Hard Work vs. Privilege

[Kimstu]

@HurricaneDitka

I’m pretty sure the suggestion to “take this into account when making personnel decisions” is a violation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act in many circumstances. And where it isn’t an actual violation, it used to be thought of by most people as a rather despicable act.

I think you must be missing the point. iiandyiiii was recommending that hiring decisions should include conscious awareness of privilege issues in order that “privilege (or the lack thereof) would have little or no effect on one’s chance at a good job”.

(Emphasis added.) IAN iiandyiiii and cannot speak for him, but ISTM that he was very clearly saying that being more privileged OR less privileged should not affect one’s job prospects. And the only way to prevent that from happening is to be consciously aware of how privilege works.

You appear to have knee-jerked your way from that statement to the assumption that iiandyiiii was suggesting that employers should automatically prefer members of historically underprivileged groups in hiring decisions. That interpretation doesn’t really make sense in light of what he actually said.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Kimstu

I think you must be missing the point. iiandyiiii was recommending that hiring decisions should include conscious awareness of privilege issues in order that “privilege (or the lack thereof) would have little or no effect on one’s chance at a good job”.

(Emphasis added.) IAN iiandyiiii and cannot speak for him, but ISTM that he was very clearly saying that being more privileged OR less privileged should not affect one’s job prospects. And the only way to prevent that from happening is to be consciously aware of how privilege works.

You appear to have knee-jerked your way from that statement to the assumption that iiandyiiii was suggesting that employers should automatically prefer members of historically underprivileged groups in hiring decisions. That interpretation doesn’t really make sense in light of what he actually said.

You may be right about me missing the point. I guess I am having a hard time seeing how one should “take this into account in personnel decisions” and do “a little bit to lessen the effects of privilege on society” in a way that isn’t giving some sort of preference to members of historically underprivileged groups. Maybe someone could explain it to me. How should one do this in practical terms? The options I see are:
A) be color- / gender- / sexual-orientation-blind & not allow membership in historically underprivileged group(s) to affect your decision (which seems to be what the EEO Act requires of certain employers) OR
B) give preference to members of historically underprivileged groups in hiring decisions.

Is there a third option out there that “takes this into account” and does “a little bit to lessen the effects of privilege on society” or, in your own formulation “include conscious awareness of privilege issues” that isn’t just option B (or some disguised form of option B)?

It sounds like you and iiandyiii want people to choose option B, but you don’t want to say ‘you should choose option B’. What am I missing?

[Miller]

If you understand the mechanism that underlie specific examples of privilege, you can design processes to specifically eliminate those aspects of privilege from consideration. For example, an oft cited example of privilege is that people who have “black” names have much more difficulty getting job interviews than people with “white” names. One way to eliminate this from the hiring process without favoring any particular group is to simply hide the applicant’s name until you’re ready to start calling people in for interviews.

[Kimstu]

@HurricaneDitka

Is there a third option out there that “takes this into account” and does “a little bit to lessen the effects of privilege on society” or, in your own formulation “include conscious awareness of privilege issues” that isn’t just option B (or some disguised form of option B)?

Uh, yeah, looks pretty obvious to me. Namely, look at applicants as individuals, with individual backgrounds and combinations of inherent advantages and disadvantages, rather than making blanket assumptions about their abilities and achievements.

In other words, don’t just reflexively assume “Wow, most of the highly qualified applicants are white males, so white males are apparently smarter or better at this kind of work!” Group privilege may be affecting these outcomes, so take the trouble to spot the individual applicant(s) who really are the smartest and best.

Likewise, don’t just reflexively assume “Wow, a highly qualified black female applicant, she must be super determined and talented because she had so many obstacles to overcome being black and female!” Maybe this applicant comes from a wealthy family of experts in this field and had massive special advantages to help her follow in the family footsteps. Again, take the trouble to determine whether this individual applicant really is super determined and talented.

That, IMHO, is how you use awareness of the realities of privilege to “lessen the effects of privilege on society”. Of course, as I said, I don’t speak for iiandyiiii, but that seems to me to be the sort of thing he was talking about. [ETA: and Miller’s suggestion is another good example.]

