Is James Lindsay's description of Wokeness accurate?

Great Debates
245

Kendi was admirably clear: “A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. An antiracist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equity between racial groups.” No ifs, ands or buts.

When a dominant racial group is achieving more compared to others, it’s reasonable and probably generally correct to think that racism is behind it. However, when a minority is overachieving, as in the cases I mentioned, this explanation doesn’t make sense. Nonetheless, according to Kendi’s theory, a policy that holds back the overachieving minority is by definition an antiracist one.

If you disagree, that’s fine, make your argument. Because simply saying I am wrong proves nothing.

Sorry for not replying. I did read it; my impressions were similar to QuickSilver’s. I’d very much like to see the evidence that standardised testing does not predict success at college or in professional careers.

This is something often ignored. I’ve heard affirmative action mostly benefits middle and upper class black kids, when it should be much more important to help more black people get into the middle class in the first place. It’s a hard problem. There may well be a place for affirmative action, but the costs and benefits (and effectiveness!) need to be weighed, it shouldn’t automatically be assumed to be a good thing.

246

How about getting more politicians and businessmen who didn’t go to Harvard? Then you could get those different viewpoints directly. Back when a college education wasn’t a prerequisite for everything, it wasn’t so necessary to have a perfect childhood and affluent parents in order to succeed.

247

Agreed strongly with your first part, about electing politicians who went to places other than Ivy League schools.

As to your second point… higher education is becoming more and more necessary because the jobs that are competitive for American labor require those additional skills. But I agree that the obsession with big name schools is counterproductive, as is the idea of getting a degree just to get a degree. I think we need more trade schools – including schools for technical trades, like programming.

248

Yes, and in particular ones that don’t leave students with tens of thousands of pounds of debt.

249

Again, the focus should be on providing those in the low end of the socio-economic strata with better education, better opportunities and better lives as a result. Which will have a knock on effect for their children, etc. That is the ‘house on fire’ if we are to assume that analogy is apt.

And if we are to assume that the superstar who cures cancer is going to be an ivy league school graduate, we should not be trying to focus on whether that person is black or white or asian. In fact, the chances of him or her being a minority improves if his or her parents graduated from that average college and passed on the opportunities and values to their kids.

250

Agreed!

251

In a perfect world, we would look at the entire history of the student, where they went to school, what their neighborhood was like, what education and jobs their parents have, and weight their admission based on that.

I don’t know that we can get that deep into the weeds. Maybe we can, with more modern computerized records, but when we are talking about thousands of applicants, categorizing and checking and cross checking all those things still seems difficult.

It doesn’t have to be a negative sum game. With a fixed number of seats open at a university, it becomes a zero sum game, but that doesn’t need to be the case.

I think we have the capacity to make everyone prosper equally, should we actually choose to do so.

I’ll agree that this conversation has revolved around ivy leagues schools more than it should, and that is a side track and a distraction.

All of this is relevant to admissions in state universities and even community colleges. It is relevant to hiring practices in everything from fast food to executive positions.

Right, and my points have been mostly at “average colleges”. I think that all institutes of learning, employment, and other opportunities should take into account the disadvantages that one has had to go through just to get where they are.

Depends on who “we” are. We in this discussion, talking about how terrible James Lindsay’s description of wokeness is, yes, we are spending way too much time talking about edge cases in ivy league universities.

If you are an admissions director of an Ivy League school, though, then you should spend some time considering them.

Agreed, but where does that start? Does that start with the parents who have already been disadvantaged, or with the kids who will be disadvantaged due to having poorly educated, academically uninterested, and overworked parents?

I think we need to focus on the better lives part. People are suffering now because of the effects of historical discrimination. That’s the house on fire. It’s not their fault that they are suffering, it is ours (collectively as a society). Parents leading miserable lives are very likely to raise children who lead miserable lives. We can’t focus only on the child, and ignore the parent, as the parent is a pretty significant contributor to the success of the child.

252

This is absolutely true but I think we are back to a “lift everyone out of poverty, which will disproportionately benefit black people; at the same time continue the hearts and mind battle against racism” strategy. Certainly the anti poverty programs need to understand African American history and culture as they aid poor African Americans but we should be helping poor whites, too. Uneducated whites are going to have harder lives in our society too, and that’s likely to influence their children’s success too. Racism festers in such an environment, especially if they see programs to aid African Americans leave them behind.

