Critical Race Theory policy in hiring at UT

[RDCanecutter 26450]

8 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Does it come with the added bonus of no longer being welcome at my in-laws house for Christmas? If so, sign me the fuck up!

I came pretty close to that while being whiter-than-white, and with the proper attitude so can you.

[Bozo_Casanova 26487]

On 2/28/2024 at 3:10 PM, Brisketexan said:

So, was trying to find an appropriate thread for this post, which is about an observation on the plain and obvious lasting nature of institutional racism, and how it places minorities behind the curve for generations.

I was recently at an event honoring some of the great black lawyers in Central Texas.  It's not the first one I've been to, but as I read the bios of these folks -- truly outstanding lawyers, all of them, people who went to top-notch schools (mostly in the north, by the way), had notable achievements academically, etc. -- it clicked that most of them that I've read over those years involve long terms of working as a government lawyer.  Not all of them, but almost all, started their careers as government attorneys.  

Those jobs are fine jobs, and a much needed and appreciated public service.  But make no mistake, if a student graduates today from Michigan, or Stanford, etc., with honors, they have a clear path to a job with a high-end law firm that pays 5X what an entry level gov't attorney job pays.  But back when these folks were graduating law school - the 70s-80s - that was not the case.

So, until up to about 30 years ago (and let's be plain and clear, the way isn't entirely clear even today), that top-notch black law student had a much harder time even getting in the door of Fancy Law Firm LLP.  And even if he/she did, remember that the lawyers at Fancy Law Firm LLP all went to the same schools together, their parents went to the same schools, and a good chunk of them were hired because 1) yes, they did well in law school, but also 2) their dad was friends/business associate with the hiring partner, who vouched for them and walked them right into their job.  The black law students?  Their dad did NOT go to school with or associate with the hiring partner, because that simply did not happen back in the day.

A generic high achieving white student, with no connections, was already more likely to get an interview and be hired than an identical black student.  Then layer on the fact that many of those white students ALSO had generational family connections that could give them a leg up in the job application process...a leg up that few black students had.  Now, take that out another generation.  The parents of today's black students are STILL underrepresented in the ranks the Fancy Law Firm LLP type places, as well as the people who network with and are connected to the attorneys there.  So a black student even today likely has fewer connections and advantages to help him get that job at Fancy Law Firm LLP.

So, why are DELIBERATE efforts to recruit diverse candidates important?  Because the long-term effects of systemic, institutionalized racism STILL skew the playing field, and make it more likely that white candidate X can get a particular job than black candidate Y.   In order to try to level that field, we need to DELIBERATELY LOOK FOR AND TO minority candidates.  No, not without making sure that they are qualified.  But to make sure that they aren't missed.  The Hiring Partner at Fancy Law Firm LLP gets 20 resumes sent to him by old connections, pushing their kid, or their nephew, or whatnot.  What would be helpful is if Hiring Partner ALSO had a policy/incentive/something like that to affirmatively gather 20 resumes from minority students who do NOT have connections to Fancy Law Firm LLP.  Then, you interview and hire appropriately, and honestly.  Because honestly....some of those nepotism resumes may have a nice academic ring to them, but the candidate is a dim bulb or dud.  And some of those minority resumes are going to belong to some impressive SOBs who you never would have met if you hadn't sought them out.

That dynamic is what DEI and such is all about.  And is it needed?  I'd say the resumes of impressive minority lawyer after impressive minority lawyer reflecting long tenures in government jobs says "yes, it is still needed."  Legacies, connections, and nepotism matter.  A lot.  DEI is necessary to even come close to creating equal opportunity in light of the unequal distribution of those advantages.

Broadly speaking, I agree. But I continue to maintain that as a society we will not successfully address structural advantage and disadvantage through the educational pipeline until we

1) selects those we assist for socioeconomic disadvantage, with an emphasis on economic, and 

2) Stop the absurd obsession with the most selective institutions and places more emphasis on secondary education, i.e. delivering a high quality workforce from the high school as the PRIMARY path to middle class equity creation.

