7 ms·

But the SPSP requirement went a step further, dropping "diversity" in favor of "anti-racism," a term frequently associated with Boston University's Ibram X. Ken

But the SPSP requirement went a step further, dropping "diversity" in favor of "anti-racism," a term frequently associated with Boston University's Ibram X. Kendi, author of How to Be an Antiracist and other works. Among the book's passages is a widely shared one highlighted by Haidt: "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."

kenjackson 4y ago
In this thread I’ve noticed people have jumped from these principles, which do seem true to very specific statements about race that don’t seem true. Interesting.
- mpweiher 4y ago
  Nope. People rightly reject these "principles" as incorrect and both morally and pragmatically reprehensible.
  - kenjackson 4y ago
    How is the principle incorrect? It’s a truth like evolution. You can’t fix past discrimination without future discrimination, in most cases. That is something you can model quite nicely mathematically. The question is just if it is reprehensible to do so. Or if there are times when it is more or less reprehensible.
    - blix 4y ago
      I wonder if there are any historical examples of racial discrimination justified by invoking evolution. This argument is hilarious but this is not a turn I expected it to take.
      - kenjackson 4y ago
        I trust you do understand the distinction between the nature of this use vs past.
        blix 4y ago
        Tomato tomahto. The important thing is establishing that one group has too many resources which rightfully belong to some other group. The rest is implementation detail.
        josephg 4y ago
        > The important thing is establishing that one group has too many resources which rightfully belong to some other group I understand the arguments, but I don't think I'll ever be comfortable with the police taking someone's house from them because they're white.
        kenjackson 4y ago
        No one will take your house for that reason by itself. But they might take it when you can no longer afford to pay the mortgage because you were convicted of a drug felony where you were given a harsher sentence than someone of a different race, after being arrested under suspicion that others wouldn’t be. As a result you can’t find a job after release from prison.
        josephg 4y ago
        > because you were convicted of a drug felony where you were given a harsher sentence than someone of a different race Sounds racist. I’m not comfortable with that.
        kenjackson 4y ago
        Welcome to the world today.
    - josephg 4y ago
      > How is the principle incorrect? It’s a truth like evolution. You can’t fix past discrimination without future discrimination, in most cases. True like creationism more like. Here's some other perspectives: - Things in the past can't be fixed. We can't "fix" past discrimination any more than we can fix 9/11 or retroactively fix the holocaust. - Are you trying to decrease discrimination or racially biased life outcomes? If you want less discrimination, adding more discrimination is obviously counterproductive. If what you want is more wealthy black people, why don't you say that? - There's lots of ways to help people of color without discriminating against white people. Like introducing better social support for single parent families, reducing prison sentences for non-violent offenders, etc. - Having discriminatory hiring quotas misunderstands how wealth creation works. Promoting people in companies based on skin tone or gender instead of their skills makes companies weaker, and in turn rusts the engine of capitalism. That makes everyone more poor. - Discrimination like this causes new problems. For example, I know several female programmers who worry that they were only hired / promoted as "diversity candidates". That sucks. As a white dude, I know the only thing keeping me employed is my capacity to add value to the business. So in some ways I'm actively supported more because I'm white and male. - The research shows that diversity of background makes teams stronger, and diversity of values makes teams weaker. Where is this nuance in the political conversation? There's plenty more ways to think about this issue. Fixing past racism against black people with modern racism against white people is an obviously controversial policy. (This thread alone is proof enough). Shutting that conversation down is censorious and utterly unbecoming of the academy.
      - kenjackson 4y ago
        > - Things in the past can't be fixed. We can't "fix" past discrimination any more than we can fix 9/11 or retroactively fix the holocaust. You're right -- fix is not the right word. But you can dampen the impact of the event. For example, I think we provided various types of relief to different classes of victims of 9/11. > - Are you trying to decrease discrimination or racially biased life outcomes? If you want less discrimination, adding more discrimination is obviously counterproductive. If what you want is more wealthy black people, why don't you say that? I want people to not be impacted by discriminatory practices. The problem is that there are many practices that exist, for which their reduction in the name of this cause would be noted as discriminatory in themselves. At any given point in time you often must choose between which discriminatory practice to continue. For example, giving admissions benefits to legacies. Or tax breaks for estate taxes. Or property tax based funding of schools. Etc... > - Having discriminatory hiring quotas misunderstands how wealth creation works. Promoting people in companies based on skin tone or gender instead of their skills makes companies weaker, and in turn rusts the engine of capitalism. That makes everyone more poor. This is an example of a practice that only looks like it helps underreresented minorities, but is actually long-term discriminatory against them. I don't support such policies. In fact as you note, this actually helps you as a white male even more -- and I actually do believe