Warbler

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

I pretty sure that housing segregation is not allowed under the civil rights act. People have the right to live where they want regardless of skin color, assuming they can afford to live in said place.

And yet there it is, no longer de jure but still very much de facto.

I consider de jure a bit different than de facto

Admittedly many of these homeowners bought their homes back when redlining was legal, or inherited it from their parents who bought it under segregated circumstances.

Redlining is no longer legal. As for inheriting from the parent, just what do you want done about that? Do you want to make it illegal for for white people to inherit houses from their parents? Pass a law that whenever a white person dies, their house must be sold to a non-white person?

Hell, I’ve got a covenant on my property from 1954 that I believe literally says no “negroes or yellow races” can live on the property, except as servants. Sure it’s unenforceable now, but it was normal then. But I’d like to get it removed in case the legal landscape changes and it’s enforceable again (it’s hard to remove because the covenant was applied to a vast swath of land, not just my property).

I agree it would be a good idea to get it removed. It would leave a bad taste in my mouth if my had such a covenant.

again school segregation is unconstitutional.

If 100% of the people living in your district are of a certain race, their schools inherit their racial segregation from the housing segregation, now that busing is pretty much over. De jure or de facto, amounts to the same thing.

There is a big difference a in school just ending up all white because the town is(unless there is housing descrimination going on), and the school ending up all white because it discriminates against black people and refuses the let them attend.

And that’s not even considering places like where I went to school, where the school was integrated, but the individual classrooms were not.

? Please explain. Also how is this not sued out of existence?

About 30% of my school was racial minorities. But there were “tracks”: remedial, general, college prep, International Baccalaureate. It wasn’t segregated directly by race, but you could walk into an I.B. classroom and be blinded by the whiteness. Segregation by racial proxies (teacher recommendations were a big factor, and that could easily have a strong bias), failing to address other racial inequities, gets you the same results. A minority could get into the higher tracks, and they occasionally did, but they often outclassed the whole school, when simply being pretty bright was enough for the rest.

So you are saying that teachers at your school were biased in their recommendations and that ended up making the advanced classes more white? That would a be difficult situation, as it would be difficult to prove in court.

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

public school segregation is unconstitutional. As for white kids going to private schools, I am not sure what can be done about that. This is America, if you have enough money amd want to send your kids to private school, you can.

Sure, but you can make sure public schools have the resources to provide an adequate education. The trick is that wherever most of the white kids go to private schools, the (disproportionately minority) public school system can, and does, go to hell from lack of funding.

well of course all public schools need to be adequately funded. You will get no argument from me on that.

Also, my experience is that school segregation happens everywhere as a function of housing segregation,

I pretty sure that housing segregation is not allowed under the civil rights act. People have the right to live where they want regardless of skin color, assuming they can afford to live in said place.

which is also a serious issue. But in some places, the school segregation is out of proportion with the housing segregation, which is what I was talking about.

again school segregation is unconstitutional.

It is, but it doesn’t stop school systems from doing it.

any school system that does this should be sued.

Sure, but who wants to lawyer up over some homecoming vote? Too much money, too much time and effort.

Back in the 70s and 80s, schools were required to make sure that they were racially balanced. This required busing in some students from wider distances. Some parents didn’t like this, and the courts ruled that schools were integrated enough, so it wasn’t required anymore.

I don’t know that we need rules to make schools racially balanced,

Apparently we do. It worked back then.

just make rules schools much take kids of all color if they live in the school district. Of course you also have to make sure no one is playing games when they are drawing the lines of the district.

And that’s not even considering places like where I went to school, where the school was integrated, but the individual classrooms were not.

? Please explain.

I’m assuming the school would be more or less balanced racially, but individual classrooms would be almost all white or all black.

Also how is this not sued out of existence?

Not everything bad is sued out of existence.

Well I don’t know what to tell you. If the school is deliberately separating classrooms by race, that is a violation of the constitution. The school should be sued. It would be an open and shut case. The school would lose.

