Whites Need Not Apply

[zephcom]

Do you not understand the difference between speaking for yourself and speaking for everyone including yourself?

I understand speaking 'only' for myself and speaking about myself and everyone.

I spoke exactly as I intended to.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I understand speaking 'only' for myself and speaking about myself and everyone.

I spoke exactly as I intended to.

So it was actually your intention to stereotype white people, including yourself.

 

[zephcom]

So it was actually your intention to stereotype white people, including yourself.

Yep.

 

[Emmylouwho]

Whites need not apply: Campus sci-tech symposium to only feature scholars of color | The College Fix

An upcoming science and technology symposium slated to take place at Williams College promises a unique feature: it will showcase “new” voices in the field, and those voices will only come from scholars of color.

The call for papers specifies that means either “African Americans, Alaska Natives, Arab Americans, Asian Americans, Latinx, Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders.”

Part of the application process asked applicants to write a couple sentences proving themselves as a member of a “historically underrepresented group.” Yet the application also provides an equal employment opportunity statement that people from all backgrounds are welcome.

Somehow, I can't imagine the college having a symposium that requires the applicants be white. I can just hear the protesting.

It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with employment. Seems like a contest of sorts.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Yep.

If I was white I might take offense. Oh no, that's right it is only because all white people are thin skinned that they take offense at being stereotyped. They need to be put in their place.

 

[zephcom]

If I was white I might take offense. Oh no, that's right it is only because all white people are thin skinned that they take offense at being stereotyped. They need to be put in their place.

If you were white you would probably whine about being stereotyped.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Us white people have such thin skins we can feel the prick before the pin even gets close.

The world will easily survive this symposium. And, quite frankly, so will white people even if we can't pass up any reason to whine.

Spot on

 

[HannahT]

If you were white you would probably whine about being stereotyped.

All human groups have their stereotypes. (shrugs) It's widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.

Everyone knows the definition of oversimplified: the action of describing or explaining something in such a simple way that it is no longer correct or true.

lol stirring the pot are we?

 

[LostMarbels]

@dzheremi

Your Royal Highness Cardinal Beachball Epic, absolutely award winningly epic.

That was the funniest post I have read in a long time that also makes sense. Great job.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

If I was white I might take offense. Oh no, that's right it is only because all white people are thin skinned that they take offense at being stereotyped. They need to be put in their place.

I'm white and I'm fine with zeph's posts. I agree, in fact.

 

[Not David]

I wouldn't want to be those whites.

 

[Jonaitis]

I'd disagree but I have heard people say it.

Well, considering that all "races" originated from Noah means that "race" is a social construct.

 

[PloverWing]

How exactly do the prove themselves to be a member of an "underrepresented group"? Is it enough just to say that you identify with such a group?

Are Asians underrepresented in the tech industry?

I'll use my field, computer science, as an example. A particular group is X% of the general population. That group is Y% of computer scientists. If Y is significantly smaller than X, then X is an underrepresented group in computer science. (Similarly for other fields.)

In computer science, women are underrepresented: We are about 50% of the general population, and we are way less than 50% of computer scientists. African Americans and Latina/Latino Americans are similarly underrepresented among American computer scientists. In my field, Asian Americans are not underrepresented, though I don't know the statistics for other fields.

So, no, you don't have to prove that you're a member of an underrepresented group. You simply identify as female, or African American, or whatever, and then the statisticians figure out whether your group is underrepresented.

 

[Kaon]

Whites need not apply: Campus sci-tech symposium to only feature scholars of color | The College Fix

An upcoming science and technology symposium slated to take place at Williams College promises a unique feature: it will showcase “new” voices in the field, and those voices will only come from scholars of color.

The call for papers specifies that means either “African Americans, Alaska Natives, Arab Americans, Asian Americans, Latinx, Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders.”

Part of the application process asked applicants to write a couple sentences proving themselves as a member of a “historically underrepresented group.” Yet the application also provides an equal employment opportunity statement that people from all backgrounds are welcome.

Somehow, I can't imagine the college having a symposium that requires the applicants be white. I can just hear the protesting.

It was exactly that way not 60 years ago. In many ways, academia is exactly that way.

There are 216,000,000 caucasians in America as of the 2010 census; only 35,000,000 black, 45,000,000 latinos, 12,000,000 asians. The total population is 316,000,000 as of 2010.

That means the combined population of blacks, latinos and asians is 29%, but the total caucasian population is 68%. The caucasian is not at threat of extinction despite the narrative, and there is nowhere near an equal setting for hyphenated Americans and "Americans".