this. > - There's lots of ways to help people of color without discriminating against white people. Like introducing better social support for single parent families, reducing prison sentences for non-violent offenders, etc. This is where it gets interesting and where anti-racism comes into play. There are things that can reduce the gap, and based on anti-racism principles these policies are indeed anti-racist, and discriminatory against whites. Again, it's about being results driven and not intent driven. These practices can reduce discrimination aginst minorities in outcomes -- but the mere fact of doing so increases discrimination against whites in outcome (at least relatively so). I don't think you can do one w/o the other. This is why the only way to counter past discrimination is future discrimination, even if not intended to discriminate. And what anti-racism asks is to look at all policies through this lens. As I noted in another thread, unfortunately, this tenant of anti-racism itself is racist (usings its own definition). Not because of "reverse-racism", but simply because once things are cast as beneficial to minority groups, their support amongst the general population reduces. In essence the most effective way to reduce discrimination is to discriminate, but w/o intent.
    - mpweiher 4y ago
      1) Evolution is not "a truth", as in a revealed truth that is true just by uttering it. Evolution is a well-supported and falsifiable scientific theory. 2) Evolution was not blindly accepted as "truth" the way you seem to expect this so-called "principle" to be accepted simply on your say-so (or prophet Kendi's?). Quite the contrary, it was not accepted at all and evidence had to provided. Lots and lots of evidence. Overwhelming evidence. And it is not accepted as truth by faith now either. 3) The mere claim "you can model [this] quite nicely mathematically" is not evidence for the claim. It is only evidence for you making that claim. 4) Even an actual mathematical model, should one actually be presented rather than just claimed, is not evidence for the claim. There are infinite mathematical models that are consistent with themselves yet inconsistent with the real world. 5) Yet, there are mountains of evidence that identity politics lead to bad outcomes. 6) And yes, racism (which this so-called "anti-racism" clearly is) is clearly reprehensible. This is something we fortunately figured out a while ago, and the fact that we figured it out was a major step up in our societal evolution. Quite frankly I am shocked and dismayed that we are even having a discussion about this. No. NO. Doing away with this nonsense was a major achievement for humanity, we can't give it up this easily. 6) Also: two wrongs never make a right.
      - kenjackson 4y ago
        For 1-4, we will mostly set that aside for now. But I do think that most people find it obviously true -- it just may or may not be to their benefit to say so. Identity politics does lead to bad outcomes, yet here we are. Unfortunately we've gotten ourselves to the point that now acting like there are no identities is just another form of identity politics. E.g., saying "lets stop talking about gender -- we have male and female and lets just stop there and move on" seems less appealing to those that feel currently disenfranchised by the status quo. On 6, anti-racism is racist, but not for the reason that most people assume. It is because white people tend to double down when confronted with anti-racist data. For example, when whites are told that the legal system is unjust to blacks, they tend to support it more. By anti-racisms very definition of being strictly results, and not intent, oriented -- it itself is racist. On your second 6 -- the second wrong can dampen the impact of the first wrong. I also notice that the beneficiaries of the first wrong, do love this quote. A tad convenient?
    - jazzyjackson 4y ago
      > can’t fix past discrimination it's not the result of discrimination that's immoral, it's the discrimination the "fix" is to stop discriminating
    - HyperSane 4y ago
      Racism is symmetric/reciprocal. If it is wrong for group A to discriminate against group B, then it is ALSO wrong for group B to discriminate against group A.
- HyperSane 4y ago
  Ibram X Kendi is explicitly advocating for racial discrimination here. Just racial discrimination in favor of his race. That is pretty obviously racist.
pas 4y ago
That's ... not how this works. This is not a zero-sum thing. (Even if there are parts of the problem where the actual conflicts are zero-sum, ie. there's a limit of how many first-year students can fit into classes, etc.) Discriminating against already well off groups to help chronically not well-off groups (affirmative action) is of course discrimination but the consequence is very unlikely to cause the well-off groups to suddenly find themselves at the other end of the spectrum. (Mostly because they have a lot of other opportunities... that's why they're well-off. Of course it's not that simple, because there's stratification of these groups themselves, so it's very important to look at people individually, and don't simply give them plus/minus points just because of an external trait. Eg. skin color.)
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  Saying that it’s okay to discriminate against poor Whites, Jews, and Asians because some are rich is entirely racist: You’re viewing people as defined by their race, not their individual attributes and histories.
  - pas 4y ago
    No one said that, and I don't view people as that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - HyperSane 4y ago
      Ibram X Kendi does.
      - pas 4y ago
        I haven't read anything from him (except that one line, I assume, you quoted a few comments back), but now I'm interested. Can you cite the relevant parts?
        akomtu 4y ago
        His name is Ibram Rogers Kendi, and under this name he has published books that make his "anti-racism" a moderate view. He's switched to this X pseudonym to make readers forget what kind of extremist he had been.

