Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

American society is so focused on race that it is blind to class

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 888 posts

Re: American society is so focused on race that it is blind to class

#401

Post by scarby2 »

mancerayder wrote: post #345
tzs wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once AA is overturned, that's it—hands off the scale Or change it so it is not race based. Instead make it geographical. Say you want to admit 1000 students from the US. Partition the US into 1000 districts, with 1 student admitted per district. Gerrymander the district boundaries to make sure that you get the racial demographics you want. Have fun watching the Supreme Court try to explain why that is not OK but it…

Make it geographical or conscious of class, parental income and geography. That would go so much further in the goal of reducing inequality and increasing fairness than classifying people forcibly on something which we used to say wasn't a scientific classification, race.

> conscious of class, parental income and geography.

This is going to be a pain in the ass and you'll just lead to people gaming the system.

How about we just aim to make a high quality collage available to all who want it and extremely cheap and easy to finance so it's available to all?

Re: American society is so focused on race that it is blind to class

#402

Post by jessaustin »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #361
tstrimple wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California is the only state in the country with this policy.

Poor kids get free or reduced cost lunches in all 50 states, thanks to the National School Lunch Program. The income threshold is adjusted annually to account for changes to the CPI. Tens of millions of kids participate in this program every year. California's innovation is giving free food to middle class kids then taking credit for feeding the poor kids.

There are lots of districts here in Missouri that have decided to make lunches (and breakfasts!) free for everyone in elementary and junior high school because the percentage of low-income families is high enough that that ends up being cheaper than wasting resources on means testing and collections. Regardless of how wealthy her parents are (or how difficult it is for her parents to fill out forms), you can't just not provide lunch to e.g. a 7yo who lost her money. Arguing with children about money doesn't contribute to the educational mission.

Re: American society is so focused on race that it is blind to class

#403

Post by ClumsyPilot »

etchalon wrote: post #298
givemeethekeys wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, it'll be awesome. In the short term, the few black kids and women who end up in engineering will get respect for making it into the program. And, hopefully a few years later, they'll no longer be looked at as diversity hires.

People were accusing people of being "diversity hires", or having "slept their way to top", or similar dismissive nonsense long before AA was in wide use.

> "diversity hires", or having "slept their way to top"

Those seem like quite distinct issues, like you might as well lump in 'good at office politics' into it

Re: American society is so focused on race that it is blind to class

#404

Post by [deleted] »

etempleton wrote: post #110

Part of the American dream is that the feeling that there is no rigid social class. Everyone is a millionaire down on their luck. You only need to work harder or be more clever—ideally both. To some extent, it is true. Realistically, however, it is rare to move more than one or two income brackets from where your parents were when they were your age. Race in America, however, is fraught. The history of racism is rece…

[deleted]

Re: American society is so focused on race that it is blind to class

#405

Post by gausswho »

giardini wrote: post #336
gausswho wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the DA said on the subject: "Two days after being sworn in, Alvin Bragg shared a memo with staff Monday noting that his office will not prosecute low-level offenses like marijuana misdemeanors, refusal to pay for public transportation fare, prostitution and resisting arrest, unless given alongside a felony charge. Instead, they would be offered a community-based diversion program." Does that sound unreasonable?…

gausswho says >"Does that sound unreasonable? When about 1 in 150 Americans are currently incarcerated?" Incarcerated for what and for how long ? You're just giving numbers without specifying their offenses nor whether they are locked up awaiting trial or the end of their sentences.

I was asking if what the DA was said was unreasonable, with that number to indicate that there are already a LOT of people in prison or jail.

Re: American society is so focused on race that it is blind to class

#406

Post by Vt71fcAqt7 »

ameister14 wrote: post #319
Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And this is why the term "white privilege" sells so poorly to whites. It's because the privilege is being more wealthy, not being white. If the privilege only applies to rich whites and also applies to rich Asians and blacks then it's not white privilege but simply privilege. >And why CRT is attacked so vigorously. Have you read any CRT "scholars?" I have, and they are sickening.

I didn't think that Derrick Bell's writing was 'sickening.' Not sure who you're talking about - Crenshaw? Collins?

Sue for one, and really the whole of "whiteness studies." I don't know if that's CRT proper, but that's what I was refering to. I read some of "the future of whiteness" and some shorter articles posted in various "communications" journals. From Sue:

>Whiteness is an invisible veil that cloaks its racist deleterious effects through individuals, organizations, and society. The result is that White people are allowed to enjoy the benefits that accrue to them by virtue of their skin color. Thus, Whiteness, White supremacy, and White privilege are three interlocking forces that disguise racism so it may allow White people to oppress and harm persons of color while maintaining their individual and collective advantage and innocence.

Or from another "scholar"

>How can we account for the ways in which white people refuse to acknowledge their possessive investment in whiteness even as they work to increase its value everyday? We can't blame the color of our skin. It must be the content of our character.

