White privilege and this election

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:good idea! I actually just took the demo test and my result is:

Your Result
Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between European American and African American.

which is what I thought. (I am married to an african american) Interestingly enough, I got a different result when I did the same test with asian americans... it showed a moderate association with european americans rather than with asian americans. It's probably because I literally have never had asian friends at all. (I am not from the US)

the demo test can be found here: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/takeatest.html

Also I believe they suggest you should take it several times and look at the overall pattern -- especially since you're doing the on-line version in uncontrolled circumstances as opposed to the one used in the strictly controlled experiment.
It's a very interesting test, though. I recommend people try it and see what you think!

[Anonymous]

I just did the test. I did skin color and the Obama/McCain test. I had a strong preference for light skinned people, but had a slight preference for Obama. I am an Obama supporter. I was not surprised by the skin color test (I am a product of my environment after all), but I thought the preference for Obama would have been stronger. I wonder if the color preference influence that test as well. Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now this notion tends to get a lot of people upset. Nobody likes to be accused of being a racist, or biggoted, or biased. But, acknowledging to ourselves how we do or don't benefit from privilege and examining it in our own heads is not a bad thing. Peggy macIntosh wrote a great piece several years ago called "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack." I encourage those curious to check it out.

I'm a professor who has routinely uses MacIntosh's knapsack piece in graduate classes on social justice in counseling and therapy. What I have learned to my great surprise is that, at least among graduate students in my field, many of my students feel strongly that perceived social class is now a larger determinant of the treatment they receive than is race. This view is shared across black, Latino, Asian, and white students. When we do empirical studies of bias in this age group (mid 20s to early 50s), we find more bias against "poor whites" or "white trash" (excuse the terms, I'm quoting here) than against professional blacks or Latinos, for example. Interestingly, many of the most vitriolic comments on DCUM about Sarah Palin and certain white voters are also class based.

I'm not familiar with Macintosh & the knapsack piece, but have some questions on what you said. Is this in an urban setting? Would the results be different if you were to survey people living in rural or homogeneous areas? Or people who didn't go to college? I think people who pursue graduate studies self-select and are a subset of the population who may not represent the average person living in the fly-over states or remote areas. Just curious.

PP here. Data come from my grad students in a racially mixed urban setting (here), more rural area (the university I teach at on the West Coast), and both remote and "fly-over" states (where colleagues are also contributing to the studies, including those teaching in distance ed programs, which sometimes serve really remote areas). All grad students, and you're right, there's a lot of self-selection going on. But I think many people have a skewed notion of "grad student." A lot of master's students in human services fields are from very humble backgrounds and they're focusing on improving their earning power and job prospects. Some of them actually have lived in (gasp!) trailers and they would tell you that the loathing for them that some DCUM posters exhibit is as limiting and hateful as racism is. And I have seen many black and Asian and Latino students agree with that. Remember that discrimination is essentially prejudice plus power -- the power to discriminate. In many areas, the power to discriminate in hiring, for example, is no longer solely concentrated in white hands, especially in certain fields. In our studies, young minority students (under 30) believe they have an advantage when it comes to hiring, and the parallel employer studies we've done bear that out.

I believe in and teach about white privilege, certainly, but I also believe that class is a confounding factor. Many low-income whites find doors closed to them because they can't afford a particular kind of education on their own but they can't qualify for race-based aid programs, either (of which there are many), or because they don't get the extra point in a formula that comes with being non-white or the extra point that comes from being bilingual. The result is often preference in admissions or even financial aid for non-white students from more advantaged backgrounds. Those of us who are white but aren't from working-class backgrounds, and who have never been disparaged with some of the terms I see floating around DCUM, cannot understand the anger these people feel as a result of these policies.

The next president will probably need to grapple with this elephant in the room, especially given the Supreme Court decision suggesting that race-based affirmative action will need to be phased out. I hope that Obama is our next president for many reasons, but also for the balance and integrity he would bring to this issue. One of my heroes, the late Arthur Ashe, also spoke very cogently to this question, and I've heard Obama refer to the same ideas and challenges.

