White Privilege

[Danoff]

Does accredition come with certain laws/rules of conduct?

I'm sure it comes with a laundry list of them. Allowing people to buy entry almost certainly violates an accreditation rule somewhere (at least for some forms of accreditation). But of course accreditation is not necessary for them to exist.

I believe that one can simply buy a seat in many private high schools, without requiring any aptitude testing. I suppose that's different since all children are required to be offered an education, regardless of their particular aptitude. But I don't see how the dynamic suddenly changes for universities. I don't see why a university that's not receiving tax dollars, and doesn't mind missing out on certifications from certain accrediting bodies, can't just sell seats to the highest bidder. That doesn't strike me as immoral. It strikes me as offering and education to people who want it.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm sure it comes with a laundry list of them. Allowing people to buy entry almost certainly violates an accreditation rule somewhere (at least for some forms of accreditation). But of course accreditation is not necessary for them to exist.

I believe that one can simply buy a seat in many private high schools, without requiring any aptitude testing. I suppose that's different since all children are required to be offered an education, regardless of their particular aptitude. But I don't see how the dynamic suddenly changes for universities. I don't see why a university that's not receiving tax dollars, and doesn't mind missing out on certifications from certain accrediting bodies, can't just sell seats to the highest bidder. That doesn't strike me as immoral. It strikes me as offering and education to people who want it.

In my country there are laws that require certification and is overseen by the department of education. To protect students from paying a premium and not learning anything. An example is Trump University. And also to prevent that discrimination based on ethnicity, wealth etc. doesnt happen.

 

[Danoff]

To protect students from paying a premium and not learning anything.

That's what the market is for. To indicate the value of a particular product.

And also to prevent that discrimination based on ethnicity, wealth etc. doesnt happen.

We discriminate.

I believe (although I'm having a hard time finding examples) that non federally funded universities can legally discriminate on the basis of race and wealth. Federally funded universities can only discriminate on the basis of race against white people in the form of affirmative action quotas. All other racial discrimination is prohibited for those universities.

 

[PocketZeven]

That's what the market is for. To indicate the value of a particular product.

In a perfect world I would agree. But people need some protection against scammers. Like financial institutes need to be overseen or/and regulated.

 

[Danoff]

In a perfect world I would agree. But people need some protection against scammers. Like financial institutes need to be overseen or/and regulated.

Well fraud remains illegal. But I didn't think we were talking about that. I thought we were talking about being able to qualify for admissions based on fee rather than based on aptitude.

 

[Biggles]

I thought we were talking about being able to qualify for admissions based on fee rather than based on aptitude.

Maybe you were ... I wasn't.

Monarchies enjoy privilege by force of government.

I wasn't talking about monarchies, in particular, but about entrenched privilege. The Duke of Windsor/Edward VIII is an excellent example of that ... & so, in a strange way, was his wife Wallis Simpson. They were both very unappealing people whose pro-German & pro-Nazi sentiments were considered a danger to Britain by the government. (On a side note, may I recommend to you, if you haven't read it already, the brilliant novel The Remains of the Day by Booker award & Nobel prize winner Kazuo Ishiguro).

In the present day, I am hard-pressed to see the difference between the wealth & entrenched privilege enjoyed by the traditional aristocracy, like Hugh Grovesnor, the Duke of Westminster, & the 3rd & 4th generations of mega rich families, like the Rockefellers.

The privilege exercised by Lori Laughlin in bribing school officials to get her daughters into
USC is on a somewhat smaller scale, but it kind of catches my attention when, after a $500,000 bribe was paid out to get her into the school, one of the daughters posts the following comments on her Youtube page:

"I don't know how much of school I'm going to attend," Jade said discussing balancing her work commitments. "But I do want the experience of, like, game days, partying. I don't really care about school, as you guys all know."