See above.

I guess what I am saying is, if the schools treat children of all races the same and do not discriminate, is it a bid deal if one school district just happens to wind up mostly white and another mostly black(assuming both schools are adequately funded)? Any black kid wanting to go to the school that is majority white just needs to move in the that school’s district, assuming they can afford it and vice versa.

suspiciouscoffee said:

"Either we do it how we’re doing it and that ensures that everybody is happy or we go to the student body electing whomever they want to be the queen and that could be a white girl every year,”

which shows a complete lack of faith in us students, who have been calling for change for years, so it seems that probably wouldn’t be the case.

Maybe it is a lack of faith in the students, but if racism is as alive and well as you believe, the school may have a point in doing it this way.

Btw, How does the school handle girls of other races (Middle Eastern, Asian, Native Americans, etc) when it comes to the home coming court?

suspiciouscoffee said:

Warbler said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

*Some activities, such as homecoming court voting, are still bafflingly segregated.

at a public school? I can’t believe that is allowed. If it was, someone would sued it out of existence a long time ago.

No one has tried to sue.

Why? Where is the NAACP on this? This sounds like it would be an open and shut of case of discrimination.

A petition was brought to the school board last year, but I don’t think it went anywhere. If nothing’s changed this year, I’ll try to organize a boycott of the vote. I’d link to some articles about it, but I don’t feel like giving away my exact location.

I don’t blame you for not wanting to reveal too much personal info.

Has school district made any argument as to how this is not a violation of the Constitution?

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

public school segregation is unconstitutional. As for white kids going to private schools, I am not sure what can be done about that. This is America, if you have enough money amd want to send your kids to private school, you can.

Sure, but you can make sure public schools have the resources to provide an adequate education. The trick is that wherever most of the white kids go to private schools, the (disproportionately minority) public school system can, and does, go to hell from lack of funding.

well of course all public schools need to be adequately funded. You will get no argument from me on that.

Also, my experience is that school segregation happens everywhere as a function of housing segregation,

I pretty sure that housing segregation is not allowed under the civil rights act. People have the right to live where they want regardless of skin color, assuming they can afford to live in said place.

which is also a serious issue. But in some places, the school segregation is out of proportion with the housing segregation, which is what I was talking about.

again school segregation is unconstitutional.

It is, but it doesn’t stop school systems from doing it.

any school system that does this should be sued.

Back in the 70s and 80s, schools were required to make sure that they were racially balanced. This required busing in some students from wider distances. Some parents didn’t like this, and the courts ruled that schools were integrated enough, so it wasn’t required anymore.

I don’t know that we need rules to make schools racially balanced, just make rules schools much take kids of all color if they live in the school district. Of course you also have to make sure no one is playing games when they are drawing the lines of the district.

And that’s not even considering places like where I went to school, where the school was integrated, but the individual classrooms were not.

? Please explain.

I’m assuming the school would be more or less balanced racially, but individual classrooms would be almost all white or all black.

Also how is this not sued out of existence?

Not everything bad is sued out of existence.

Well I don’t know what to tell you. If the school is deliberately separating classrooms by race, that is a violation of the constitution. The school should be sued. It would be an open and shut case. The school would lose.

then why hasn’t someone sued it out of existence? I believe such things are unconstitutional at a public school.

yhwx said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

https://twitter.com/gte/status/896439867151986690

The complacency, before and after the election, is depressing. It speaks to an educated populace that was taught propaganda not history.

https://twitter.com/gte/status/896453771697545217

Let’s never again say, “That’s not America”. Because it is. And has always been. Friends, get your shit together. You live a fantasy.

Whenever I see this sentiment, I get annoyed. It’s not that I really strongly disagree, I’m just annoyed.

Thoughts?

I think the guy has no idea what America is.

Counter-argument:

This is America. It’s the same country that had slavery and lynching and segregation. The United States has done plenty of racist things in its history. Therefore, that becomes the main thing that America is.