Anyway, read the MacIntosh piece. It's interesting and useful, but I also believe it's limited. As for implicit association tests, they're interesting and fun but they have a lot of limitations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now this notion tends to get a lot of people upset. Nobody likes to be accused of being a racist, or biggoted, or biased. But, acknowledging to ourselves how we do or don't benefit from privilege and examining it in our own heads is not a bad thing. Peggy macIntosh wrote a great piece several years ago called "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack." I encourage those curious to check it out.

I'm a professor who has routinely uses MacIntosh's knapsack piece in graduate classes on social justice in counseling and therapy. What I have learned to my great surprise is that, at least among graduate students in my field, many of my students feel strongly that perceived social class is now a larger determinant of the treatment they receive than is race. This view is shared across black, Latino, Asian, and white students. When we do empirical studies of bias in this age group (mid 20s to early 50s), we find more bias against "poor whites" or "white trash" (excuse the terms, I'm quoting here) than against professional blacks or Latinos, for example. Interestingly, many of the most vitriolic comments on DCUM about Sarah Palin and certain white voters are also class based.

Would you care to comment on bias when comparing Blacks and Whites of the same socioeconomic status? I am an educated professional African American, and I would prefer not to be compared to working class Whites, since I don't compete with that group for jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now this notion tends to get a lot of people upset. Nobody likes to be accused of being a racist, or biggoted, or biased. But, acknowledging to ourselves how we do or don't benefit from privilege and examining it in our own heads is not a bad thing. Peggy macIntosh wrote a great piece several years ago called "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack." I encourage those curious to check it out.

I'm a professor who has routinely uses MacIntosh's knapsack piece in graduate classes on social justice in counseling and therapy. What I have learned to my great surprise is that, at least among graduate students in my field, many of my students feel strongly that perceived social class is now a larger determinant of the treatment they receive than is race. This view is shared across black, Latino, Asian, and white students. When we do empirical studies of bias in this age group (mid 20s to early 50s), we find more bias against "poor whites" or "white trash" (excuse the terms, I'm quoting here) than against professional blacks or Latinos, for example. Interestingly, many of the most vitriolic comments on DCUM about Sarah Palin and certain white voters are also class based.

Would you care to comment on bias when comparing Blacks and Whites of the same socioeconomic status? I am an educated professional African American, and I would prefer not to be compared to working class Whites, since I don't compete with that group for jobs.

Sure. Remember we're looking for class bias specifically, and then hoping to tease out interactions of racial and class bias. We crosstab every group, not expecting that those groups would necessarily be competing for jobs. We're just interested in the extent to which a sort of social class affect might differ across groups. So far, we generally found that across most racial/ethnic groups, perceived social class is an important determinant of attractiveness (i.e., perceived similarity). So we find that people are most attracted to others of the same or higher perceived social class, regardless of race, in most cases. When we rank groups for perceived attractiveness, low-income whites fare the worst. Of course, this is a convenience sample of grad students, so there's selection bias in there for sure. There's also a regional confound in there because so many of the students are from a part of California that was heavily affected by dust bowl migration. Some of these students discuss their parents referring to "Okies" as white trash, poor whites, etc. There is still lingering bias there. Also a lot of between-group bias for the different Asian subgroups, which I was completely clueless about. Some of that is based on class.

I am wondering about the polling data that look at how race influences the vote this year. Everything I've seen is about whites and blacks in swing states. I wonder if anyone is looking at other racial/ethnic groups.

[Anonymous]

So are you saying that two candidates (for a job), with equal qualifications of different races were equally likely to be selected?

[Anonymous]

Oh, and if they were equally likely to be selected, are they offered the same pay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people keep looking for racism, racism will remain in our present lives rather than becoming a bad memory of the past. Good job.

I gather you've never experienced racism, subtle or overt. Often times, we don't look for it. It comes to people of color in the form of comments, looks, and other reactions.

I don't deny that people experience racism. I have a problem when people go looking for it. None of those examples sound in racism to me. Just because one candidate happens to be white and one happens to be black does not mean there will automatically be racism. Some of them sound in sexism (women changing their vote), and others...what would you call it? Classism (e.g., the pregnancy example)? There are lots of reasons to criticize any of the four of them (or give any of the four of them a pass on a past indiscretion). But I have a problem with people who are going to cry racism every time something doesn't go Obama's way.