 

[Danoff]

The University of Texas (my alma mater) identified themselves as a victim of admissions fraud committed by (allegedly) their tennis coach, who received payouts to (effectively) admit students as part of the admissions scandal affecting many universities. They're conducting an internal review to figure out how to better catch faculty when they attempt this kind of fraud. Whether you think the University was in on it, or looked the other way, while a Tennis coach lined his pockets with admissions bribery, is somewhat beside the point (it would only expand the fraud charges). Photoshopping your kid to fraudulently bypass admissions is not what people talk about when they're complaining about college admissions privilege. This kind of illegal activity is a red herring. The real complaint is legacy programs (which UT apparently does not have - and is something I learned this morning after typing this paragraph).

Cornell, for example, despite receiving a small amount of public funding has legacy program that essentially allows students to (to an extent) skip ahead in admissions. The article I linked downplays the degree to which students can have a sub-par resume and still gain admission on the basis of donating parent alums. Legacy programs are entirely legal, and continue to be used today (and are not part of the admissions scandal). And if you're complaining about universities giving preferential treatment to rich people, don't cite these cases of fraud as the complaint, cite legacy programs.

My take on this is that I see it as a failure of government (I know, you're shocked). Cornell should not receive public funding with a legacy program. Aside from that, I'm totally fine with it. If they want to admit students who are sub-par, that's their call. It will degrade their product as a university and tarnish their reputation.

 

[Biggles]

https://www.newsweek.com/man-calls-police-black-man-phone-boy-son-racism-1448276

Somehow, the most poignant aspect is the young boy begging his father not to call the police.

 

[Danoff]

https://www.newsweek.com/man-calls-police-black-man-phone-boy-son-racism-1448276

Somehow, the most poignant aspect is the young boy begging his father not to call the police.

This is one of those situations where if it happened to me, I would just think the person was being cautions, but if it happens to someone who happens to be black, we're to assume it's racist. He's apparently a racist with a non-white kid if that's so, which is a strange combo. I don't like that we embolden this assumption about peoples' motives.

 

[huskeR32]

This is one of those situations where if it happened to me, I would just think the person was being cautions, but if it happens to someone who happens to be black, we're to assume it's racist.

But there’s more to it than just this particular situation, right? The black man in the video is heard saying this happens to him all the time, and I don’t find that hard to believe. On the other hand, I’ve “tailgated” into building countless times in my life, and never once had anybody say a word.

Now I know anecdotes don’t prove anything, but I think you’re missing the forest for the trees on this one.

He's apparently a racist with a non-white kid if that's so, which is a strange combo.

This is a half-step removed from “I have friends who are black.”

 

[Danoff]

But there’s more to it than just this particular situation, right? The black man in the video is heard saying this happens to him all the time, and I don’t find that hard to believe.

Yea, I don't find it hard to believe that he sees racism everywhere either.

On the other hand, I’ve “tailgated” into building countless times in my life, and never once had anybody say a word.

In an area where crime is a problem? I tend to get locked school doors held for me when I'm with my kid, but not without. If I were black, maybe I'd wonder.

Edit:

Keep in mind too, that the kid was old enough to hold the door for someone. Perhaps he was trying to be a good role model and demonstrate the rules that he was asking his son to follow - to not let people tailgate into the building.

Now I know anecdotes don’t prove anything, but I think you’re missing the forest for the trees on this one.

Really? Do you have some evidence that he was being racist?

This is a half-step removed from “I have friends who are black.”

It's hard (maybe damned near impossible) to dehumanize people who look different than you do when you live with people who look different than you do. Chinese looks a lot more like family to me than it used to. I didn't say it was impossible, but it would be a strange set of facts.

Edit:

Do you think that man loves his kid? I'd wager a guess that he does. Is it really so similar to say "I have friends who are black" and "I love someone who is not white"? That seems different to me. In fact, I wonder how many white supremacists you could find who do.

 

[huskeR32]

Yea, I don't find it hard to believe that he sees racism everywhere either.

I see what you’re doing there.

In an area where crime is a problem? I tend to get locked school doors held for me when I'm with my kid, but not without. If I were black, maybe I'd wonder.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Also, do you know that this video took place in a high-crime area? That guy doesn’t look dressed like someone who lives in a crime-ridden slum, and what limited surroundings we can see don’t exactly suggest it either…

Really? Do you have some evidence that he was being racist?