kenjackson 4y ago

In this thread I’ve noticed people have jumped from these principles, which do seem true to very specific statements about race that don’t seem true. Interesting.

mpweiher 4y ago
Nope. People rightly reject these "principles" as incorrect and both morally and pragmatically reprehensible.
- kenjackson 4y ago
  How is the principle incorrect? It’s a truth like evolution. You can’t fix past discrimination without future discrimination, in most cases. That is something you can model quite nicely mathematically. The question is just if it is reprehensible to do so. Or if there are times when it is more or less reprehensible.
  - blix 4y ago
    I wonder if there are any historical examples of racial discrimination justified by invoking evolution. This argument is hilarious but this is not a turn I expected it to take.
    - kenjackson 4y ago
      I trust you do understand the distinction between the nature of this use vs past.
      - blix 4y ago
        Tomato tomahto. The important thing is establishing that one group has too many resources which rightfully belong to some other group. The rest is implementation detail.
        josephg 4y ago
        > The important thing is establishing that one group has too many resources which rightfully belong to some other group I understand the arguments, but I don't think I'll ever be comfortable with the police taking someone's house from them because they're white.
        kenjackson 4y ago
        No one will take your house for that reason by itself. But they might take it when you can no longer afford to pay the mortgage because you were convicted of a drug felony where you were given a harsher sentence than someone of a different race, after being arrested under suspicion that others wouldn’t be. As a result you can’t find a job after release from prison.
        josephg 4y ago
        > because you were convicted of a drug felony where you were given a harsher sentence than someone of a different race Sounds racist. I’m not comfortable with that.
        kenjackson 4y ago
        Welcome to the world today.
  - josephg 4y ago
    > How is the principle incorrect? It’s a truth like evolution. You can’t fix past discrimination without future discrimination, in most cases. True like creationism more like. Here's some other perspectives: - Things in the past can't be fixed. We can't "fix" past discrimination any more than we can fix 9/11 or retroactively fix the holocaust. - Are you trying to decrease discrimination or racially biased life outcomes? If you want less discrimination, adding more discrimination is obviously counterproductive. If what you want is more wealthy black people, why don't you say that? - There's lots of ways to help people of color without discriminating against white people. Like introducing better social support for single parent families, reducing prison sentences for non-violent offenders, etc. - Having discriminatory hiring quotas misunderstands how wealth creation works. Promoting people in companies based on skin tone or gender instead of their skills makes companies weaker, and in turn rusts the engine of capitalism. That makes everyone more poor. - Discrimination like this causes new problems. For example, I know several female programmers who worry that they were only hired / promoted as "diversity candidates". That sucks. As a white dude, I know the only thing keeping me employed is my capacity to add value to the business. So in some ways I'm actively supported more because I'm white and male. - The research shows that diversity of background makes teams stronger, and diversity of values makes teams weaker. Where is this nuance in the political conversation? There's plenty more ways to think about this issue. Fixing past racism against black people with modern racism against white people is an obviously controversial policy. (This thread alone is proof enough). Shutting that conversation down is censorious and utterly unbecoming of the academy.
    - kenjackson 4y ago
      > - Things in the past can't be fixed. We can't "fix" past discrimination any more than we can fix 9/11 or retroactively fix the holocaust. You're right -- fix is not the right word. But you can dampen the impact of the event. For example, I think we provided various types of relief to different classes of victims of 9/11. > - Are you trying to decrease discrimination or racially biased life outcomes? If you want less discrimination, adding more discrimination is obviously counterproductive. If what you want is more wealthy black people, why don't you say that? I want people to not be impacted by discriminatory practices. The problem is that there are many practices that exist, for which their reduction in the name of this cause would be noted as discriminatory in themselves. At any given point in time you often must choose between which discriminatory practice to continue. For example, giving admissions benefits to legacies. Or tax breaks for estate taxes. Or property tax based funding of schools. Etc... > - Having discriminatory hiring quotas misunderstands how wealth creation works. Promoting people in companies based on skin tone or gender instead of their skills makes companies weaker, and in turn rusts the engine of capitalism. That makes everyone more poor. This is an example of a practice that only looks like it helps underreresented minorities, but is actually long-term discriminatory against them. I don't support such policies. In fact as you note, this actually helps you as a white male even more -- and I actually do believe this. > - There's lots of ways to help people of color without discriminating against white people. Like introducing better social support for single parent families, reducing prison sentences for non-violent offenders, etc. This is where