Sorry to go full-on Frevious, but it’s an argument with reason. I just feel annoyed by it, even though it’s probably true.

Also, for the record, he’s Canadian.

Reposting this. Seemed like it got lost in the shuffle.

I am trying to think of an adequate Counter-counter-argument, but right I am too tempted to go middle finger at it, so I will respond to this when I can think of something that says what I want, but won’t be something I regret.

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

public school segregation is unconstitutional. As for white kids going to private schools, I am not sure what can be done about that. This is America, if you have enough money amd want to send your kids to private school, you can.

Sure, but you can make sure public schools have the resources to provide an adequate education. The trick is that wherever most of the white kids go to private schools, the (disproportionately minority) public school system can, and does, go to hell from lack of funding.

well of course all public schools need to be adequately funded. You will get no argument from me on that.

Also, my experience is that school segregation happens everywhere as a function of housing segregation,

I pretty sure that housing segregation is not allowed under the civil rights act. People have the right to live where they want regardless of skin color, assuming they can afford to live in said place.

which is also a serious issue. But in some places, the school segregation is out of proportion with the housing segregation, which is what I was talking about.

again school segregation is unconstitutional.

And that’s not even considering places like where I went to school, where the school was integrated, but the individual classrooms were not.

? Please explain. Also how is this not sued out of existence?

suspiciouscoffee said:

*Some activities, such as homecoming court voting, are still bafflingly segregated.

at a public school? I can’t believe that is allowed. If it was, someone would sued it out of existence a long time ago.

generalfrevious said:

The only solution is for this extermination camp passing itself off as a country to be dismantled and destroyed permanently. But nothing will be done in the end. Millions will still be slaughtered, and the descendants of white supremacists will continue to thrive and prosper. Fuck America.

oh shut up

CatBus said:

Public school funding equality issues are another

Well I guess all public schools need equal funding.

(many southern schools are still segregated, for the most part – the white kids just switched to private schools).

public school segregation is unconstitutional. As for white kids going to private schools, I am not sure what can be done about that. This is America, if you have enough money amd want to send your kids to private school, you can.

Sentencing/prison reform.

I suppose so.

Anywhere you look really, there’s something to be done. The legacy of slavery is everywhere. In other words, embrace the dark side and become a SJW 😉

Sorry, I won’t be turning to the Dark Side. You’ve failed, Your Highness.

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

I assume the meaning is that even Michelle Obama, descendant of slaves, was benefiting from racism insofar as the house she was living in was built by slaves.

Maybe, but what you want to do? Knock down a perfectly usable White House and waste money building a new one, just so we can say the President no longer lives in a house built by slaves? The White House was built by slaves. It was wrong, it was racist, it was a crime. But it is too late to reverse it. The While House is already built. Nothing can undo the fact that it was built by slaves. The slaves that built it are long dead, there is no way to help them, there is nothing to do that will do any of them any good. Make sure it is remembered how the White House was built, build a monument to the slave that built there. Put up a plaque to remember it. But it is done and can’t be undone unless someone invents a time machine.

The literal level isn’t where the useful discussion is. It’s not about a physical structure per se, it’s about a nation. It’s not about living in a house per se, it’s about benefiting from past injustice. So – to refrain from the original post, what is she (and what are we) going to do about that?

I don’t know that anything can be done. Unless you have a time machine, you can’t change the past(even if you did have one, there are a whole slew of problems with trying to alter history).

You’re still looking at it very literally. The slavery happened and can’t be undone. The lynching and redlining happened and can’t be undone. But the current injustices that are derived from these things? Those can be undone. The trouble is that the current injustices are much more subtle, institutional things, and perpetuated by largely well-meaning people with no racial animus. Nevertheless that’s our responsibility, to wipe out the legacy of slavery, since the slavery itself was already wiped out by previous generations.

What do you mean by “current injustices that are derived from these things?” How do you wipe out the legacy of slavery?