I would normally agree with you, but just try to imagine Palin as a Black woman or even a White man. THERE IS NO WAY that the republicans would have even taken her. Also, imagine if she were ugly. This woman has had a free ride, let's face it.

I don't deny for a second that she was chosen because she's a woman. And it definitely doesn't hurt that she's attractive (though I have no idea whether that played a role in her selection--I'd tend to think they valued her age more than her appearance, to appeal to younger voters) I'm not even defending HER. If you replace every "White privilege" clause with "Sarah Palin given a pass", then maybe there would be a point. But the point of the original post is to highlight "white privilege." I just don't see it in the examples listed. Half of them compare apples to oranges. And none of them have any kind of obvious racial connection. I want to see people of all races succeed, and I want them to succeed on their own merits. Barack Obama is doing that. He HAS done that already, regardless of whether he ultimately wins the election. How many freshman senators (of ANY race) have made it to a presidential election? I think posts like this drive a wedge that doesn't need to be there.

Agreed!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So are you saying that two candidates (for a job), with equal qualifications of different races were equally likely to be selected?

Yes. BUT, many caveats: These are human services employers. Many receive federal or state funds and are required to provide culturally competent services, which necessitates a diverse workforce that, to some extent, mirrors the client population. Being multilingual, for example, is a huge advantage when you're trying to find a job as a counselor or therapist. Some jobs carry singing bonuses for multilingual counselors. At my university in California, minority faculty receive supplementary salary funds intended to promote hiring and retention of minority faculty. It's a common practice.

On a completely anecdotal level, my experience in admissions for an elite doctoral program is that if two candidates of different races have equivalent qualifications, we give preference to the minority candidate. Similarly, if two white candidates are equally qualified but one is L/G/B, we give preference to the sexual minority candidate. We have a responsibility to ensure the provision of culturally competent services and a diverse pool of service providers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and if they were equally likely to be selected, are they offered the same pay?

Statistically there was no difference in pay after controlling for pre-grad school experience level and multilingual ability. Multilingual graduates made significantly more. Most employers were either public agencies or unionized or both, and they don't have a lot of flexibility in pay schedules other than to meet cultural competence requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and if they were equally likely to be selected, are they offered the same pay?

Statistically there was no difference in pay after controlling for pre-grad school experience level and multilingual ability. Multilingual graduates made significantly more. Most employers were either public agencies or unionized or both, and they don't have a lot of flexibility in pay schedules other than to meet cultural competence requirements.

Can I see the data?
Also, elections are different than hiring. Outcomes of elections are based more on feelings and emotions than hiring. So, OP has a good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and if they were equally likely to be selected, are they offered the same pay?

Statistically there was no difference in pay after controlling for pre-grad school experience level and multilingual ability. Multilingual graduates made significantly more. Most employers were either public agencies or unionized or both, and they don't have a lot of flexibility in pay schedules other than to meet cultural competence requirements.

Can I see the data?
Also, elections are different than hiring. Outcomes of elections are based more on feelings and emotions than hiring. So, OP has a good point.

You can see the study after it's published. It's under review now. We obviously don't share raw data or cleaned up datasets unless they're funded through federal grants and we're required to do so as part of the contract.

I agree that there will be some effect of race in the general election, but we don't know what it will be. The Democratic primary system of proportional delegate allocation favored Obama because HRC couldn't break 15% in most black districts and therefore took no delegates from those districts. That won't help Obama in the general, however. In battleground states that we must win we have to rely on new voter registration and pushing up turnout in urban areas. Our current economic nightmare will certainly help Obama, especially now that he's focusing on his economic message. The more we talk about the economy, the better he will do. Regrettably, both Obama and McCain asked that the first debate focus on foreign policy, as both feel more comfortable talking about that. A debate focusing on domestic issues and the economy will really be helpful in pushing the 4% to 8% of voters who remain undecided toward Obama. I'm hopeful that the second debate will have such a focus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and if they were equally likely to be selected, are they offered the same pay?

Statistically there was no difference in pay after controlling for pre-grad school experience level and multilingual ability. Multilingual graduates made significantly more. Most employers were either public agencies or unionized or both, and they don't have a lot of flexibility in pay schedules other than to meet cultural competence requirements.

Can I see the data?
Also, elections are different than hiring. Outcomes of elections are based more on feelings and emotions than hiring. So, OP has a good point.

