nm
Is it possible he worked many hours that were not billable to a client?
This week I’m on medical leave. So far I’ve worked 16 hours, all of them not billable since I’m on medical leave 
Imagine, someone having a full time job and then a part time job at the same time! That’s impossible! It’s not as if that’s a common occurrence that almost everyone I know has gone through at some point…
In Shodan world, no American has ever had a full time and a part time job at the same time.
Shodan world sounds like a very comfortable place.
You make it sound like Obama was supposed to be a 40 hour per week wage slave working a dead end job instead of, you know, a Harvard educated lawyer. I don’t think his firm was asking dude to punch a clock every day.
And the Illinois senate is part time because the legislature is only in session for part of the year (Jan to May I believe), thus, part time. While the legislature is in session it is most definitely a full time, 40+ hour per week job. And once again, I don’t think they were asking him to punch a clock.
I disagree strongly. There’s a type of denial – not just to issues of race but to any serious matters – that is often associated with a level of deception. You ask me if I stole your watch, and I answer, “I’m a good person, I don’t do bad things!” is a type of denial that has a particular significance. It isn’t proof of a lie or whatever, but it should be taken note of.
So let’s say you and I ask 100 white people whether they have ever been in a position of treating someone differently on account of race – whether it’s at work or walking alone on a dark street and seeing someone approaching. If we heard again and again a variation of a particular response, like “I don’t see race!” then we would be stupid to think that’s not culturally significant. It’s significant for many reasons, chief among which is that it is fucking absurd to claim that anyone doesn’t “see race.”
I think the professor is tapping into that similar issue by calling it fragility. I think that seems pretty on the mark.
If, however, you’re asked “Are you a thief”, then “I’m a good person, I don’t do bad things” would be a perfectly reasonable response. Anger and righteous indignation would also be perfectly reasonable, because the accusation is a serious one, not to be made in polite company without good evidence.
Same with “Are you racist?”
Bone is right. There is nothing, quite literally nothing, even in theory, that a white person could do to prove to DiAngelo that he or she isn’t racist. As such, the accusation (at least, when it comes from her) is unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless, and can be safely disregarded.
That’s not the type of denial that DiAngelo characterizes. Here’s a quote from the wiki:
So if a person becomes defensive when they are accused of being complicit or involved with white supremacy, then that is evidence of white fragility.
If someone accuses me of being racist or perpetrating white supremacy, my response isn’t to say, I’m a good person, I don’t do bad things. Rather, it’s to tell them to piss off. That’s not an example of white fragility, that’s an example of disgust with the person leveling the charge.
Either a person is or is not complicit or involved with white supremacy. If they are not, and they deny it, then according to DiAngelo that is an example of white fragility. It makes no difference whether the denial is accurate. This construction only works if DiAngelo assumes that all people are somehow guilty. If that is true, then the criticism is meaningless. If it is false, then her construction is worthless.
I read those words as describing some white people, not all white people. Some white people might respond with extreme defensiveness – others might not be defensive, but want to learn and understand (and maybe even grow!).
My read of the passage you quoted is that the defensive people aren’t being accused of racism; they’re being presented with the fact that racism exists, and they presume ex nihilo that the person presenting these facts is accusing them personally of participating in or deliberately facilitating them.
Which is to say, it’s just like #NotAllMen. People interpret even nonhostile statements that some men predate on women with protestations of their own innocence rather than, say, expressions of sympathy for the victims or even an admission that the situation is bad and it would be nice if something was done to stop it.
Sure, if it were from a different person. But that’s not my interpretation at all - I find her phrasing to be weasely. Even if you just take the subset of people who act defensively - there are some that will be racists, and some that wont be. Because defensive reaction is expected if a person is not guilt of what they are being accused of. But to DiAngelo, this is an indication of white fragility.
So to DiAngelo, a reasonable defense response is characterized as something negative. It’s bullshit really.
I don’t take “white fragility” as necessarily evidence of racism (as I understand the concept), but rather evidence of extreme anxiety about the topic, a possible lack of understanding, and the fear that they might be considered racist, making it much more difficult to actually learn and understand and grow. And it’s a flaw in culture and society, more than individuals. Something in our society and culture is increasing the anxiety about talking about the remaining racism in society as well as individuals, and what we can do about it.
I don’t think that anyone is actually stating that Obama had both a full-time and a part-time job at the same time, are they?
“Billable hours” don’t actually measure “Working hours” when you’re a lawyer. Four billable hours a day is a perfectly reasonable target for a full-timer.
Of course, law is one of those occupations where plenty of full-time employees actually work punishing double-time schedules, and are effectively working “two jobs” at the same place by putting in 80 hour weeks. Doesn’t look like Obama was one of those people. Very sensible of him, IMO
But like begbert2 said so perfectly, the context isn’t someone asking a white person if they are racist, or accusing them of being racist, and then someone responding defensively.
It is when the topic of racism comes up, then white people get defensive. Or, apparently from what you posted, even go on the offense.
Take a look at all those YouTube videos of people being asked if black lives matter, with the response being “ALL lives matter.” It’s as though simply saying “Yes, of course they do!” is perceived by the subject as having some more significance than an obvious truth – so instead, the topic has to be changed. From what I understand of DiAngelo’s theory, that’s an example of fragility: “a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves.” I mean, asking people if they care about black lives is literally the minimum amount of stress that can possibly be exerted, and so many people react like they are being accused of being a Grand Wizard.
That an inability to confront issues of race is a pervasive deficiency in our society shouldn’t even be a debatable issue.
And note that DiAngelo doesn’t accuse those of having fragility as being racist, she says that the intense aversion to the topic of race may come from well-meaning but entirely ham-handed responses. Perhaps like a man who is told to treat his female coworkers as equals, so he starts telling them boob jokes.
Sure. But it also encompasses instances of when one is accused of being racist, right? Like if someone is accused of being racist, and they act defensively, that would fall under the white fragility characterization that DiAngelo is advancing. But if a non-racist person is accused of being racist, I expect them to be defensive. DiAngelo calls that white fragility. It’s meaningless.
It’s the Kafka Trap.
If I say you are racist and you acknowledge it, you are racist.
If I say you are racist and you deny it, you are racist.
Are you saying that she can’t distinguish between a rational and irrational defensive reaction?
Are you able to do so? I think I am, most times. I think most people are, at most times.
What if I say “I don’t care what you say, because your opinion is meaningless to me” ?
Am I racist or not?
The way it works for a newly minted lawyer/associate is that you often get handed the ‘problematic’ files that have been stinking up the place (fish files). And the 10-50 hours that you spend reading through the files and getting up to speed on the issues of one case are not billable to the client, although you will get paid for each days work by the firm as an employee. Also, I’m going to take a wild stab and guess that a lot of cases handled by his firm in particular were pro bono political cases which are also non-billable.