All we know is that there were many complaints made, and we have what seems to be an in-context and complete quote. In other words, a bunch of people flipped out and got all upset and city hall caved to PC pressure. This is not proof of anything.
What, now you’re saying African American’s had something to do with jazz? Why, you . . . .
I had a very interesting expericence along these lines a couple of years ago.
I was recruiting for a tennis team and was given the work number of a potential player, which I recognized as one of the major, white shoe law firms in the New York City area.
The man’s first name was Robert and his last name was an obviously Nordic one (with a lot of double consonants (i.e., kj), etc., and double vowels.
When I phoned him, two words into his first sentence to me, I knew there was something, for lack of a better way to describe it, “Black” in his speech. Articulate, well-educated, well-spoken, but still . . .
Upon meeting him in person several phone calls later and getting to know a little about him, it turned out his father was Swedish (if I remember correctly) and his mother was African American. Based on his surname and the law firm firm’s lily-white reputation, I had subconsciously assumed that he would be white (U.S. proporation, that is). (And my saying he was articulate, etc. wasn’t meant to say Blacks be; I know I am.)
That’s “proportions” and “Blacks can’t be”.
The complaints were filed by people who read the newspaper quote which I posted above. As far as I know, they had access to less information than I do, since every one of the complainants assumed that my friend was white.
I thank you for the link. It connects to a Univ. of Texas EID Home page, and to register I have to provide personal information to a level I am not comfortable with- just to read up on a linked paper. I do believe you, that this is the paper tomndebb mentioned and accept at face value that it does exist. I just won’t go and register to read it. :dubious:
Wow, that’s very big of you. Admitting that a paper to which you’ve been given a direct citation and a link actually exists! Don’t go overboard.
Maybe, given tomndebb’s status as a long-respected poster on these boards, and a moderator to boot, you might go so far as to accept that his short summary of the paper’s findings might actually be accurate? And if not, maybe this abstract provided by the publishers might sway you?
Well the Federal Government doesn’t seem to have a problem with having the race of the person calling in a bomb threat. I have a card that sits next to the phone that tells you what to do in the case of a threat.
The first things are to ask about the bomb, then ask for a name, like they’d give that, and address! Then at the bottom there is a place for Sex of caller, Race and Age. So it seems the feds have no problem with it, I don’t see why anyone else should either.
Well, as a general principle, i’m not sure that the argument “the government thinks it’s OK, so it must be OK” is a very strong position to take.
Well, it is because we’re dealing with the same Government- another level to be sure, but if the Feds says it’s not racist, that’s pretty good in the USof A.
The only way I would have interpretted that comment as racist would be if she had substituted “nigger” for “African-American”. Her suspension was a definate overreaction, IMHO.
If you need to get snarky, take it to the Pit. Someone provides a link that requires Registration, I let them know that the info they convey into a thread isn’t readily accessable. There’s no crime in asking for a cite, nor is there a violation of Board Policy OR the Rules as written by Ed Zotti et al, in informing you that the link is unusable- but I will accept the description on face value.
The status as a Moderator is completely irrelevant, IMHO. I accept that the information that tomndebb says exists is real because you provided a link- albeit an unuseable one- that seems to show that it is for real. The Internet’s a big place, I do not think that anyone’s nose but yours was put out of joint by my asking for a cite. In fact, I would wager that the number of times a week that a cite is requested around here is so huge, that most Dopers wouldn’t get their nose put out of joint by a request for a cite. Had tomndebb caught my request first, I am sure that he would have been glad to provide the same cite ( or perhaps one that was viewable sans Registration, etc. ) People ask me for a cite sometimes, and heck- it’s kind of incumbent upon me to be able to provide one, unless it’s an IMHO thread that is purely about personal opinon with no basis in fact. Sheesh.
As for the recent posts, the idea that the Feds actually have a printed card ( see the post by Edward The Head up there ) that he/she is looking at that asks point blank if the caller’s race can be discerned is interesting.
Exactly how does an African-American sound? How does a black person sound? How does a full-blooded Cherokee sound? How does a 100% Caucasian person from Lafayette, Louisianna sound? You want to get into a spirited discussion on accents and the patois that is sometimes associated with certain segments of the population, we could. But the idea that the Gummint would ask someone untrained to discern race is…uh…disconcerting to say the least.