You can see the study after it's published. It's under review now. We obviously don't share raw data or cleaned up datasets unless they're funded through federal grants and we're required to do so as part of the contract.

I agree that there will be some effect of race in the general election, but we don't know what it will be. The Democratic primary system of proportional delegate allocation favored Obama because HRC couldn't break 15% in most black districts and therefore took no delegates from those districts. That won't help Obama in the general, however. In battleground states that we must win we have to rely on new voter registration and pushing up turnout in urban areas. Our current economic nightmare will certainly help Obama, especially now that he's focusing on his economic message. The more we talk about the economy, the better he will do. Regrettably, both Obama and McCain asked that the first debate focus on foreign policy, as both feel more comfortable talking about that. A debate focusing on domestic issues and the economy will really be helpful in pushing the 4% to 8% of voters who remain undecided toward Obama. I'm hopeful that the second debate will have such a focus.

I will have to say that I disagree with you. It is not the data, but how it is interpreted that is disturbing. To know that answer, you would have to actually do double blinded studies to look at actual hiring patterns. People's opinions do not necessarily carry over to reality. I personally know one person who does not like to sit next to Blacks, how can that result in fairness? This gets back to the old Bell Curve thing, which is too far off base. Implicit Association tests show that almost all Whites have some racial bias. Other studies have shown other phenotypic differences such as height positively affecting income.

Something just does not add up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I will have to say that I disagree with you. It is not the data, but how it is interpreted that is disturbing. To know that answer, you would have to actually do double blinded studies to look at actual hiring patterns. People's opinions do not necessarily carry over to reality. I personally know one person who does not like to sit next to Blacks, how can that result in fairness? This gets back to the old Bell Curve thing, which is too far off base. Implicit Association tests show that almost all Whites have some racial bias. Other studies have shown other phenotypic differences such as height positively affecting income.

Something just does not add up.

May I respectfully suggest that you wait to see the published study before you criticize it? You might be surprised to learn that we're not complete idiots. I'm the only one of the authors who is white, but I'm sure my colleagues would be equally offended by your reference to the pseudoscience of The Bell Curve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just read this and thought it was thought provoking...

For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who
are constantly looking for an easy-to-understand example of it,
perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol
Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your
family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you,
or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black
and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified
as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin' redneck,"
like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, who likes to "kick ass" if people
mess with you, and who likes to "shoot shit," for fun, and still be
viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to
be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six
years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of,
then returned to after making up some coursework at a community
college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to
achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as
unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first
place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town
smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state
with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island
of Manhattan makes you ready to potentially be president, and people
don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S.
Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means
you're "untested."

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under
God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough or the
founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately
disqualified from holding office–since, after all, the pledge was
written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't added until
the 1950s–while believing that reading accused criminals and
terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the constitution, which you
used to teach at a prestigious law school) requires it, is a dangerous
and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make
people immediately scared of you.

White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an
extremist political party that wanted your state to secede from the
union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your
patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your
spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with
her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's
being disrespectful.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and
the work they do–like, among other things, fight for the right of
women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end
to child labor–and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if
you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month
governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in
college–you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even
agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your
running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the
ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made
them give your party a "second look."

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your
political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being
a typical politicia n who engages in favoritism, while being black and
merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in
Chicago means you must be corrupt.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose
pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize
George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly
Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian
theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who
say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for
rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good
church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black
pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of
Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign
policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on
black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by
a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you
such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give
one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging
the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has
anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being
black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a
"light" burden.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possible
allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W.
Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing,
people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is
increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters
aren't sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it's just too
vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which
is very concrete and certain…

White privilege is…the problem.

If "white privilege" puts McCain in the House, I am happy it is around. I think it is all crap. Of course a racist would turn this into a white thing. Get the hell over it. Maybe are country isn't ready for a black president. So what. Maybe the black community should try improving themselves before trying to "improve" a country. I have lived in a city that went to hell because of a black mayor. He is still there because the blacks of that community would rather have a crappy city than vote a black man out of office. God help this American if this happen with Obama. I do not think he is qualified to be president even if he were the whitest man on earth. I don't think Palin is either, but the race is against McCain and Obama, and McCain is far better, in my opinion.