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

I assume the meaning is that even Michelle Obama, descendant of slaves, was benefiting from racism insofar as the house she was living in was built by slaves.

Maybe, but what you want to do? Knock down a perfectly usable White House and waste money building a new one, just so we can say the President no longer lives in a house built by slaves? The White House was built by slaves. It was wrong, it was racist, it was a crime. But it is too late to reverse it. The While House is already built. Nothing can undo the fact that it was built by slaves. The slaves that built it are long dead, there is no way to help them, there is nothing to do that will do any of them any good. Make sure it is remembered how the White House was built, build a monument to the slave that built there. Put up a plaque to remember it. But it is done and can’t be undone unless someone invents a time machine.

The literal level isn’t where the useful discussion is. It’s not about a physical structure per se, it’s about a nation. It’s not about living in a house per se, it’s about benefiting from past injustice. So – to refrain from the original post, what is she (and what are we) going to do about that?

I don’t know that anything can be done. Unless you have a time machine, you can’t change the past(even if you did have one, there are a whole slew of problems with trying to alter history).

btw: I think it is important to point out that we don’t have much of a choice in regards to benefiting from past injustices. Just to live in this country without “benefiting from past injustices” and see if it is possible.

CatBus said:

yhwx said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

So I shouldn’t be concerned at all that if I hire this person, she is going to need a leave of absence soon?

You should show the same amount of concern as you do with your other candidates may need to do this. Husbands with eight-month-pregnant wives, lesbian moms with eight-month-pregnant wives. Dive right on in to those deeply personal questions. Er, maybe no.

This isn’t really a helpful answer. I applaud Warbler’s effort to learn on this topic, but this answer doesn’t really help to give him a better understanding of the situation. What should Warbler do? Ideally, the answer should be more specific than “Er, maybe no.”

The post is also weird on a writing-organizational level. Going straight from “Dive right on in to those deeply personal questions,” to “Er, maybe no.” is unclear and hard to understand. Those two are not great sentences.

Just as a (late) follow-up, I was getting too wrapped up in the larger conversation, trying to get people to think about exactly why they’re asking what they’re asking, instead of just simply answering it. Not my finest, no.

This is more useful info: http://employment.findlaw.com/hiring-process/illegal-interview-questions-and-female-applicants.html

Why wouldn’t you be able to ask this: “Should we refer to you as Mr., Miss, or Mrs”?

People aren’t mind readers, how are you supposed to know how to refer to someone? Some women like Ms, while others prefer Mrs and Miss. When I don’t know, I use Ms(unfortunately, I think usually comes out sounding like Miss). I am assuming the “Mr”, was a typo. I’ve never heard of referring to a female as Mr. But maybe it has to do with transgenders. I do not know. I’m more than willing to refer to someone however they prefer and I know enough not to ask why they prefer what they prefer.

DominicCobb said:

I assume the meaning is that even Michelle Obama, descendant of slaves, was benefiting from racism insofar as the house she was living in was built by slaves.

Maybe, but what you want to do? Knock down a perfectly usable White House and waste money building a new one, just so we can say the President no longer lives in a house built by slaves? The White House was built by slaves. It was wrong, it was racist, it was a crime. But it is too late to reverse it. The While House is already built. Nothing can undo the fact that it was built by slaves. The slaves that built it are long dead, there is no way to help them, there is nothing to do that will do any of them any good. Make sure it is remembered how the White House was built, build a monument to the slave that built there. Put up a plaque to remember it. But it is done and can’t be undone unless someone invents a time machine.

indeed.

generalfrevious said:

This country is run by white supremacists. Charlottesville is the straw that breaks the camel’s back, the one event that proves this society is rotten and beyond fixing. The United States of America is the worst country that has ever existed; a slave nation founded by rich and powerful sociopaths that has spread nothing but misery both at home and abroad. Nothing we can do can ever atone for the crimes committed over the past 240 years. I was right about everything all along, and now we are on the brink of a nuclear war thanks to our dictator-in-chief Donald Trump.