253

Personally, I’m an advocate for UBI and UHC. I think that our educational systems need to be pretty much rebuilt from the ground up. Education should simply be a right, a high quality education that extends to at least graduate degrees should be attainable at no cost to the student.

Until then, we are putting patches on a flawed system. One of those patches needs to be affirmative action and quotas and “discrimination” towards historically disadvantaged groups.

We create an even playing ground, where the history of your parents doesn’t have an impact on your ability to succeed, then we can do away with all of that. Until then, just pretending that the playing ground is even doesn’t do anyone any favors.

254

I think what helps the child, helps the parent. If a poor child is getting a good education, like the child in a better neighborhood, if their school has the same resources, if that child gets a free breakfast and lunch program, if they have good afterschool programs and tutoring… all that takes the strain off the poor parent while improving the outcome for the child. But this has to start early.

For older kids, and for kids who’ve missed out on the early child care and education advantages, focus on well funded vocational schools and training. That is more likely to help them improve their lives than simply giving them a spot in a college which they are not academically qualified to attend and are more likely to flunk or drop out of. And if they succeed at the vocational school, perhaps they can apply to college as young adults to continue their education, more focused on a career path.

And yes, these have to be programs that address issues for all those who are socio-economically disadvantaged. They should not be framed as being “anti-racist” (though they often will be), and certainly we should avoid Kendi’s messaging: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

255

My wife, who is a teacher, always makes this point (which probably deserves a thread all its own)

Experts keep telling us how super important the first 5 years of a child’s development are to their success later in life. Good nutrition, a healthy environment, and constant enrichment and interaction with adults is necessary for the healthy mental development of the child.

And yet, we don’t start public education until the age of 5!

Preschools should be more available, and more focused on this crucial early enrichment. Think how huge a difference it would make if parents got more time off work for very early childcare, if preschool programs were readily available, if guidance and support was offered to new parents who needed it to ensure their children are getting the necessary enrichment…

256

That helps, but as you say, has to start early. And would you directly help the parent? Give them some sort of stipend or per diem so that they can live in a decent home, have good food for dinner, have the facilities to cook, launder and clean? Pay them to stay home and help their child with their homework, rather than work at a second shift job/

I think that we should do that across the board anyway, but I am a bit worried, as many vocational jobs are disapearing.

If someone misses the cut-off for admission by a few points, that doesn’t mean that they are not academically qualified, it just means that someone else beat them out. They probably would have done just fine, especially when admissions criteria are fairly arbitrary and not all that great a predictive metric for success. The ones that I usually see drop out are the ones who never had to put much effort in, and suddenly, as soon as actual effort is required, can’t handle it.

I mostly don’t disagree with the rest of your post, but what I see is that Kendi’s messaging, while uncomfortable, is the truth. We could try to couch it in more flowerly language, but what he is saying is not wrong. And I feel that avoiding that message just invites anti-anti-racists to make the accusation that we are talking out of both sides of our mouths.

257

Not if the programs really do help anyone who´s socioeconomically disadvantaged. According to Kendi all policies are either racist or antiracist based on their effects, even if they have nothing to do with race. So a policy doesn’t have to be race-based to be antiracist by his definition, and there’s no need to brand it as such.

What if it’s not just a few points? This is why we need data on current affirmative action programs - who do they help, how many students drop out, and how do their achievements compare to their peers.

Which ones? You mentioned a UBI, but as a solution for jobs disappearing due to automation or outsourcing, I think it leaves a lot to be desired.

258

I was wondering about this, because I remembered hearing that Head Start wasn’t very effective. This article is an interesting discussion of the issue that suggests free reliable childcare would actually do the most good. There, that’s one way of helping the parents by helping the child.

259

It’s not. Just because something is discriminatory does not mean that it is racially discriminatory. You discriminate every time you go shopping, you select products based on price and quality. There is a radio ad for an adult store around here that says, “For discriminating adults.” it’s not calling for racists to shop there.

My point is that in avoiding the language that discrimination is necessary to remedy past discrimination is that then puts us in the position of trying to explain why a policy is not discriminatory, when it is, rather than explaining why that discrimination is for the better.