@HurricaneDitka

It sounds like you and iiandyiii want people to choose option B, but you don’t want to say ‘you should choose option B’.

:rolleyes: I can hear your knee jerking out the Morse code for “OMG TEH LIBRULZ WANT TO IMPOSE HIRING QUOTAS” from all the way over here.

What you seem to be missing, AFAICT, is iiandyiiii’s clear statement of principle that neither privilege nor the lack of privilege should be a significant factor in hiring choices. The only way to lessen the effects of privilege is to start from a clear awareness of the realities of privilege and how it affects our lives.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Kimstu

Uh, yeah, looks pretty obvious to me. Namely, look at applicants as individuals, with individual backgrounds and combinations of inherent advantages and disadvantages, rather than making blanket assumptions about their abilities and achievements.

In other words, don’t just reflexively assume “Wow, most of the highly qualified applicants are white males, so white males are apparently smarter or better at this kind of work!” Group privilege may be affecting these outcomes, so take the trouble to spot the individual applicant(s) who really are the smartest and best.

Likewise, don’t just reflexively assume “Wow, a highly qualified black female applicant, she must be super determined and talented because she had so many obstacles to overcome being black and female!” Maybe this applicant comes from a wealthy family of experts in this field and had massive special advantages to help her follow in the family footsteps. Again, take the trouble to determine whether this individual applicant really is super determined and talented.

That, IMHO, is how you use awareness of the realities of privilege to “lessen the effects of privilege on society”. Of course, as I said, I don’t speak for iiandyiiii, but that seems to me to be the sort of thing he was talking about. [ETA: and Miller’s suggestion is another good example.]
:rolleyes: I can hear your knee jerking out the Morse code for “OMG TEH LIBRULZ WANT TO IMPOSE HIRING QUOTAS” from all the way over here.

What you seem to be missing, AFAICT, is iiandyiiii’s clear statement of principle that neither privilege nor the lack of privilege should be a significant factor in hiring choices. The only way to lessen the effects of privilege is to start from a clear awareness of the realities of privilege and how it affects our lives.

Sounds like we’re both in agreement that Option A is the way we should do things then. Is that a fair characterization of your position? With maybe a dash of Miller’s suggestion of trying to implement processes to make sure we’re really extra-super-duper-color-blind because people sometimes have subconscious biases against things like traditionally-black-sounding-names?

[Chronos]

Quoth Quartz:

In spite of the positive benefits of education being broadcast every day on TV?

TV shows many white people from affluent environments and with positive upbringing every day who have benefited from education. How often does TV show a black character from the ghetto who’s benefited from education? I mean, I’m sure you can come up with a few examples, but there aren’t all that many of them, certainly not as many as there are examples of black folks who have achieved success through basketball.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@HurricaneDitka

Sounds like we’re both in agreement that Option A is the way we should do things then. Is that a fair characterization of your position? With maybe a dash of Miller’s suggestion of trying to implement processes to make sure we’re really extra-super-duper-color-blind because people sometimes have subconscious biases against things like traditionally-black-sounding-names?

No dash about it. People vastly overestimate their own color-blindedness. Especially white people who don’t pay attention to race as a survival mechanism. Someone should probably have a term for not having to pay attention to race like that.

In any case, it’s not enough to think you’re color-blind. It’s essential that you look for the ways in which you might be subconsciously biased and devise those workarounds. To do otherwise–to rely on your own unimpeachable high ethics–is a recipe for failure.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

No dash about it. People vastly overestimate their own color-blindedness. Especially white people who don’t pay attention to race as a survival mechanism. Someone should probably have a term for not having to pay attention to race like that.

In any case, it’s not enough to think you’re color-blind. It’s essential that you look for the ways in which you might be subconsciously biased and devise those workarounds. To do otherwise–to rely on your own unimpeachable high ethics–is a recipe for failure.

I’m delighted to be able to add you to my color-blind-is-best club. Welcome aboard! I haven’t read any studies on the matter, and you didn’t offer any cites, but I can accept, at least for the sake of argument, that lots of people vastly-overestimate their ability to be truly color-blind. You said, “it’s essential” that people devise workarounds. Would you expect that, to offer one example, a small-town dentist try to devise a workaround where he is somehow unaware of the race of applicants when hiring his first dental assistant, or is it just a burden we should expect large companies with well-staffed HR departments to bear?