 

Edited February 29 by Bozo_Casanova

[Brisketexan 105154]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Broadly speaking, I agree. But I continue to maintain that as a society we will not successfully address structural advantage and disadvantage through the educational pipeline until we

1) selects those we assist for socioeconomic disadvantage, with an emphasis on economic, and 

2) Stop the absurd obsession with the most selective institutions and places more emphasis on secondary education, i.e. delivering a high quality workforce from the high school as the PRIMARY path to middle class equity creation.

 

I don't disagree with most of this.  That's one of the things I liked about the program our firm was working with: it was heavily minority, sure, but the emphasis was on first-generation students from households of limited means.  One kid we worked with had moved to Texas from Lafayette - he moved with his single mother who didn't exactly have a high-paying job.  He was a "generic white dude" by appearance, but damned well was behind the 8 ball when it came to family economic stability and connections.  That said...the structures and systems that worked against minorities for centuries worked against them BECAUSE they were minorities, not because they were poor.  If we want to level out that playing field, we can't ignore the disproportionate impact that had on minorities.

As to the obsession with the most selective institutions, hear hear.  You have heard me sing the praises of community colleges, and even our friends down the road at Texas State, which provides a great path to a degree for a lot of folks.  I do think that the path to real generational success includes some post-secondary education, but I also agree that it should all come from a very strong secondary education foundation.  Shit, the "dual credit" option at a lot of centex schools, where you can graduate high school and either be done with or close to an associate's degree from ACC is a brilliant thing that I wish got better play.  A few years ago, I was at career day for a Pflugerville middle school that was definitely on the lower income side of things.  I was sitting at a table as an attorney.  Everyone else there was with a trade, or the military.  Except the ACC table next to me.  For the few wide-eyed kids who actually started to grasp that they too could be lawyers if they put their minds to it, they were almost all intimidated by higher education, and how to get started.  I kept pointing them to the table next to me -- "talk to this man, he can tell you how easy it is to get halfway there just by going to high school.  You can do it, it's all right there."

I then went home, told my wife about my day, and cried like hell.

[Guest]

My favorite recruiting day ever was at Texas Southern.  Can't really put it into words, but it was surreal especially with regard to the attitudes and presentation of the candidates.  Zero entitlement and being appreciated were game changers for the day.  Different from any other recruiting activity in my career, from either side of the table.

Now back to the doom and gloom reports.

Edited February 29 by slorch

[Bozo_Casanova 26487]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

That said...the structures and systems that worked against minorities for centuries worked against them BECAUSE they were minorities, not because they were poor.  If we want to level out that playing field, we can't ignore the disproportionate impact that had on minorities.

I 100% agree with you, and am generally extremely pro-DEI.
However, by making race and race-coded signifiers central to selection for programmatic advancement irrespective of class, we wind up often advancing those who have been less impacted by systematic racism, in addition to demeaning people who are deserving of advancement by reducing their achievements and individual merit to a historical correction.

A racially diverse permanent social upperclass is not the outcome I want from DEI programs. I want to enable socioeconomic class mobility. In both directions. up and down.

Edited March 1 by Bozo_Casanova

[DixonHur 11338]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  Bottom line, it's just what you posted.  Centuries of white folks having a built in, structural leg-up.  An attempt is made to help minorities play catch-up....on something that took GENERATIONS to build....and we kill it dead because white people are fucking scared-ass snowflakes.

I know we're specifically talking about the US here, so I understand the use of "white folks", but the race card is a pet peeve of mine. 

So, just to be clear, right phrase is "folks in power", and in the US that happens to be white people.

There aren't many examples in world history where the people in power gave it up willingly, so I wouldn't consider the fight against DEI to be a terribly unexpected reaction to the fear of losing power.    

[Captainant 27680]

4 hours ago, DixonHur said:

I know we're specifically talking about the US here, so I understand the use of "white folks", but the race card is a pet peeve of mine

I get that, but we literally had a war over white folks thinking they should own black folks, complete with laws specifying white folks as the only folks who could decide shit. It's not playing the race card, it's acknowledging our shared reality and the effects that history still carries today 

[DixonHur 11338]

9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I get that, but we literally had a war over white folks thinking they should own black folks, complete with laws specifying white folks as the only folks who could decide shit. It's not playing the race card, it's acknowledging our shared reality and the effects that history still carries today 

Yes, and that war was won by the side with white folks fighting to make sure other white folks didn't get to own black folks.

