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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
Reminds me of the rental manager at my London flat justifying a raise in my rent with "well, rents are rising". When I confronted him with his own organisation's web site, which unambiguously said that rents were flat or falling, he countered with "Statistics aside, rents are rising".
But I see the problem. Previously you claimed that these things actually were true. That people may believe they are "obviously" true is an entirely different matter, and probably the crux of the problem.
Because people believe in false things as "obviously true" all the time. For example, people used to believe that the sun obviously revolves around the earth, and many still do (and our language certainly still does: sunrise, sunset etc.)
And these things are just as false.
> that now acting like there are no identities is just another form of identity politics.
No it's not, and that's also a false dichotomy. Repudiating identity politics does not require claiming that (or acting like) there are no identities. But group identities don't define us, and certainly not to the exclusion of everything else. I am an individual first, and a member of various groups second. This isn't hard.
> anti-racism is racist
Glad we agree.
> It is because white people tend to double down when confronted with anti-racist data.
That's both untrue and also even if it were true it would not mean that "anti-racism" is racist. "Anti-racism" is racist all by itself without any external help required.
> when whites are told that the legal system is unjust to blacks, they tend to support it more.
This is not true.
However, speaking of doubling down on the false (and inconsistent) things people believe: the same people who believe that blacks are discriminated against, and use the legal system bias to justify their belief, also fervently believe that males are privileged. Yet the bias against males in the criminal justice system has been shown to be 6x larger than the bias against blacks. When confronted with these facts, do they ever double down!
But thanks for clarifying that what you are talking about is the not actual facts, but all the various false beliefs that people in fact do have.
My experience has been that it is better to base policy based on actual facts, not on things that feel truthy, though of course policy based on the latter is easier to sell.
I know it doesn’t sell well, but most whites do, at some level, prefer blacks not to do well. Not because they necessarily hate blacks, but in aggregate it means they’ll do less well (in aggregate).
So you talk about facts, but the data shows that whites will choose to enact policy they think hurts blacks. Those are the facts.
Your take away from the original study was fear of crime? Now I understand what our problem is — your basic logic skills. This is like a basic LSAT question you got wrong.
Edit: the quote is right on. Your statement that it wasn’t racism missed the point of the authors quote. Try again and see if you can see where you missed.
And no, I didn't miss anything. Fear of crime ≠ racism. And unconsciously associating crime with blackness also is not racism when, for example:
"According to the FBI, African-Americans accounted for 39.6% of all homicide offenders in 2019, with whites 29.1%, and "Other" 3.0%".[1]
So 14% of the population, but almost 40% of the homicides[2]. That's a rate almost 3x higher than you would expect from the population numbers. And whites are 61.6% of the population, so their share of homicides is slightly less than 1/2 of the expected rate. If you combine these two figures, you find that blacks have a 6x higher per/capita share of homicide offenders than whites.
Now this is all very unfortunate, problematic etc. But unconsciously associating blackness more strongly with crime than whiteness is not racism, but sound statistical reasoning based on the real world[3]. And humans are generally very good natural unconscious statisticians, particularly when it comes to assessing personal danger.
And please note that I am not in any way claiming that this association is "intrinsic" or that it is fair, or saying anything about the causes of the disparity in crime rates whatsoever[4]. I am just showing the unambiguous fact that the association is based on reality.
Also note that even if, in spite of the facts, you still hold that associating blackness with crime is solely or primarily due to racism, it would still not support your original assertion that "For example, when whites are told that the legal system is unjust to blacks, they tend to support it more." and certainly not your assertion that "most whites do, at some level, prefer blacks not to do well." That's just complete BS you made up.
[2] Homicides tend to be a good indicator because they are fairly unambiguous (there's a dead person) and also tend to have less chance of inconsistent investigation than other crimes.
[3] Note that this only applies to such unconscious associations as was the case here. It does not justify other sorts of inferences, particularly on an individual level.
[4] Except that, particularly for homicides, it isn't the result of unfair policing practices in any way that comes close to explaining the actual disparity, see [2] as well as the research on racial disparities in the criminal justice system, which came to more a 10% divergence, so nowhere near the 6x difference we see here.
You haven’t cited any data. Review the Vox article and linked study within it. You won’t address any of this.
Edit: what’s your point about gender bias? That’s a reasonable point to raise — in a different discussion. Maybe you can next talk about biases due to height and looks too? Also irrelevant.
