I don't know anything about this case in particular, for the record.
this takes me backExample: An anglo-protestant male is interviewing two potential assistants, another anglo-protestant male and a black american woman. In the job description is listed a requirement of a 60 word-per-minute typing speed. The two applicants have identical resumes, and they both type at 45 words per minute.
that example is one where there is legal process to decide whether illegal discrimination took place, in UK and Yurp anywayIt seems like we can use a more effective approach to understanding what we call privilege, because I think there are very serious things with sprawling consequences, but some of our terms seem blunt or conflationary.
Personally I'm getting a better understanding of discrimination within a context of bureaucracy, precedent, policy, etc.
Say you are an anglo protestant male working at some consulting firm or some such, where most of the consultants align with you demographically. Let's say 75% are anglo protestant males, 15% are anglo protestant females, and 10% are non-white males and females.
And let's say the income rates are uneven: the anglo protestant males make, on average, 20% more per year than non-white and/or non-male equivalents.
If there is enough of an internal pressure for more equal wages, i.e. enough companypeople pool together for leverage to make demands to higher executives, it is reasonable that such demands may be met.
But if, as an anglo protestant male, you are hiring new assistants or some such entry-level position, knowing that newcomers have the same intentions you do to climb the corporate ladder, and that if enough non-anglo non-males join the firm it may tip the income prospects to a more even playing field, discrimination would seem to be financially incentivized, especially if you can disguise discrimination as adherence to protocol, meeting quotas, etc.
That is, if you know that hiring consultants of non-incumbent demographics will increase the odds that their pay being made more equal to yours may come at the cost of your future bonuses, discrimination becomes a tool, a strategy.
Example: An anglo-protestant male is interviewing two potential assistants, another anglo-protestant male and a black american woman. In the job description is listed a requirement of a 60 word-per-minute typing speed. The two applicants have identical resumes, and they both type at 45 words per minute.
The interviewer, operating according to self-interest (game theory, etc), may be motivated to bias the hiring decision toward whatever outcome would seem least likely to negatively impact his own future income prospects.
And he could say, to the black american female applicant, "Sorry, you don't meet the word-per-minute requirement" - which would effectively guise a tactically racist and sexist (making judgments or decisions on a basis of race, sex) decision. That is, this sort of protocol-enabled social discrimination is a reliable means for gatekeeping, and in this sense racism doesn't require bigotry.
In a way its almost irrelevant what the anglo male here thinks or opines about other demographics, as this was a pragmatic, dispassionate and systematically incentivized act of discrimination.
In this sense, I would say our system is racist, sexist, etc. - not on a basis of general bigotry, but on a basis of financial pragmatism and gatekeeping.
But the reason I say some of our terms are conflationary is that when we talk about "systemic racism" I think that implies, in most people's minds, that the majority of incumbents are operating in a bigoted capacity, when really it seems the social discrimination in question has no need of bigotry to become institutionalized.
And I also suspect that more non-progressives would be more open-minded to systemic change if we understand social discrimination as not strictly being a phenomena of bigotry, but also of dispassionate, strategic self-interest.
I agree, from what I can tell. Difficult to legislate the default assignment of the burden of proof here, I’d imagine. Especially if counterpoints are made, be they in good or bad faith, about how such arrangements can be abused by bad actors falsely claiming they were discriminated against.that example is one where there is legal process to decide whether illegal discrimination took place, in UK and Yurp anyway
It's still a stretch to achieve justice, since the victim may not even be aware that discrimination took place, but if she was and she had some evidence to demonstrate that the decision not to appoint her was flawed, then it would be up to the employer to show a genuine reason they didnt employ her, or they could be legally compelled to provide compensation for having discriminated against her because of her race and maybe gender & religion
but its always gonna be a stretch to line up all those ducks in a row and win the case
these whippersnappers think they discovered the baby in the bathwaterStan these boomers are beyond hope, it isn't worth wasting your hard-won libido
This is may be true but it's important as @suspended said upthread not to prioritise reacting to those secondary effects - the baby and the bathwaterIn fact I think constant accusations of bigotry can be self-fulfilling in odd, roundabout ways.
To me, the problem of systemic social discrimination is less about bigotry, and more about some of the ways in which such discrimination is financially incentivized for bigots and non-bigots alike.