it gets interesting and where anti-racism comes into play. There are things that can reduce the gap, and based on anti-racism principles these policies are indeed anti-racist, and discriminatory against whites. Again, it's about being results driven and not intent driven. These practices can reduce discrimination aginst minorities in outcomes -- but the mere fact of doing so increases discrimination against whites in outcome (at least relatively so). I don't think you can do one w/o the other. This is why the only way to counter past discrimination is future discrimination, even if not intended to discriminate. And what anti-racism asks is to look at all policies through this lens. As I noted in another thread, unfortunately, this tenant of anti-racism itself is racist (usings its own definition). Not because of "reverse-racism", but simply because once things are cast as beneficial to minority groups, their support amongst the general population reduces. In essence the most effective way to reduce discrimination is to discriminate, but w/o intent.
  - mpweiher 4y ago
    1) Evolution is not "a truth", as in a revealed truth that is true just by uttering it. Evolution is a well-supported and falsifiable scientific theory. 2) Evolution was not blindly accepted as "truth" the way you seem to expect this so-called "principle" to be accepted simply on your say-so (or prophet Kendi's?). Quite the contrary, it was not accepted at all and evidence had to provided. Lots and lots of evidence. Overwhelming evidence. And it is not accepted as truth by faith now either. 3) The mere claim "you can model [this] quite nicely mathematically" is not evidence for the claim. It is only evidence for you making that claim. 4) Even an actual mathematical model, should one actually be presented rather than just claimed, is not evidence for the claim. There are infinite mathematical models that are consistent with themselves yet inconsistent with the real world. 5) Yet, there are mountains of evidence that identity politics lead to bad outcomes. 6) And yes, racism (which this so-called "anti-racism" clearly is) is clearly reprehensible. This is something we fortunately figured out a while ago, and the fact that we figured it out was a major step up in our societal evolution. Quite frankly I am shocked and dismayed that we are even having a discussion about this. No. NO. Doing away with this nonsense was a major achievement for humanity, we can't give it up this easily. 6) Also: two wrongs never make a right.
    - kenjackson 4y ago
      For 1-4, we will mostly set that aside for now. But I do think that most people find it obviously true -- it just may or may not be to their benefit to say so. Identity politics does lead to bad outcomes, yet here we are. Unfortunately we've gotten ourselves to the point that now acting like there are no identities is just another form of identity politics. E.g., saying "lets stop talking about gender -- we have male and female and lets just stop there and move on" seems less appealing to those that feel currently disenfranchised by the status quo. On 6, anti-racism is racist, but not for the reason that most people assume. It is because white people tend to double down when confronted with anti-racist data. For example, when whites are told that the legal system is unjust to blacks, they tend to support it more. By anti-racisms very definition of being strictly results, and not intent, oriented -- it itself is racist. On your second 6 -- the second wrong can dampen the impact of the first wrong. I also notice that the beneficiaries of the first wrong, do love this quote. A tad convenient?
  - jazzyjackson 4y ago
    > can’t fix past discrimination it's not the result of discrimination that's immoral, it's the discrimination the "fix" is to stop discriminating
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    Racism is symmetric/reciprocal. If it is wrong for group A to discriminate against group B, then it is ALSO wrong for group B to discriminate against group A.
HyperSane 4y ago
Ibram X Kendi is explicitly advocating for racial discrimination here. Just racial discrimination in favor of his race. That is pretty obviously racist.

pas 4y ago

That's ... not how this works. This is not a zero-sum thing. (Even if there are parts of the problem where the actual conflicts are zero-sum, ie. there's a limit of how many first-year students can fit into classes, etc.) Discriminating against already well off groups to help chronically not well-off groups (affirmative action) is of course discrimination but the consequence is very unlikely to cause the well-off groups to suddenly find themselves at the other end of the spectrum. (Mostly because they have a lot of other opportunities... that's why they're well-off. Of course it's not that simple, because there's stratification of these groups themselves, so it's very important to look at people individually, and don't simply give them plus/minus points just because of an external trait. Eg. skin color.)

zmgsabst 4y ago
Saying that it’s okay to discriminate against poor Whites, Jews, and Asians because some are rich is entirely racist: You’re viewing people as defined by their race, not their individual attributes and histories.
- pas 4y ago
  No one said that, and I don't view people as that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    Ibram X Kendi does.
    - pas 4y ago
      I haven't read anything from him (except that one line, I assume, you quoted a few comments back), but now I'm interested. Can you cite the relevant parts?
      - akomtu 4y ago
        His name is Ibram Rogers Kendi, and under this name he has published books that make his "anti-racism" a moderate view. He's switched to this X pseudonym to make readers forget what kind of extremist he had been.