My point is that you can't paint all white people with one brush.  The problem always lies at the top of society, full stop.  And in America the top has always been predominantly white. 

There are really only two ways to change things.  One, wait for it to work it's way out through generational transformation  or launch a revolution... likely violent.

Unfortunately, it feels like we're headed toward the latter if Trump wins.

[safe sex 11735]

You can't reckon with American classism without reckoning with American racism, sorry.

Edited March 1 by safe sex
removed unnecessary jab

[DixonHur 11338]

7 hours ago, safe sex said:

You can't reckon with American classism without reckoning with American racism, sorry.

Not trying to.  Just pointing out that racism/xenophobia is fomented at the top of all societies.  People act like the US is unique in this regard.  We're not.

The Rupert Murdock cookie cartoon is the perfect encapsulation of the idea. 

Of course, getting rid of racism will just lead to another "other-ism" taking it's place, and so on, and so on.

Racism is just a symptom of the larger problem. 

[TwiceHorn 31495]

12 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I 100% agree with you, and am generally extremely pro-DEI.
However, by making race and race-coded signifiers central to selection for programmatic advancement irrespective of class, we wind up often advancing those who have been less impacted by systematic racism, in addition to demeaning people who are deserving of advancement by reducing their achievements and individual merit to a historical correction.

A racially diverse permanent social upperclass is not the outcome I want from DEI programs. I want to enable socioeconomic class mobility. In both directions. up and down.

Also, I think in some cases pushing a first gen college student to a rarefied atmosphere of wealth and privilege may actually hinder.  I have heard some stories on NPR of kids going to prestigious institutions and freaking out. 

Even us mighty whiteys often have had a generational progression from cow/teachers college to flagship and beyond. 

Make sure bright disadvantaged kids get the juco and "cow college" opportunity and let em knock it out of the park. That forms a pretty good basis for advancement. 

Edited March 1 by TwiceHorn

[South Austin 52519]

12 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Of course, getting rid of racism will just lead to another "other-ism" taking it's place, and so on, and so on.

Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people.

[DixonHur 11338]

4 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people.

Isms are inevitable. 

However they only become a real problem when they are weaponized.

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26487]

35 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, I think in some cases pushing a first gen college student to a rarefied atmosphere of wealth and privilege may actually hinder.  I have heard some stories on NPR of kids going to prestigious institutions and freaking out. 

 

This reminds me of of 7th grade when the mother of a new friend from St Mark’s took one look at our house and asked me very sweetly if I wouldn’t feel more comfortable going to public school in my own neighborhood.

Smart kids from tacky families thank you for your concern.

 

Edited March 1 by Bozo_Casanova

[Bozo_Casanova 26487]

39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Even us mighty whiteys often have had a generational progression from cow/teachers college to flagship and beyond. 

Make sure bright disadvantaged kids get the juco and "cow college" opportunity and let em knock it out of the park. That forms a pretty good basis for advancement. 

Agree with you here- in general we think about Harvard and Yale way too much. The best ROI is cow college.

(signed, a guy who is probably about to spend $200k on a private film studies degree)

Edited March 1 by Bozo_Casanova

[TwiceHorn 31495]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This reminds me of of 7th grade when the mother of a new friend from St Mark’s took one look at our house and asked me very sweetly if I wouldn’t feel more comfortable going to public school in my own neighborhood.

Smart kids from tacky families thank you for your concern.

 

I think a younger kid could adapt to that more easily than an 18 year old. 

I didn't have this idea until hearing of the disadvantaged students at elitish universities on This American Life, I believe. 

Well other than my PHY303K lab partner from PSA who had not had calculus based physics before and was very lost. I don't think he was particularly disadvantaged beyond his hs. 

Regardless of whether it's an issue or not, them important part is give the bright kids the opportunity for any "college education" not just elite. 

How long did you attend STM? 

[Bozo_Casanova 26487]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

How long did you attend STM? 

Three years. Lotta reasons for leaving, some mutual. Great education though. 

[South Austin 52519]

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

Isms are inevitable. 

However they only become a real problem when they are weaponized.