The important thing is establishing that one group has too many resources which rightfully belong to some other group. The rest is implementation detail.
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.
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.
> 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.
> - 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.
> based on anti-racism principles these policies are indeed anti-racist, and discriminatory against whites.
I don’t think the best policies are racist. Providing more financial support for single parent households helps poor, struggling single parents of every race. It doesn’t discriminate.
And nor should it - poor white children deserve support just as much as poor black children do. No child deserves to be homeless.
Policies do discriminate in who they benefit, even when unintentionally so. School free lunches help Blacks more than Whites. But narratives often (usually?) matter more than discriminatory impacts — whether it helps Blacks or Whites.
Ibram X Kendi is explicitly advocating for racial discrimination here. Just racial discrimination in favor of his race. That is pretty obviously racist.
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.)
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?
Kendi argues that policy outcomes are central in measuring and effecting racial equity. He has said, "All along we've been trying to change people, when we really need to change policies." When speaking in November 2020 to the Alliance for Early Success, Kendi was asked if that even means abiding racist behavior and attitudes if it leads to winning an antiracist policy. Kendi answered with a definitive yes. "I want things to change for millions of people – millions of children – as opposed to trying to change one individual person."
Kendi provoked controversy when he tweeted about the relationship between Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump's third Supreme Court nominee, and two of her seven children, who had been adopted from an orphanage in Haiti. Kendi said:
Some White colonizers 'adopted' Black children. They 'civilized' these 'savage' children in the 'superior' ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity. And whether this is Barrett or not is not the point. It is a belief too many White people have: if they have or adopt a child of color, then they can't be racist.
His remarks were interpreted as criticizing interracial adoption. A substantial backlash against Kendi ensued. He later said his comments were taken out of context and that he does not believe that white parents of black children are inherently racist.
I can't really say much about this. It's typical vague bullshit. Kendi projects everything onto white people. (This argument/rant that "white person does X and now they think racism is no more" or "white person does X and now white person is automatically a hypocrite" is typical in radical social justice texts. Here he hedges it with "too many" white people have this belief.)
That said, I don't see where they say that fuck poor Asians, or where they say that being black entitles someone to more social help/justice than being a poor Asian.
"That said, I don't see where they say that fuck poor Asians, or where they say that being black entitles someone to more social help/justice than being a poor Asian. "
It isn't just Asians, any racial minority that is "too" successful, like Jews, Indians, Asians, Persians, etc, would be hurt by Kendi's ideas because they are essentially just the same philosophy that is mocked in the story Harrison Bergeron. Kendi thinks any difference in outcome between racial groups proves racism and thus must be fixed.
For too long, Kendi told the audience, society’s understanding of racism has focused on the perpetrators rather than the victims. “We should be outcome-centered and victim-centered,” he said. “If a policy is leading to racial injustice, it doesn’t really matter if the policymaker intended for that policy to lead to racial injustice. If an idea is suggesting that white people are superior, it doesn’t really matter if the expressor of that idea intended for that idea to connote white superiority.”
If we train our focus on outcomes and victims, Kendi said, “intention will become irrelevant.”
The book presents 5 questions to settle the question of "Am I racist?"
__always giving primacy to the individual over the collective, or group;
__always embracing the concept of individual rights to help me judge problematic social interactions;
__never assessing quantities of stuff in gauging whether a policy is racist;
__always attempting to embrace the “color-blind rule” when making choices;
__always maintaining awareness of the distinctions between equity and equality; never compromizing equality of rights in order to bring about equity of stuff.
the central idea of antiracism seems to be that all racial groups are equal, and therefore, any inequality is proof of racism, and any policy that arguably contributed to that inequality is also racist. This too, does not make sense. If inequality is due to racism, how can we explain inequality within racial groups? Why do white people in one state make more money than in another state? Why do chlidren from two parent households generally do better academically than children from single parent households of the same race? Racism can't be the answer. And Kendi rarely offers any proof that racism is the primary source of inequality between groups, let alone the only source. The book also feels overly long and highly repetitive, with Kendi driving home the same handful of points/ideas over and over again.
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.
I did not say that it's okay, I stated a simple fact, that positive discrimination is discrimination too.
Then I tried to explain the likely consequence of one usual version of that, and then I explicitly said that it's not that simple, because looking at ethnic groups and deciding the fate of individuals, just because they belong to that ethnic group, is almost textbook racism, as you also pointed out.
"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."