When did I claim I did? I said that you’re missing the forest (that situations like the one in this video probably do happen quite a bit) for a tree (that we shouldn’t make a big deal out of this one time because the guy “happens to be black”). You think it’s just one tree, and I don’t agree. I don’t know if the white guy here is racist or not, that’s beside the point I was trying to make to you.

It's hard (maybe damned near impossible) to dehumanize people who look different than you do when you live with people who look different than you do.

One would think that, yet slave owners often had live-in help, did they not? Didn’t seem to lessen their racism any. Similarly, living with women doesn’t seem to lessen the misogynistic or abusive behavior of a lot of men out there. I don’t think you’re making as strong of an argument here as you think.

 

[Danoff]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Also, do you know that this video took place in a high-crime area?

I went back and checked the article to find the quote, but it looks like it was just a facebook user who said something about a high volume of break-ins behind building security. I guess it might not have been that building, so the answer is no, though I thought I did.

When did I claim I did? I said that you’re missing the forest (that situations like the one in this video probably do happen quite a bit) for a tree (that we shouldn’t make a big deal out of this one time because the guy “happens to be black”). You think it’s just one tree, and I don’t agree. I don’t know if the white guy here is racist or not, that’s beside the point I was trying to make to you.

Well if we're going to publicly shame someone for being a racist, I'd kinda like to know that we got it right. Because this guy is going to get some serious backlash for this and possibly receive threats. So maybe let's make sure this tree belongs in the forest we imagine it belongs in.

One would think that, yet slave owners often had live-in help, did they not? Didn’t seem to lessen their racism any. Similarly, living with women doesn’t seem to lessen the misogynistic or abusive behavior of a lot of men out there. I don’t think you’re making as strong of an argument here as you think.

Whew... there are some things to unpack there.

I suppose it's not impossible that the kid who clearly has a strong degree of attachment for his father is attached to a d-bag who treats him like a slave or a second class citizen. Kids can be mistaken about the worthiness of their parents. But, there was nothing about that short exchange to suggest to anything unhealthy to me. So yes, you're technically right that I don't make an iron-clad impossible to debunk case here. Your slavery example is part of the reason why I followed it with the edit about love. Because I realized that "live with" is a bit too broad, and on internet message boards we run with that kind of thing. A white supremacist might be imprisoned with a black person, maybe even in the same cell, and never come around. I meant family.

 

[zzz_pt]

I don't know if the analogy with abusive husband/wife or master/slave works.

A father/son relationship is completely different. One is entirely dependent on the other for everything (shelter, food, safety, care, transport, etc) and is a resource sponge. The "only" thing a kid can give back to a parent is immaterial: love, joy, sadness, etc.

I don't think a white racist would raise a non-white child. If the father treated this kid as a racist treats people they hate, the kid wouldn't probably behave normally in public and would raise suspicions of being mistreated anyway. I mean, that's what I imagine. People who torture children don't let them out in the open.

On the article itself, I can't really get the situation. Maybe it's a cultural thing but it didn't like tailgating. The black man also is outside of the building from what I can see. Maybe he's in a doorway? Blocking passage? Can someone clarify it for me?

 

[Danoff]

Perhaps we need some sort of test for when it's time to publicly shame someone for racism. For now I'm only going to propose one component to the test, although this is a work in progress so perhaps it need more. So here's the test I have so far:

- you could switch the skin color of the people involved and it would still be bad for the same reason.

So for example, in this case the person behind the camera would be white, and the person on the phone would be black. And then we'd have to be able to conclude that the black person was being racist against the white person for the same act, in this case not letting him tailgate into the building. So how does this example hold up in that scenario?

Turns out if you switch the skin colors of the people involved you can make an easier case for the person behind the camera (now the white person) abusing the person on the phone (now the black person) due to race. Suddenly it looks like white privilege to insist on being able to tailgate, it looks like white privilege to insist that the building security rules simply do not apply to you. How entitled does that person look now?

So this case fails my test.