Fuck this country.

CatBus said:

CatBus said:

I think I’ve said this before but I think it bears repeating: the word racism means different things to different people. When discussing this topic, it’s pretty normal for some white people to recoil the second the word starts to touch them personally. Because racism, to them, is overt acts, conscious choices, hateful feelings, much more personal. But to others, racism is woven into the fabric of America, much more institutional. If you were born and raised here, you’ve already got some on you. The only question is: what are you going to do about it?

When Michelle Obama said she raised her daughters in a house built by slaves, that was a much more poignant way of saying she got some on her. The more important question is what is she doing about it?

This is something I don’t understand. How does Michelle Obama have “some on her”. Ok, she lives in a house built by slaves. Something done over 100 before she was born. She obviously do not approve of slavery or the methods of how the house was built. But the the building is done, nothing can change that it was built by slaves. It is not Michelle Obama’s fault. That house is where the President of the United States and family lives. Why shouldn’t she live there? Deciding not to live there won’t change the fact that it was built by slaves. Having the White House knocked down and a new one built won’t do anything for the slaves that built the White House. So how does Michelle Obama have “some on her” and just what is she supposed to do about the fact that the White House was built by slaves? She can’t help the slaves they are long dead and slavery was ended over 100 years ago.

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

You mean put together a team that is half black, half white, half male, half female?

No, identity doesn’t predict bias.

It doesn’t would think it would be less likely that a black man would be biased against black people than a white man.

You’d think so. But there are plenty of cases where women can be the harshest judges of women, and so on. Throw identity politics out on the garbage heap where it belongs.

maybe but what about this:

It is wrong to think it more likely that the people in the background are biased toward black people than the cop?

CatBus said:

darthrush said:

CatBus said:

CatBus said:

I think I’ve said this before but I think it bears repeating: the word racism means different things to different people. When discussing this topic, it’s pretty normal for some white people to recoil the second the word starts to touch them personally. Because racism, to them, is overt acts, conscious choices, hateful feelings, much more personal. But to others, racism is woven into the fabric of America, much more institutional. If you were born and raised here, you’ve already got some on you. The only question is: what are you going to do about it?

When Michelle Obama said she raised her daughters in a house built by slaves, that was a much more poignant way of saying she got some on her. The more important question is what is she doing about it?

This post probably much more tactfully says the same thing I just said, but in a way people seem to have appreciated at the time, if not now.

I think we may have a big misunderstanding about what we each thought of racism and I apoglozie. I subscribe to the definition that racism is when you discriminate against someone and think they are less of a person than you in any way because of their skin color. And when I heard you say that “All of Americans should check their racism”, I associated it instantly with what I think of racism and an accusation like that can rile me up really fast and I apologize for not taking the time to understand your persceptive.

Thank you, and I’ll apologize to you, Warb, and the thread for whipping out the “R” word without enough of the context that I indicated myself I think is very necessary for civil discussions. Lesson learned.

Its alright, I wasn’t nearly as angry as others were in this thread. I was just trying to ask questions and learn.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

darthrush said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

For those that don’t like the term colorblind:

If I were the boss of a company looking to hire an accountant, what would be wrong in being colorblind in my choice?

Nothing, it would be great. But how exactly are you going to achieve that?

By not being racist? Deciding to analyze them based upon their merit?

And this is verified how?

what do you mean?

I said I’d bail out of this discussion, but I’ll reiterate my point just this one time…

The whole “I’m color-blind” thing is supposedly an answer to charges of racism. But it’s circular logic. Being “not racist” and being “color-blind” is the same thing. I can say that I’m not racist, or I can say that I’m color-blind, but why should someone who has been oppressed believe me – just because I say so? I might not even know, because a lot of such things are subconscious. Do you think the Google guy who wrote the manifesto is color-blind? I bet he thinks he is.