[Satchel 6938]

9 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Not trying to.  Just pointing out that racism/xenophobia is fomented at the top of all societies.  People act like the US is unique in this regard.  We're not.

The Rupert Murdock cookie cartoon is the perfect encapsulation of the idea. 

Of course, getting rid of racism will just lead to another "other-ism" taking it's place, and so on, and so on.

Racism is just a symptom of the larger problem. 

The US is unique in that it is the place where race classification began.

[David Dennison 18921]

22 hours ago, DixonHur said:

I know we're specifically talking about the US here, so I understand the use of "white folks", but the race card is a pet peeve of mine. 

So, just to be clear, right phrase is "folks in power", and in the US that happens to be white people.

There aren't many examples in world history where the people in power gave it up willingly, so I wouldn't consider the fight against DEI to be a terribly unexpected reaction to the fear of losing power.    

So . . . not honkies?

[DixonHur 11338]

35 minutes ago, Satchel said:

The US is unique in that it is the place where race classification began.

Well, that's certainly not true.

[Satchel 6938]

41 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Well, that's certainly not true.

The public face of America’s official racial classification is its census, and has been so since the first decennial enumeration in 1790. The initial classification was implicit in two civil status distinctions: free or slave, taxed or untaxed. Applying these distinctions in the census generated a count of three ancestry groups (European, African, and [untaxed] Native American), which set the foundation for all racial classifications to come. From that starting point, the division of the population by race has been repeated in every decennial census, down to the most recent in 2000

https://www.amacad.org/publication/racial-classification-america#:~:text=The public face of America's,or slave%2C taxed or untaxed.

 

[DixonHur 11338]

2 hours ago, Satchel said:

The public face of America’s official racial classification is its census, and has been so since the first decennial enumeration in 1790. The initial classification was implicit in two civil status distinctions: free or slave, taxed or untaxed. Applying these distinctions in the census generated a count of three ancestry groups (European, African, and [untaxed] Native American), which set the foundation for all racial classifications to come. From that starting point, the division of the population by race has been repeated in every decennial census, down to the most recent in 2000

https://www.amacad.org/publication/racial-classification-america#:~:text=The public face of America's,or slave%2C taxed or untaxed.

 

Race classification has been a thing since at least the ancient Greeks (Hippocrates wrote about it in like 300BC.

[Satchel 6938]

 The world got along without race for the overwhelming majority of its history. The U.S. has never been without it.”

Edited March 2 by Satchel

[DixonHur 11338]

17 minutes ago, Satchel said:

 The world got along without race for the overwhelming majority of its history. The U.S. has never been without it.”

Simply not true, but it's also not an argument worth having.

[David Dennison 18921]

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

Race classification has been a thing since at least the ancient Greeks (Hippocrates wrote about it in like 300BC.

Did the ancient Greeks segregate their society by race?

Edited March 2 by David Dennison

[DixonHur 11338]

19 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Did the ancient Greeks segregate their society by race?

Define race.

[David Dennison 18921]

Use Hippocrates' definition.

[DixonHur 11338]

18 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Use Hippocrates' definition.

Have you read Aristotle's Politics?

He literally proposed the exclusion of foreigners, and slaves, among others from civic life.

Note: Hippocrates and Aristotle were contemporaries.

Edited March 2 by DixonHur

[fattyflattie 4639]

On 2/29/2024 at 1:31 PM, BeardIP said:

Including you, aggie08 and panchochatbot, I have like 39 active black friends.

Wait, wut. 
 

On 2/29/2024 at 1:52 PM, aggie08 said:

I was unaware that I'm black. Cool. My wife will be pleased to know.

Never mind. 

[David Dennison 18921]

10 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Have you read Aristotle's Politics?

He literally proposed the exclusion of foreigners, and slaves, among others from civic life.

Note: Hippocrates and Aristotle were contemporaries.

And did the ancient Greeks arrange their society according to a racial hierarchy?

[YChang 3452]

Kinda being slightly nitpicky here aren’t we?

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286140.013.0029

I can use my UT library access to get the full article if you like. 