[monstro]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

If someone thinks they suck at basketball, but it turns out they got the cement shoes, pointing this out allows them to advocate for new tournament rules in which nobody gets the cement shoes. Surely showing them that it’s not their own personal fault that basketball is so hard for them, when it’s not their own personal fault, has got to be encouraging.

That doesn’t mean you tell them not to practice. That doesn’t mean you tell them not to play. It’s just, you also tell them that advocating for a fairer set of rules is something they can do.

I think it is more crucial for the cement shoes-wearing player to know that he has to play a different game than everyone else. A game with different techniques and maneuvers. The conventional gameplay is a recipe for low attainment for such a player.

For instance, I participated in an orientation program for freshman minority students in college. They drilled into us the importance of NOT taking our cues from everyone else. Like, it may be normal for everyone in the dorm to party at all hours of the night. But “everyone” isn’t on scholarship–you are. “Everyone” may look like an Eagle scout, so they may automatically get the “boys will be boys” defense if they wind up in the police precinct. But you don’t look like an Eagle scout, so don’t bet on catching a break. “Everyone” may show up to class late and sit in the back of the lecture hall with their baseball caps pushed over the eyes so they can doze off. But “everyone” isn’t the only black guy in the class–you are. If you do something like that, you’ll be marked as a lazy shiftless negro . So you simply can’t play the same game that “everyone else” plays. You have to be sharper. Yes, it sucks and it’s not fair. But fighting the unfairness at every turn is a waste of time. You just got to suck up the suckiness and deal with it.

So I think learning how to play the game given the unfairness is a more attainable goal than trying to convince everyone to give you a fair shake. An individual can certainly advocate for fairer rules, but if that individual lacks privilege, they aren’t going to be listened to, by definition. They will be accused of whining and complaining. (Plus, it has been my experience that people implementing rules will never admit when they are unfair.)

“You have to work twice as hard” is a message I’ve heard my whole life. It is a recognition that the game isn’t and will never be fair, but you still have to play the game to win.

[Kimstu]

@HurricaneDitka

Sounds like we’re both in agreement that Option A is the way we should do things then. Is that a fair characterization of your position?

No, because your description of “Option A” is phrased in a very naive and unrealistic way, to wit:

@HurricaneDitka

A) be color- / gender- / sexual-orientation-blind & not allow membership in historically underprivileged group(s) to affect your decision

Being objectively “blind” to categories in which different groups have different levels of social privilege is exactly what human beings can’t do. (Except in limited special circumstances where we deliberately “blind” ourselves by avoiding information about membership in such groups, as in “blind and barefoot” auditions for orchestra musicians, or Miller’s example of removing applicants’ names from application forms.)

In reality, we’re always going to be exposed to some knowledge about characteristics of other people that are affected by privilege in various forms, and it’s delusional to claim that if we just decide to be “blind” to it then it won’t affect us. (As LHoD rightly points out.)

What we need, on the contrary, is not pretensions to some kind of ideal “blindness” that is in reality impossible to achieve, but rather more awareness of the ways in which privilege operates, and a compensating caution about our own assumptions and our presumed objectivity.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Kimstu

No, because your description of “Option A” is phrased in a very naive and unrealistic way, to wit:

Being objectively “blind” to categories in which different groups have different levels of social privilege is exactly what human beings can’t do. (Except in limited special circumstances where we deliberately “blind” ourselves by avoiding information about membership in such groups, as in “blind and barefoot” auditions for orchestra musicians, or Miller’s example of removing applicants’ names from application forms.)

In reality, we’re always going to be exposed to some knowledge about characteristics of other people that are affected by privilege in various forms, and it’s delusional to claim that if we just decide to be “blind” to it then it won’t affect us. (As LHoD rightly points out.)

What we need, on the contrary, is not pretensions to some kind of ideal “blindness” that is in reality impossible to achieve, but rather more awareness of the ways in which privilege operates, and a compensating caution about our own assumptions and our presumed objectivity.