Go and make an audio recording of Jeff Foxworthy, the comic. Ask him to read the title of this thread. Make an audio recording of the following other people as well:
- President Bush.
- Snoop Dog.
- Ed Bradley, of CBS.
- Mayor Bill White of Houston, Texas.
Play them one after the other for people. Who “sounds” which race?
Lunacy. And, to ask lay people to identify based on their own notion of who sounds like which race, is bordering on irresponsible. Just cause the Feds think it’s okay, yanno… it doesn’t make it okay. It just means someone who works for the Feds thinks it’s okay.
If you had read my post, you would have seen that it was not your request for a cite that i was taking issue with. There’s no problem at all in asking for a citation.
The problem is that, once given a citation, including a link to a place where the article could be found, all you could muster was a grudging admission that the article exists. Sure, the link provided makes it hard for you to read the article, but your inability or unwillingness to access it does not qualify as some sort of refutation of tomndebb’s argument. Having actually read the article in question, tomndebb says that the article does, in fact, provide strong scholarly support for the notion that people can distinguish different races and ethnic groups over the phone. I think the least we can do is take his word about what the article says.
But you continue to ask a question that has apparently been addressed in the very article that tomndebb refers to. You seem skeptical that an “untrained” person can discern race over the phone, but Baugh’s study apparently shows precisely that this is possible. While it’s not the actual article referred to earlier, this aticle offers an insight into Baugh’s work:
So, when presented with a sentence or more, about 80% of people could correctly identify the race or ethnicity of the speaker, and even when the only word spoken was “hello,” the recognition rate is still over 70%—much higher, in a sample of three different dialects, than you would expect from mere chance.
I would not argue, and nor would Baugh himself argue, that this means that such evidence need always be taken as completely reliable. Even the 80% figure allows for 20% of people getting it wrong, to say nothing of the fact that some people (like Baugh himself) have the ability to “code switch,” to speak in different dialects depending on their circumstances. But to say that such idenitifications are completely useless seems rather silly, and to suspend someone for making what was apparently a good-faith effort to provide relevant details seems even sillier.
Again, all this demonstrates is that you haven’t read any of the literature on the subject. If the studies are even close to accurate, chances are that many people would, in fact, make correct identifications.
I don’t say this with any sense of pleasure, because as Baugh also shows, people’s ability to determine race by voice has also been a factor is discrimination in areas such as housing and employment in the United States. We would probably be better off in many ways if the whole issue of dialect was as unreliable as you claim, but the research suggests that this just isn’t so.
If this research is true, then the woman has a fabulous lawsuit on her hands. She is 80% correct in her assumption. I find this sad- and sad is not an arguable stance. It is sad.
However, if she makes use of this study and others, then she can fight the disciplinary action and likely file suit- and win.
Question: Would this woman have been treated ANY differently if she had been African-American herself?
Should she have been?
I still think it’s sad, even if she wins. Think of all the people who have probably been discriminated against based on their voice, but didn’t know it.
What description? Black, young, and of average weight?
The second, be cause it points out unique qualities that narrows down suspects in a way that “tall & white” doesn’t. You do realize that “caucaisian with large feet and a strange hairdo” is unalagous to “black, 20-25, and 150-200 lbs”, right (at least to black people it isn’t, I guess)?
I knew this wouldn’t stay a simple poll for long, considering the topic.
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to include you in my statement. However, I think it’s still true. First, we don’t know anything about the town, the race relations, etc. All of those things matter. Also, her not being white has nothing to do with it.
Actually, without knowing “anything about the town, the race relations, etc.” we don’t really know that her perceived race had nothing to do with it. It is hard to imagine a black person being suspended for a week without pay for mentioning that a suspect was black.
I would consider the argument that she “gave away too much information” as a reason for a suspension, (although I would then hold that they had no business putting her in front of the media without a background in handling questions), but I still would maintain that her statement as reported was not a legitimate reason to suspend her based on (perceived) pressure from outsiders making silly cries of “racism.”
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘initially’, but it seems questionable to me. It’s been 10 years ago, but I do remember within a couple hours of the explosion hearing speculation on the news because it occurred on the anniversary of the Waco, TX compound fire. As well as other possible reasons. The very fact that it was being speculated about on the news made it clear that they didn’t know yet.