And a large reason for the definition that Kendi gave is as you said, a policy does not need to be race based in order to be antiracist, or to be racist for that matter. It only needs to have the effect of increasing or decreasing social equality.

It is not branded as such by his definition, or by mine, but, based on what you have said here, you seem to have made that assumption anyway.

And what if it is?

I agree we need more data, but that data should be used to more effectively assist disadvantaged individuals and groups, rather than to be used to create new and better arbitrary benchmarks for admission.

I’m reminded of the tests that China would give to the entire population. Those who scored highest on the tests would be given honored positions in academics and government. Theoretically a merit based system. But they would intentionally put things on the test that the common people would not have much experience with, in order to maintain the elite’s control of power. They would add horseback riding requirements, so the common people would invest enormous resources into giving their children horse riding lessons, then when too many of the common folk started surpassing the children of the elite, they would add new arbitrary requirements. These were not measures of future success, these were gatekeepers to keep the common people suppressed.

It would probably be a shorter list to say which ones will be left. I don’t think that there are many jobs that will survive over the next few generations.

I mentioned a UBI, as well as other things. And I don’t see other solutions for jobs disappearing.

260

I know you and I have had some disagreements around messaging. I don’t want to turn this into another one of those. We all agree racism is bad. But look at what Kendi’s messaging has caused as we find ourselves at odds with terms such as non-racism, anti-racism, and anti-anti-racism. Add to that his remedies of discrimination to repair prior discrimination. It’s a little absurd but here we are, arguing amongst ourselves, as James Lindsays of the world are laughing up their sleeves because once again, liberals are busying themselves with internal fighting over new terms and purity tests of who/what is or is not sufficiently anti-racist.

261

That’s always going to be the problem when something that is discussed academically is taken out of context by those who are looking to score points, rather than do the work to understand the full meaning of something.

I don’t think that this is how the message should be going out to “the masses”, but for internet debates, or policy debates, where people can actually agree on terms, it’s not really an issue.

What has Kendi’s messaging caused? I had never heard of him before this thread, and I bet that 99.9% of anyone else hasn’t either.

It’s no different than when someone pulls some stuff they don’t understand out of context of a science paper, and create invalid conclusions based on their misunderstanding. We don’t tell the physicists to stop using the language that they do because it is misunderstood, why should we do the same with social sciences? I think that asking them to censor themselves will only decrease the viability of the conversation.

I disagree that what has been taken from Kendi is meant to be the message, and is instead meant to be the math that explains how he gets to his conclusions. To pull it out of context and declare it as the message that one should take from his work is not good faith.

There are no purity tests, there are no new terms. It’s just out of context straw and deliberate misunderstanding. If we cannot even discuss how to get from here to there, for fear that some of that conversation may be taken out of context and declared as “the message”, then they have won.

You are right that the James Lindsays of the world are laughing at us, but I disagree as to the reason. I think that those who are thinking that Kendi should censor himself are the ones that he has successfully trolled.

262

This is exactly what is happening in for example epedomiology at the moment

263

His book, “How to be an Anti-Racist” has been widely read and reviewed.

264

Look, “purity tests” is some right-wing bullshit, and that’s not what’s going on here. Don’t let conservatives control the narrative.

What’s going on is a necessary conversation about how best to dismantle racism. Good people can disagree with each other without thinking the other person is bad.

How to Be an Anti-Racist spends a significant chunk of time excoriating WEB DuBois’s approach, which Kendi calls “assimilationist.” I’m not at all convinced that Kendi’s criticism of DuBois is on point–but it’s interesting. If I ultimately come down on Kendi’s side, that doesn’t mean I think DuBois was a terrible person; if I come down on DuBois’s side, that doesn’t mean Kendi’s a moron. Both of them were/are passionately committed to racial justice, but approach it differently.

This isn’t “liberals eating their own.” This isn’t “purity tests.” Don’t let it be framed that way. It’s a legitimate debate, and two people can start with mutual respect, have the debate, and maintain or modify their positions while maintaining mutual respect. Someone can harshly criticize another person’s position without disrespecting them.

I distinguish that legitimate debate from what James Lindsay et al are doing: they’re trying to discredit the very idea of antiracism, in order to perpetuate their own white supremacist positions. That’s not part of the legitimate debate.