I can't find it now, but I once read a passage from one of these CRT nutjobs' work that really shed light on their insanity. It went something like

>whiteness and white supremacy is not seen directly but rather is society itself. It is the tapestry we are woven of, and we are therefore blind to it. It exists even where it cannot be seen as it is the source of rather than a detail within society.

They are all somewhat careful with what they say. But their effect is real. They are turning being white into an evil, one that cannot be rectified but is an irremovable stain on one's being.

Of course there is this classic response: "I don't think white people are evil, just whiteness, which you are by necessity a part of because you directly contribute to it."

Re: American society is so focused on race that it is blind to class

#407

Post by MichaelCollins »

jessaustin wrote: post #402
MichaelCollins wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor kids get free or reduced cost lunches in all 50 states, thanks to the National School Lunch Program. The income threshold is adjusted annually to account for changes to the CPI. Tens of millions of kids participate in this program every year. California's innovation is giving free food to middle class kids then taking credit for feeding the poor kids.

There are lots of districts here in Missouri that have decided to make lunches (and breakfasts!) free for everyone in elementary and junior high school because the percentage of low-income families is high enough that that ends up being cheaper than wasting resources on means testing and collections. Regardless of how wealthy her parents are (or how difficult it is for her parents to fill out forms), you can't just n…

> you can't just not provide lunch to e.g. a 7yo who lost her money.

Right, and they don't. I forgot my lunch money frequently as a kid. The school always fed me anyway, after taking down my name to have a chat with my parents (to inquire if I needed to be signed up for free lunches, and to collect the debt since my parents could easily afford it.) They won't let you skip lunch.

Re: American society is so focused on race that it is blind to class

#408

Post by ETH_start »

kaibee wrote: post #313
ETH_start wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people generally care about the public interest because of their shared humanity. People generally identify with their society and want to see it prosper. They should also care that their society remains well structured because it increases the probability that their own situation improves over the course of their life, and that their children/grandkids will be wealthy. They gain nothing from believing in the…

> I think people generally care about the public interest because of their shared humanity. People generally identify with their society and want to see it prosper. This is far from universally true, and to the small degree that it is true, it is an aberration from the vast majority of human history. > They should also care that their society remains well structured because it increases the probability that their own…

>>This is far from universally true, and to the small degree that it is true, it is an aberration from the vast majority of human history.

I think you're interpreting my statement to suggest that people generally prioritize the public interest over their personal interest. I'm not. I'm only claiming that people, ceteris paribus, generally would prefer that society at large prosper. But they would not at their own expense.

>>What also comes to mind is the sociological study where they present two people with $100 to split between them.

This is very true.

Thiel famously believes in Rene Girard's theory that jealousy emerges from the mimetic instinct, and that religious admoninations against it are a social innovation to constrain the dark side of mimesis:

https://perell.com/essay/peter-thiel/

>>It makes their job a lot easier to do if people really are getting an unfair split.

Yes of course, but the presence of inequality does not suggest unfairness as such demagogues usually imply.

Re: American society is so focused on race that it is blind to class

#409

Post by xyzzyz »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #248
louky wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1963? I remember burning school buses and people shot dead when they were finally forcing integration when I was a kid - mid/late 1970s https://www.nytimes.com/1975/09/07/archives/guard-called-out... They're still not really integrated. At all.

Forced busing worked too. Got the money more evenly distributed and fostered healthier, more heterogeneous cultures in the schools. Parents just weren't ready for interracial marriage, and were terrified their kids would date 'other'.

> Parents just weren't ready for interracial marriage, and were terrified their kids would date 'other'.

Do you think this is why black parents were mostly against forced busing?

Re: American society is so focused on race that it is blind to class

#410

Post by ClumsyPilot »

michaelt wrote: post #395
duvenaud wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a STEM academic, I can say that I've never seen or heard of ongoing AA for men in any STEM program in any institution whose policies I'm acquainted with. So it seems to me to be misleading to claim, or at least hard to believe, that very many men in college have been beneficiaries of AA for men.

Not in STEM departments, no. Why would you run a pro-male affirmative action programme in a department where men were already over-represented? But there's affirmative action for men in nursing, teaching, social studies, and similar female-dominated departments. There are active campaigns to recruit more male nurses - and male teachers are more likely to be promoted. I also know first-hand that vocational ballet scho…

> if you find it unfair that the pro-male affirmative action for female-dominated jobs only provides low-paid, low-status jobs - then feminists are very much in agreement with you about the unfairness of the situation :)

This is an interesting point, how much of the salary is determined by presumably impartial market forces, and how much of it is just status and social signalling.

We know status and social signalling play a significant role, otherwise behavioural economics and marketing wouldn't exist.

We also know that the diffrence between salaries of rank and file staff and C-suit executives have increased 15x in the past 20 years, without any corresponding increase in productivity

There is good reason to believe that if you could magically shove high-status men into nursing; nursing salaries would go up. But it's hard to see how it would happen unless we'd have equivalent of the draft for low status jobs.

Post reply on HN