 

[Biggles]

Surely the whole point isn't that the guy is particularly "racist", it's that racism is systemic, so the guy feels entitled to call the police with no real justification other than that the guy "loitering" (who is rather obviously well-spoken, not some street punk) is black.

 

[Sander 001]

https://www.newsweek.com/man-calls-police-black-man-phone-boy-son-racism-1448276

Somehow, the most poignant aspect is the young boy begging his father not to call the police.

The kid probably knows statistics like “black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.”
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/do-police-kill-more-whites-than-black-people

 

[zzz_pt]

Surely the whole point isn't that the guy is particularly "racist", it's that racism is systemic, so the guy feels entitled to call the police with no real justification other than that the guy "loitering" (who is rather obviously well-spoken, not some street punk) is black.

That implies he wouldn't call the police if the person was white. How do you know that? Maybe he wouldn't, but I'm not so sure as you are that the reason he called the police is the color of the skin of the person standing at the entrance (from what I could see).

 

[mustafur]

Too much Racial Tension in America, not healthy and social media has made it worse.

 

[Sander 001]

Surely the whole point isn't that the guy is particularly "racist", it's that racism is systemic, so the guy feels entitled to call the police with no real justification other than that the guy "loitering" (who is rather obviously well-spoken, not some street punk) is black.

“I’m gonna call the cops! I’ll tell them you hit me!” the woman screamed, sitting on the grass and pointing at her ex. “I’ll tell them you beat me up. They’ll get your ass.”

The man stopped dead in his tracks, turned around and gave her a look of shock, anger and then unmitigated fear. He was black. She was white. He knew exactly what she was saying and so did I, and most horrendously, so did she. When white people threaten to call the police on black people—out of anger, out of spite, out of pure vindictiveness—they are effectively saying, “I’ll kill you!” They’re just using a legal extension of white supremacy to do it.”
https://www.theroot.com/from-starbucks-to-hashtags-we-need-to-talk-about-why-w-1825284087

 

[Danoff]

Surely the whole point isn't that the guy is particularly "racist", it's that racism is systemic, so the guy feels entitled to call the police with no real justification other than that the guy "loitering" (who is rather obviously well-spoken, not some street punk) is black.

If that were the case then it would pass my test. If you switched the skin colors you would assume that the black person (on the phone) was being racist against the white person (loitering).

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

[not directly to chain above]

I think we need to parse Racism from Stereotyping, because the seemingly-accepted perception of racism is....problematic I think.

I, and I think many others, tend to associate the word racist with people who actively hate people of one or more particular races. These people exist, without question, and should be condemmed.

But I think a lot of people tend to stereotype/prejudice (read as: pre-judge) based on race, without consciously hating people of other races. This is due to a myriad of factors, but I think is primarily due to lack of exposure to people they end up stereotyping, and general ignorance (not to be confused with stupidity). When you see a stranger, you fill in a lot of information (unconsciously) based on past experience and knowledge (faulty or not) gained from other people/media, etc. I honestly don't know if this is even avoidable, seems like human nature. The more you understand and know a person, the less you need to fill in with placeholder information...you know them not as a loose set of cultural attributes...you know them as an individual. Stereotyping is by no means inconsequential, but if we understand it as something that can be worked on, maybe society could make progress?

The problem, I think, is when people from group 2 get labeled as group 1. Because it shuts down all opportunity for growth. People would probably react a lot less defensively to being called out for "stereotyping" rather than for "being racist" which almost anyone would immediately deny, resist, get angry, claim they have black friends, face public shaming, etc. If instead that person actually reflected after being told they were stereotyping, things may (?) steadily improve?

 

[Daz555]

[not directly to chain above]

I think we need to parse Racism from Stereotyping, because the seemingly-accepted perception of racism is....problematic I think.

I, and I think many others, tend to associate the word racist with people who actively hate people of one or more particular races. These people exist, without question, and should be condemmed.