Also, if I’m the CEO of some giant company, I may have to delegate the hiring process to senior employees below me. Even if I honestly want the hiring process to be “color-blind”, how am I going to guarantee that happens? How can I verify that my employees acted in a color-blind way? By accepting that it’s true if they say so? There generally need to be processes in place to ensure it is systemic and verifiable. Otherwise nobody would have any reason to believe it - it’s just words. It also wouldn’t hold up in court.

Being color-blind is an awesome goal, but again, just claiming that it’s so, isn’t compelling at all.

So just what the heck would you suggest then?

That was my question to you! I didn’t claim to be the expert.

Well below you claim to be a more of an expert than I am.

I most certainly did not. Please tell me where I stated that. I have no idea if I am more expert than you. I was merely stating my background.

You are right, you didn’t claim to be more expert than I am, but you did claim to have some expertise. My apologies.

That said, I have served over the past year as my department’s equal opportunity representative in hiring of faculty. For this, I had to go through a lot of training. So I know SOME things about the subject - and, like most things, the more you know, the more you realize you don’t know.

You say there’s not much we can do except try the best we can – well that’s NOT TRUE at all. There is a LOT that can and is being done. And it starts by educating oneself on potential sources of hidden bias, and trying to avoid them. One simple example of something to be wary of, is trying to decide how well a candidate will “fit in”. That is pervasive in many hiring situations, and often leads to racial and gender bias, without the interviewers even realizing it.

So I shouldn’t worry about how well the applicant would fit in with the others?

I didn’t say that either. I said that it is something to be wary of. It is quite possible that years of hiring people who are perceived to “fit in” can lead to a homogenous group of people who only hire people like them. It’s something to actively watch for, not ignore.

possible I suppose.

Another is to replace the mindset of trying to ignore race/gender, with instead educating oneself about issues and situations that could arise in an interview.

other than the pregnant woman, what situations do you men?

Are the requirements/priorities for the position clearly identified beforehand?

I am looking for an account to handle the company’s books.

How are candidates going to be assessed - for instance, if a priority is “works well in a team”, it wouldn’t be wise to just go with a gut feeling. What if someone on the search committee is uncomfortable with what another search committee member said (happened once to us!) - is there any sort of understanding for how potential issues of bias can be raised and addressed within the committee?

I think the most important thing would be how good an accountant the person is. But yes, I see there can be complications.

Here’s an example of something we changed in our department: Hiring is a serious effort (pain-in-the-neck, actually), and we much prefer to hire people who are likely to stay. As a result, we had a habit of trying to second-guess which candidates we believed were likely to stay, and which were likely to leave after a few years. We learned that this can lead to bias, since it led to us preferring candidates with families (“grounded!”), candidates who would feel “at home” in the surrounding neighborhoods, etc.

hmmm, good point I suppose. In my area many different neighborhoods with different racial backdrops and we have public transportation. Hopefully the candidate would be able to find a place to live that they’d be happy with. Of course they may already be in the area and no moving is necessary.

Here’s another issue… where are you announcing the job opening? Some demographics are going to look in different resources than where we were listing. Furthermore, our failing to list a position in a certain periodical, can lead a potential candidate to believe we might not be welcoming to his/her type.

I would probably advertise in the local newspapers(like the Philadelpia Inquirer and the Courier Post) and with sites like Indeed.com and Monster. Maybe also tell the local unemployment office that we are looking for an accountant.

That is, actively trying to identify patterns ahead of time that can lead to bias, rather than trying to avoid the issue and assume that by being “blind”, it won’t happen. That leads to “winging it”… it’s better to be prepared. For a simple example, suppose a candidate shows up and she’s obviously eight months pregnant? What are you going to do? You should be prepared for that possibility, and many others.

So I shouldn’t be concerned at all that if I hire this person, she is going to need a leave of absence soon?

I didn’t say that either - but it does sound like you haven’t thought it out yet.

I guess not. I was just looking for the best accountant.

That was the point - be prepared, don’t avoid the issue(s). You’re looking for pat, simple answers where there aren’t any.

perhaps it is more complicated than I originally thought.