Let’s set aside, for a moment, the more challenging, loaded, and hot-button areas of race and gender. Let’s talk about sexual orientation, which seems to be the third leg of the privilege stool (I hear a lot about straight white males). In every hiring process I’ve ever been involved in, sexual orientation didn’t come up. I imagine that’s pretty normal, and in the vast majority of hiring processes, sexual orientation isn’t brought up as a topic, isn’t used as a way to score candidates, and in fact, most employers have no way of knowing the sexual orientation of their applicants. Is that the ideal we should strive for? Or should we encourage employers to try to achieve more awareness about how sexual-orientation privilege operates, and maintain “a compensating caution about our own assumptions and our presumed objectivity”?

[Kimstu]

@HurricaneDitka

In every hiring process I’ve ever been involved in, sexual orientation didn’t come up. I imagine that’s pretty normal, and in the vast majority of hiring processes, sexual orientation isn’t brought up as a topic, isn’t used as a way to score candidates, and in fact, most employers have no way of knowing the sexual orientation of their applicants.

:dubious: What you seem to be saying is "If gay people (or unconventional straight people, for that matter) make sure to conform during the hiring process to appearance and behavior conventions that are typical for straight people, then employers won’t know who’s actually straight and who’s gay, so straight privilege won’t have a different impact on the straight and the gay applicants, so that’s good, right?"

That’s not actually being “blind” to sexual orientation. That’s just recognizing that anti-gay prejudice won’t apply to gay applicants who successfully manage to “pass” as straight.

For gay applicants who don’t conform to appearance and behavior conventions typically associated with straight people, it is naive and unrealistic, as I said, to pretend that anti-gay prejudice won’t operate just because “sexual orientation isn’t brought up as a topic”.

Homophobia, like other forms of bigotry, is still very widespread in society, and many employers are going to have negative reactions to an applicant who they think is gay even if they don’t explicitly talk about sexual orientation. (Note that I’m not claiming that you or your employers personally are homophobic, but there’s a lot of homophobia out there in society in general, and employers as a group are not immune to it.)

So no, in general, “sexual-orientation-blindness” in hiring doesn’t actually exist except for applicants who successfully pass for straight. And that unjustly discriminates against gay applicants who don’t or can’t pass for straight. Even for the ones who do, the effect is very temporary: see below.

[QUOTE=HurricaneDitka]
Or should we encourage employers to try to achieve more awareness about how sexual-orientation privilege operates, and maintain “a compensating caution about our own assumptions and our presumed objectivity”?
[/QUOTE]

Abso-fucking-lutely. Think about it: even if some gay applicants can manage to make their hiring process effectively “gay-blind” by successfully “passing” for straight, what about their post-hiring careers?

Are we going to require that gay employees continue “passing” for straight in the workplace all their working lives (as gay employees decades ago indeed had to do) so that straight privilege won’t work against them? No employees should be expected to spend their careers in the office closet.

Ultimately, the only effective way to counteract society’s widespread homophobic prejudice and the corresponding effect of straight privilege is via more awareness about how sexual-orientation privilege operates, and a compensating caution about our own assumptions and our presumed objectivity.

[monstro]

@HurricaneDitka

Let’s set aside, for a moment, the more challenging, loaded, and hot-button areas of race and gender. Let’s talk about sexual orientation, which seems to be the third leg of the privilege stool (I hear a lot about straight white males). In every hiring process I’ve ever been involved in, sexual orientation didn’t come up. I imagine that’s pretty normal, and in the vast majority of hiring processes, sexual orientation isn’t brought up as a topic, isn’t used as a way to score candidates, and in fact, most employers have no way of knowing the sexual orientation of their applicants. Is that the ideal we should strive for? Or should we encourage employers to try to achieve more awareness about how sexual-orientation privilege operates, and maintain “a compensating caution about our own assumptions and our presumed objectivity”?

Just because an employer typically doesn’t ask candidates about sexual orientation doesn’t mean they don’t make any assumptions. Even subtle signs of gender non-conformity can trigger prejudice.

And of course, gay people don’t just have to worry about not being hired. Once they’re hired, they have to worry about the potential fall-out from coming out or being outed.

An example of how sexual orientation privilege can make the workplace awkward:

A manager assembles a newly formed group comprised of staff who’ve never worked together before. The manager decides that the group needs an “ice breaker” activity. He suggests everyone go around the room and share their funniest celebrity crush.