Abstract

Slaves are ubiquitous, yet nearly invisible: central to the functioning of the polis, but ‘outsiders’ to it as well. In this sense, there is something else that they symbolize: the relationship between the polis and other peoples and races. This relationship is often conceived in terms of actual or potential hostility. This article deals with how the Greeks saw foreigners, and, in particular, the nature of their negative views of non-Greeks. It shows that the Greeks might not have known colour prejudice, a defining feature of modern racism, but were no less racist for that. The highly institutionalized character taken on by travel in the Greek world may be explained in part by this suspicion of foreigners and foreign lands. The article defines racism as an attitude towards individuals and groups of peoples that posits a direct and linear connection between physical and mental qualities.

[David Dennison 18921]

This looks informative as well:

https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691125985/the-invention-of-racism-in-classical-antiquity

[ElChupacabra 254]

Is this where all the white folks gather to discuss how horrendous white folks are? I'm new to the CR so just trying to get my bearings. 

[Captainant 27680]

1 minute ago, ElChupacabra said:

Is this where all the white folks gather to discuss how horrendous white folks are? I'm new to the CR so just trying to get my bearings. 

No, this is where we follow fascists like Christopher Rufo who's spreading racist drek and misinformation about CRT in order to whip up useful and hateful idiots

[David Dennison 18921]

Just now, ElChupacabra said:

Is this where all the white folks gather to discuss how horrendous white folks are? I'm new to the CR so just trying to get my bearings. 

 

[Huckleberry 32995]

12 minutes ago, ElChupacabra said:

Is this where all the white folks gather to discuss how horrendous white folks are? I'm new to the CR so just trying to get my bearings. 

No, this is where dumbasses who believed that CRT was an actual problem gathered to post stupid things and then disappear once the people who told them CRT was an actual problem admitted that it wasn't an actual problem and they were just conning the rubes.

[ElChupacabra 254]

9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

No, this is where we follow fascists like Christopher Rufo who's spreading racist drek and misinformation about CRT in order to whip up useful and hateful idiots

This word gets thrown around on here quite a bit. I've never heard of the guy. Got any links to what he said that was racist?

[ElChupacabra 254]

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

No, this is where dumbasses who believed that CRT was an actual problem gathered to post stupid things and then disappear once the people who told them CRT was an actual problem admitted that it wasn't an actual problem and they were just conning the rubes.

Ah, I see. I never knew one's race had anything to do with...well, anything. 

[Huckleberry 32995]

Just now, ElChupacabra said:

Ah, I see. I never knew one's race had anything to do with...well, anything. 

Completely non-responsive and deflective. Try again.

[YChang 3452]

Man, if you’re gonna be a troll at least put some effort into it. 

[ElChupacabra 254]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Completely non-responsive and deflective. Try again.

You're asserting that one's skin tone has any effect on their life? 

[Huckleberry 32995]

Just now, ElChupacabra said:

You're asserting that one's skin tone has any effect on their life? 

This is really weak, man. I know you desperately want someone to get upset at your posts because you have nothing fulfilling in your life but you're going to have to do better than this.

[ElChupacabra 254]

Just now, YChang said:

Man, if you’re gonna be a troll at least put some effort into it. 

The only trolling I'm familiar with involves watercraft and tackle. I just don't see how folks get so hung up on someone's skin tone having any effect on their life. I mean, hundreds of years ago, sure. Today? Nah. 

[ElChupacabra 254]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

This is really weak, man. I know you desperately want someone to get upset at your posts because you have nothing fulfilling in your life but you're going to have to do better than this.

Upset? Why would anyone get upset? 

[Huckleberry 32995]

Edited March 2 by Huckleberry

[Huckleberry 32995]

"Hey guys it's 11pm on a Friday night and I'm going to go post some stuff about how skin color has no effect on anyone's life anymore and them I'm going to wait for one of them to call me a white racist and then I'm going to tell them AHA I'M NATIVE AMERICAN to totally pwn them because my great-great-grandfather was a Seminole."

You're a real winner, don't let reality tell you otherwise.

[DixonHur 11338]

Hey @ElChupacabra, if you're gonna bomb a thread at least add something to the discussion.  

This is weak.

[David Dennison 18921]

Racism's over, y'all!

[DixonHur 11338]

45 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

And did the ancient Greeks arrange their society according to a racial hierarchy?

Yes, in the terms of race as they understood it at the time.