You’re also putting a lot of words in my mouth, but that’s not really relevant.

Sorry, that is not how I intended to come off. Again my apologies.

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

You mean put together a team that is half black, half white, half male, half female?

No, identity doesn’t predict bias.

It doesn’t would think it would be less likely that a black man would be biased against black people than a white man.

If you’ve got an acknowledged anti-Latino bias, include someone who definitely doesn’t, Latino or not. If the team ends up being all white men, that’s a pretty good warning sign you didn’t do a very good job, but it’s technically possible.

Keep in mind a a company is limited by the employees it already has. If you’re company is already mostly white. It may be difficult to put together a multi-racial team with which to hire more people.

What do you mean by touched by racism?

Meaning you’ve got biases that have been installed into you by decades of exposure to racist media, housing policies, schools, family, friends, etc. It’s a nice way of saying you’re racist, but using the broad definition that includes pretty much all Americans, and doesn’t mean you’re actively trying to perpetuate these things.

*sigh* 😐

So I should ask all my candidates if they will be needing to take a leave of absence due to child birth? But then you said “Er, maybe no.” So what should I do.

I know I am asking a lot of questions, I am trying to learn and understand the issues better.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

A comment I saw on Yahoo: “If Trump really wants to destroy North Korea, he should simply purchase it. That will ultimately guarantee its demise.” 😃

might work 😕

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

darthrush said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

For those that don’t like the term colorblind:

If I were the boss of a company looking to hire an accountant, what would be wrong in being colorblind in my choice?

Nothing, it would be great. But how exactly are you going to achieve that?

By not being racist? Deciding to analyze them based upon their merit?

And this is verified how?

what do you mean?

I said I’d bail out of this discussion, but I’ll reiterate my point just this one time…

The whole “I’m color-blind” thing is supposedly an answer to charges of racism. But it’s circular logic. Being “not racist” and being “color-blind” is the same thing. I can say that I’m not racist, or I can say that I’m color-blind, but why should someone who has been oppressed believe me – just because I say so? I might not even know, because a lot of such things are subconscious. Do you think the Google guy who wrote the manifesto is color-blind? I bet he thinks he is.

Also, if I’m the CEO of some giant company, I may have to delegate the hiring process to senior employees below me. Even if I honestly want the hiring process to be “color-blind”, how am I going to guarantee that happens? How can I verify that my employees acted in a color-blind way? By accepting that it’s true if they say so? There generally need to be processes in place to ensure it is systemic and verifiable. Otherwise nobody would have any reason to believe it - it’s just words. It also wouldn’t hold up in court.

Being color-blind is an awesome goal, but again, just claiming that it’s so, isn’t compelling at all.

The claim of being color-blind is nearly always paired with the reality of being bias-blind.

you mean being blind to your own bias? Well, again I ask what the heck should you do? The best I can do is try to ignore skin color as much as possible and hire based on merit, and skills and qualifications. The best accountant gets the job.

Well, the first step is to be as aware as possible of all of your biases. Including the ones you didn’t think you had at first. The very first baby-step is to stop pretending you’re color-blind.

What makes you think I am pretending. Maybe I truly don’t care if the person I hire is black or white or whatever. Maybe I only care about how good an accountant the person is.

Then there’s a matter of engaging with people who specialize in this sort of thing, attend training seminars, talk to people, listen to people, and so on. Yes, sensitivity training may often be an overscripted feel-good exercise even most of the time, but there’s often some nuggets of useful information if you pay attention. Such is any corporate seminar.

I suppose it is possible something could be learned from these things.

The next thing is to do what you can to counteract your biases. Have your hiring decisions done by a team that might be able to balance out each others’ biases, use tiebreakers that counterbalance your acknowledged biases, that sort of thing.

You mean put together a team that is half black, half white, half male, half female?

Admitting you’ve been touched by racism is basically admitting you’re an American. People have survived worse.

What do you mean by touched by racism?