<record screeches>

The manager needs to appreciate that not everyone is comfortable flaunting their sexuality in a room full of strangers. There are a million “ice breaking” activities out there that won’t put anyone in an awkward position. He should go with one of those.

[msmith537]

[quote=Quartz]

@Banquet Bear

…I didn’t really understand privilege until I read this comic by New Zealand artist Toby Morris.
[/quote

On a Plate.

What that comic doesn’t mention is that while Richard got the opportunities, he still had to follow through and do the work. A child doesn’t get an A grade just by having a tutor; the child has to learn the subject and do the work.

There’s a lot wrong with that comic.

A library card doesn’t cost anything. Maybe Paula can get one and read instead of watch TV?

No, Paula won’t get into Harvard on "B"s. But it’s good enough to get into plenty of good schools.

The writer’s from New Zealand. Why isn’t Paula’s sick father enjoying their free health care?

Who gets student loans from some shady high fee lending club? Why doesn’t Paula use some Kiwi version of Sallie Mae or whoever issues legitimate student loans over there?

And of course, the false dichotomy of Richard being handed a sweet job where he’s fast tracked while Paula works some dead end job where her boss is a total jerk.

Does coming from a more affluent family afford Richard certain advantages? Of course. But from what I’ve seen first hand, you still have to do the work. I’ve seen plenty of rich kids fail out of college or struggle in jobs. And I’ve seen plenty of kids from not so rich backgrounds who are willing to work a lot harder because shit wasn’t handed to them.

[HurricaneDitka]

Kimstu, I can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me in a disagreeable tone or disagreeing with me in as-agreeable-a-tone-as-can-be-managed.

Several of your statements (e.g. “look at applicants as individuals, with individual backgrounds and combinations of inherent advantages and disadvantages, rather than making blanket assumptions about their abilities and achievements” or ) seem entirely agreeable, even to the point of blandness. I believe we agree on this point.

Your point about a gay person’s post-hiring career is a valid one, but doesn’t that also apply to “blind and barefoot” auditions and Miller’s hide-the-names suggestion? Don’t those also give only “very temporary” benefits, to the point of making them worthless?

I’ll pose to you the same question I posed to LHoD: imagine a small-town dentist. He’s a one-man shop, does it all himself, but his small practice is growing, and he’s finding it hard to manage all the tasks himself. He decides that it’s time to hire an assistant. Are there any concrete steps he should take to try to make his hiring process as privilege-neutral as possible? For example, should he try to devise a workaround where he is somehow unaware of the names of his applicants? Should he first attend some seminars on privilege awareness? Watch a TED talk? Spend some time reading the Dope? Or is “I’ll just do my best to find the best candidate for the job, regardless of their race, gender, or sexual orientation” satisfactory? This gets back to HumbleThinker’s “what do we do about it?” question.

[HurricaneDitka]

@monstro

There are a million “ice breaking” activities out there that won’t put anyone in an awkward position. He should go with one of those.

Fair enough, a good suggestion for ice breakers. What about the traditional company picnic / party that often include invites for one’s “significant other”? Should those be verbotten because they might expose someone’s sexual orientation (or singleness)?

[Kimstu]

@msmith537

[A library card doesn’t cost anything. Maybe Paula can get one and read instead of watch TV?

:dubious: Of course, getting to the library may well cost money, and getting to the library while it’s open can be difficult for a schoolchild whose parents are each working two jobs, especially if she’s responsible for housework or childcare duties while her parents are out at work. Not to mention that in poorer neighborhoods the streets are often less safe than in more affluent areas.

This example illustrates perfectly the core issues involved in socioeconomic privilege. Yes, both Richard and Paula should be reading books to develop their minds and increase their chances of educational success. But for Richard, that requires nothing more than picking up from the shelf right next to him one of the many good mind-expanding books that his affluent and closely involved parents have made sure to provide with him, along with plenty of time to devote to mental enrichment. For Paula, the barriers to the simple act of picking up a good mind-expanding book are much higher.

