether calling Hispanics “Latinx” is a good idea or not. It’s about “who gets to decide what we call Hispanics?” And on that front, university wokeness is not “coming from a good place.” “Latinx” happened because white liberals used their institutional power to adopt a label for Latinos that reflected the intersectional value system of liberal whites. They co-opted the power of the community to decide for themselves even the simple question of how they are identified. Musa Al-Gharbi’s analysis hits the nail on the head: “White elites —who play an outsized role in defining racism in academia, the media, and the broader culture — instead seem to define ‘racism’ in ways that are congenial to their own preferences and priorities. Rather than actually dismantling white supremacy or meaningfully empowering people of color, efforts often seem to be oriented towards consolidating social and cultural capital in the hands of the ‘good’ whites.” (See: https://contexts.org/blog/who-gets-to-define-whats-racist/ https://contexts.org/blog/who-gets-to-define-whats-racist/) You see this on issue after issue: policing, gender norms, religion, etc. > The worst that happens when someone says Latinx is they might looks silly, a reasonable trade I'd say given the stakes. Wrong. When someone says Latinx, they are imposing white liberal notions of Latino identity on Latinos. > I think you and I have been through this in the past, but: the jury is out on this one, folks of a certain race were systemically oppressed for generations and as a result they are at the bottom of the barrel in terms of house-ownership, savings, etc. To not make the slightest of effort to undo the actions of this extant government is a ludicrous idea. Respectfully, who cares what you think? I’m not saying that to be glib, but to get to the fundamental question: who gets to decide what’s good for minorities? Any effort to address the consequences of discrimination has trade offs. White liberals don’t have to live with the social and economic consequences of those policies. It’s completely indefensible to argue that white elites should be able to overrule the views of minorities themselves on those questions. > When I see an educated person argue against this, I see it as a mark on their morals. When I see a person argue in favor of white elites choosing how society should relate to a minority group—against the majority opinion of people in that minority group—I consider it a mark on their morals. Such people consider minorities as mere subjects on which to apply their own ideological notions, and that’s morally wrong.