But I think a lot of people tend to stereotype/prejudice (read as: pre-judge) based on race, without consciously hating people of other races. This is due to a myriad of factors, but I think is primarily due to lack of exposure to people they end up stereotyping, and general ignorance (not to be confused with stupidity). When you see a stranger, you fill in a lot of information (unconsciously) based on past experience and knowledge (faulty or not) gained from other people/media, etc. I honestly don't know if this is even avoidable, seems like human nature. The more you understand and know a person, the less you need to fill in with placeholder information...you know them not as a loose set of cultural attributes...you know them as an individual. Stereotyping is by no means inconsequential, but if we understand it as something that can be worked on, maybe society could make progress?

The problem, I think, is when people from group 2 get labeled as group 1. Because it shuts down all opportunity for growth. People would probably react a lot less defensively to being called out for "stereotyping" rather than for "being racist" which almost anyone would immediately deny, resist, get angry, claim they have black friends, face public shaming, etc. If instead that person actually reflected after being told they were stereotyping, things may (?) steadily improve?

The people in group 2 ARE racist in my view. Prejudice based on race is the very definition of racism. It does not have to go as far as hate to be racism.

People in group 2 don't have so far to go to correct their behaviour as the scumbags in group 1, but they are still racist.

 

[Exorcet]

I think the point @Eunos_Cosmo was making is that how we refer to them might make a difference. When it comes to taking action, I don't care what words we use, I just want to maximize effectiveness. So whether or not it's racism I think there could be merit to not calling it racism under some circumstances.

When you see a stranger, you fill in a lot of information (unconsciously) based on past experience and knowledge (faulty or not) gained from other people/media, etc. I honestly don't know if this is even avoidable, seems like human nature. The more you understand and know a person, the less you need to fill in with placeholder information...you know them not as a loose set of cultural attributes...you know them as an individual.

I just want to say in response to this, that while we need to take human nature into account, human nature itself is adaptable. Society has changed greatly through history and I don't see why things would be any different now. We could push seeing people as individuals and not as members of arbitrary groups which can lead to us vs them thinking.

 

[Danoff]

Regarding the door tailgating situation...

It's not clear that it's racism, or even profiling (I mean, it's probably some kind of profiling, there are so many variations). It might be, but the evidence is not at all clear on that point, it might not even pass the "preponderance of the evidence" test let alone the "shadow of a doubt" which we should maybe use before we publicly humiliate someone. But there's a more insidious problem going on with this example. First, it emboldens non-white people to look for racism everywhere, in actions which are not inherently racist, and which cannot be identified as racist. When you're looking for it, you'll see it. If I were to look for it, I would see it. I do look for bias against men, and I see it. It's even present in this particular scenario, because there's no way this goes down in this way if one or both of the parties involved is female. When we encourage people to assume the worst about the motives of their fellow man, they find reasons (whether they're true or not) and demonize.

There's another problem, which I articulated in the "am I becoming a racist" thread, which is that it encourages racism among white people. Not the "I hate you" type of racism, but the "I can't be comfortable around you because I know you're racistly assuming I'm racist" type of racism. This results in white people going out of their way to be friendly, or to be afraid of confronting a black person who is doing something wrong (like trying to bypass security measures in a building). We don't want this, and it is a natural reaction to encouragement of assuming racist motives.

That being said, minorities (and some majorities) have a real problem. I'll use myself as an example. If I see the door not get held for me, or I see someone cross the street, or hold their kids a little tighter, or someone is standoffish, or someone incorrectly assumes behavior is creepy instead of friendly, or someone doesn't trust me to be around their children, or someone assumes that I can't understand emotional or social context, is it because I am a man? or is it just how they are.

I might see this 50 times in a week, which ones are biased against men and which ones are just behaving as they would? I can't know. I could film them and call them out when they do something discourteous or assume the worst about me, but I honestly cannot know if their motives are pure or if they're profiling me. Maybe 30 of those instances are people being biased against men, or profiling me, how could I know which ones are which? I can't.