That obvious comparison is frequently ignored in favor of focusing on whether Paula could get over the barriers if she just tried harder. Sure, very probably she could. But the core issue about privilege isn’t that it’s impossible for the less-privileged to succeed: nobody’s claiming that. It’s just that it’s significantly more difficult for the less-privileged to succeed. And over time, all those extra bits of difficulty add up.

Many people who talk about the importance of “equality of opportunity” seem to imagine that Richard and Paula have achieved equality of opportunity when it comes to reading, because in theory both have access to books. Yeah, but if in practice Richard can take advantage of that opportunity by just reaching out his hand to his parentally-stocked bookshelf, while Paula has to fit her school and childcare schedules around the library hours and make sure she’s got the time and/or money to get to the library, then their opportunities aren’t really so equal.

[QUOTE=msmith537]
The writer’s from New Zealand. Why isn’t Paula’s sick father enjoying their free health care?
[/quote]

Are you under the impression that UHC systems provide all the care required by chronically ill family members, for free?

[QUOTE=msmith537]
And of course, the false dichotomy of Richard being handed a sweet job where he’s fast tracked while Paula works some dead end job where her boss is a total jerk.
[/quote]

Are you under the impression that young people from affluent and well-connected families don’t have better chances of being handed sweet jobs where they’re fast-tracked, while young people from poor and obscure families are more likely to get dead end jobs working for jerks? In what way does this disparity seem unrealistic to you?

[QUOTE=msmith537]
Does coming from a more affluent family afford Richard certain advantages? Of course.
[/quote]

Well, that’s the fundamental point that the comic was making. As you note, this basic point isn’t really in dispute.

The disagreements seem to start when some people want to study and understand privilege differences to figure out how to remedy the disadvantages they create for the less-privileged, while other people seem to resent their being talked about at all.

[QUOTE=msmith537]
But from what I’ve seen first hand, you still have to do the work.
[/QUOTE]

Nobody’s saying that even privileged people don’t (in most cases, at least) still have to do the work. The point is that their advantages make it significantly easier for them to do the work successfully.

[Kimstu]

@HurricaneDitka

Your point about a gay person’s post-hiring career is a valid one, but doesn’t that also apply to “blind and barefoot” auditions and Miller’s hide-the-names suggestion?

Of course it does. Which is why I never claimed that that kind of temporary artificial “blindness” to privilege differences would suffice as the only strategy for counteracting the effects of privilege. Far from it.

As I said, ultimately the only effective way to counteract the effects of race/gender/class/sexual orientation/etc. privilege is via more awareness about how privilege operates, and a compensating caution about our own assumptions and our presumed objectivity.

Just asserting that we’re “blind” to differences between differently privileged groups doesn’t achieve shit, because as we’ve discussed, genuine “blindness” on such matters is generally only possible under very short-term and artificial circumstances.

[QUOTE=HurricaneDitka]
I’ll pose to you the same question I posed to LHoD: imagine a small-town dentist. He’s a one-man shop, does it all himself, but his small practice is growing, and he’s finding it hard to manage all the tasks himself. He decides that it’s time to hire an assistant. Are there any concrete steps he should take to try to make his hiring process as privilege-neutral as possible?

[/quote]

Hmmm, for a singlehanded small business there really aren’t a lot of options for the sort of temporary artificial “blindness” techniques mentioned here.

I would say that overall, the best strategy for developing awareness of privilege issues is to get to know more about people and cultures that are different from what you’re used to. Follow their news, watch their TV shows, read their magazines. The discoveries you make about privilege are mostly the things that you never even thought to wonder about.

For example, I was absolutely astounded when the BLM movement surfaced in mainstream media to find out that there were significant numbers of law-abiding people who were legitimately scared of police violence. I always assumed that if you’re not doing anything wrong, the cops aren’t going to hurt you, and wow that is SO NOT TRUE for everybody. Look at that big shiny lump of privilege I never even realized I had.

[QUOTE=HurricaneDitka]
Or is “I’ll just do my best to find the best candidate for the job, regardless of their race, gender, or sexual orientation” satisfactory?
[/QUOTE]

Hey, you can’t start from anywhere except where you are. Resolving to try to disregard race, gender and sexual orientation as they pertain to job applicants is definitely a very good first step.

What our well-meaning dentist should avoid doing is naively assuming that just because he decided that he would disregard race, gender and sexual orientation as irrelevant, he will be genuinely unaffected by social prejudices and privileges concerning them.

So many people fall into the trap of “I’m not prejudiced, but…” (I’m not comfortable because something about this person bothers me, in a way that I don’t consciously associate with being prejudiced.)

Maybe our dentist gets a job application from an applicant named Alejandra. Now, he doesn’t think of himself as prejudiced against Hispanics at all, and he likes to chat with the very nice Mexican guy who does his neighbor’s lawn care. Alejandra comes in for an interview and he’s impressed with her professional skills and her friendly social manner that he thinks will please his patients.

He’s a little worried about the fact that she speaks with a perceptible accent, though. Will some patients wonder if he’s hired an illegal? Might she actually have some friends or family members who are illegals? He wouldn’t want to get mixed up with that. He has a mental image of Alejandra on the office phone, desperately trying in rapid Spanish to calm down a distraught relative whose son has been arrested, while the patient at the desk is getting quite impatient. “I thought I came to a dentist appointment, not a bodega”, the imaginary patient mutters to him.

No, our well-meaning dentist can’t quite put his finger on it, but there’s something about having Alejandra work in his office that seems, well, a little “off” to him. If he has a choice, he’d probably rather hire somebody else.
And that’s why just proclaiming to yourself that you’re going to disregard race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., and imagining that that makes you genuinely unbiased, is self-deluding bullshit. Prejudice and privilege in most cases operate below our conscious recognition. We get indefinite “feelings” from them that we rationalize by ascribing them to some other cause, even while we’re being influenced by them.

The only way to cure the problem is to understand the problem better. That’s why we need to counteract the effects of race/gender/class/sexual orientation/etc. privilege via more awareness about how privilege operates, and a compensating caution about our own assumptions and our presumed objectivity.

[iiandyiiii]

Kimstu and Miller have accurately characterized my position. Thank you!

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Kimstu

What our well-meaning dentist should avoid doing is naively assuming that just because he decided that he would disregard race, gender and sexual orientation as irrelevant, he will be genuinely unaffected by social prejudices and privileges concerning them.

So many people fall into the trap of “I’m not prejudiced, but…” (I’m not comfortable because something about this person bothers me, in a way that I don’t consciously associate with being prejudiced.)

Maybe our dentist gets a job application from an applicant named Alejandra. Now, he doesn’t think of himself as prejudiced against Hispanics at all, and he likes to chat with the very nice Mexican guy who does his neighbor’s lawn care. Alejandra comes in for an interview and he’s impressed with her professional skills and her friendly social manner that he thinks will please his patients.

He’s a little worried about the fact that she speaks with a perceptible accent, though. Will some patients wonder if he’s hired an illegal? Might she actually have some friends or family members who are illegals? He wouldn’t want to get mixed up with that. He has a mental image of Alejandra on the office phone, desperately trying in rapid Spanish to calm down a distraught relative whose son has been arrested, while the patient at the desk is getting quite impatient. “I thought I came to a dentist appointment, not a bodega”, the imaginary patient mutters to him.

No, our well-meaning dentist can’t quite put his finger on it, but there’s something about having Alejandra work in his office that seems, well, a little “off” to him. If he has a choice, he’d probably rather hire somebody else.
And that’s why just proclaiming to yourself that you’re going to disregard race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., and imagining that that makes you genuinely unbiased, is self-deluding bullshit. Prejudice and privilege in most cases operate below our conscious recognition. We get indefinite “feelings” from them that we rationalize by ascribing them to some other cause, even while we’re being influenced by them.

The only way to cure the problem is to understand the problem better. That’s why we need to counteract the effects of race/gender/class/sexual orientation/etc. privilege via more awareness about how privilege operates, and a compensating caution about our own assumptions and our presumed objectivity.

Huh. I was all ready to type a response about hiring a black male hygienist, but you did a lot better than I would have.

Hurricane, the fundamental principle being advocated here is that people recognize their own privilege, and their own vulnerability to bias. This recognition should be an aid to treating people with fairness: it helps you not universalize your own experience, and it helps you take measures to counteract implicit bias.