To a certain extent, this is just something you have to put up with. And being confrontational about it is not the way to change hearts and minds. If I were to call someone out or being aggressive or harass someone every time I thought they were treating me differently because I'm a man, I'm a jerk. And make no mistake, this guy at the entrance to that building, knowing that he has a friend inside and refusing to call them, is a jerk. 100%. Of the two people in that confrontation, it's the one behind the camera who is definitely acting like a 'hat.

People are going to profile. It's unstoppable. My demographic is more likely to be a serial killer, and because of that, I'm going to get profiled, through no fault of my own. I don't know why white men are more likely to be serial killers, and honestly I don't particularly care. Maybe it has something to do with the assumptions and pressures that society makes about that group, maybe it's some genetic propensity. It doesn't matter. People are going to treat me however they're going to treat me. If I was taller, or shorter, or more beautiful, or more ugly, they'd treat me differently. All I can do is live my life to the best of my ability and try to show them that I'm a good person.

 

[LeMansAid]

Surely the whole point isn't that the guy is particularly "racist", it's that racism is systemic, so the guy feels entitled to call the police with no real justification other than that the guy "loitering" (who is rather obviously well-spoken, not some street punk) is black.

It's hilarious to me that it appears you've paired the condemnation of what you perceive to be racial discrimination with your own discrimination against the poorly-spoken.

 

[Biggles]

It's hilarious to me that it appears you've paired the condemnation of what you perceive to be racial discrimination with your own discrimination against the poorly-spoken.

I'm not sure why you think it's "hilarious". People prejudge based on all sorts of factors. I certainly do it all the time & I suspect everybody does. Prejudging simply based on race is very crude, but who doesn't make judgements about people based on the way they dress, the way they look, the way they act, the way they talk? How likely is it that if the "tailgater" had been an attractive, well-dressed, well-spoken, white woman that the resident (Cukor) would have called the police on her?

What strikes me as odd about this encounter is the black guy (Wesley) comes across as well-educated, composed, matter-of-fact & non-threatening ... & Cukor (in spite of the tearful pleas of his son) insists on calling the police on him regardless. According to Cukor there is a back story to his reaction in the situation:

http://www.channel4000.com/nation/man-who-called-police-says-it-wasnt-racial/1093671910

... while on the other hand it's not hard to understand Wesley's refusal to back down when confronted in this way.

 

[Danoff]

... while on the other hand it's not hard to understand Wesley's refusal to back down when confronted in this way.

Oh yes, I see why... because he assumed racism quickly.

Edit:

I'm glad that Wesley got to hear Cukor's explanation in this case, because otherwise it would just pile on to his confirmation bias demonstrating racism everywhere.

 

[Biggles]

Oh yes, I see why... because he assumed racism quickly.

Edit:

I'm glad that Wesley got to hear Cukor's explanation in this case, because otherwise it would just pile on to his confirmation bias demonstrating racism everywhere.

Is it confirmation bias for Cukor to assume that every tailgater is a murderer or thief? It's an emotional reaction based on his particular life experience. It's quite possible that Wesley also had particular experiences that made him react in that way.

 

[LeMansAid]

I'm not sure why you think it's "hilarious". People prejudge based on all sorts of factors. I certainly do it all the time & I suspect everybody does. Prejudging simply based on race is very crude, but who doesn't make judgements about people based on the way they dress, the way they look, the way they act, the way they talk? How likely is it that if the "tailgater" had been an attractive, well-dressed, well-spoken, white woman that the resident (Cukor) would have called the police on her?

What strikes me as odd about this encounter is the black guy (Wesley) comes across as well-educated, composed, matter-of-fact & non-threatening ... & Cukor (in spite of the tearful pleas of his son) insists on calling the police on him regardless. According to Cukor there is a back story to his reaction in the situation:

http://www.channel4000.com/nation/man-who-called-police-says-it-wasnt-racial/1093671910

... while on the other hand it's not hard to understand Wesley's refusal to back down when confronted in this way.

You've resigned to not adhering to a principle, and instead will indulge arbitrarily-established discrimination? I don't understand why your criteria for subjective discrimination should be considered more valid than someone else's (which in the case of the story, may, or may not exist anyway).

The only bigotry actually established so far here is yours.