The point is to draw out and cherish minorities that can contribute to the arts and sciences - giving them a platform to further extend themselves, and provide an opportunity for more underrepresented entities. The offense comes from the audacity of people to set up such an event when it has always been a(n unspoken) rule among the classes that underrepresented entities should just stay silent.

It could be done with more finesse, but turnabout is fair play, especially when everything is still in play.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

I wouldn't want to be those whites.

They're right - they are really sorry...

 

[dzheremi]

I'll use my field, computer science, as an example. A particular group is X% of the general population. That group is Y% of computer scientists. If Y is significantly smaller than X, then X is an underrepresented group in computer science. (Similarly for other fields.)

In computer science, women are underrepresented: We are about 50% of the general population, and we are way less than 50% of computer scientists. African Americans and Latina/Latino Americans are similarly underrepresented among American computer scientists. In my field, Asian Americans are not underrepresented, though I don't know the statistics for other fields.

So, no, you don't have to prove that you're a member of an underrepresented group. You simply identify as female, or African American, or whatever, and then the statisticians figure out whether your group is underrepresented.

So is parity the explicit goal? And can I then ask what is supposed to happen when parity is reached?

I guess I don't get it because in my field things are the opposite of what might be expected given the "men dominate the world" narrative that is common, to the point that an increase in men being awarded linguistics Ph.D.s actually makes the news, because that is a manifestation of a more equal balance in the sex ratio in what has been for past several decades at least a clearly female-dominated field (as you can read at the link).

I don't recall anyone being particularly excited about this either way, though, and I wouldn't assume that there is any more or less sexism in linguistics as part of academia than there would be anywhere else (NB: also as per the link, most full-time professorships are awarded to men). I was certainly never told not to pursue it because I'm a man or anything like that, and that's despite the fact that it is indisputably female-dominated.

So I can't really see what is so inherently desirable about parity, if that is indeed the goal. It seems like it's simply a state at which a field exists or does not, and that things can be dominated by one sex at one level, but by the other at another (so how 'down' is this search for parity to go, and why?). Also, what about other fields, outside of academia or the sciences? Should nursing be equalized such that it is no longer female-dominated? Teaching? Secretarial work? Or should trash collection, lineman (lineperson?) work, kickboxing, etc. be aiming to be less male-dominated?

 

[Emmylouwho]

So is parity the explicit goal? And can I then ask what is supposed to happen when parity is reached?

I guess I don't get it because in my field things are the opposite of what might be expected given the "men dominate the world" narrative that is common, to the point that an increase in men being awarded linguistics Ph.D.s actually makes the news, because that is a manifestation of a more equal balance in the sex ratio in what has been for past several decades at least a clearly female-dominated field (as you can read at the link).

I don't recall anyone being particularly excited about this either way, though, and I wouldn't assume that there is any more or less sexism in linguistics as part of academia than there would be anywhere else (NB: also as per the link, most full-time professorships are awarded to men). I was certainly never told not to pursue it because I'm a man or anything like that, and that's despite the fact that it is indisputably female-dominated.

So I can't really see what is so inherently desirable about parity, if that is indeed the goal. It seems like it's simply a state at which a field exists or does not, and that things can be dominated by one sex at one level, but by the other at another (so how 'down' is this search for parity to go, and why?). Also, what about other fields, outside of academia or the sciences? Should nursing be equalized such that it is no longer female-dominated? Teaching? Secretarial work? Or should trash collection, lineman (lineperson?) work, kickboxing, etc. be aiming to be less male-dominated?

It’s a competition to speak at a lecture with a cash prize. It’s not a job posting

 

[Emmylouwho]

So is parity the explicit goal? And can I then ask what is supposed to happen when parity is reached?

I guess I don't get it because in my field things are the opposite of what might be expected given the "men dominate the world" narrative that is common, to the point that an increase in men being awarded linguistics Ph.D.s actually makes the news, because that is a manifestation of a more equal balance in the sex ratio in what has been for past several decades at least a clearly female-dominated field (as you can read at the link).

I don't recall anyone being particularly excited about this either way, though, and I wouldn't assume that there is any more or less sexism in linguistics as part of academia than there would be anywhere else (NB: also as per the link, most full-time professorships are awarded to men). I was certainly never told not to pursue it because I'm a man or anything like that, and that's despite the fact that it is indisputably female-dominated.

So I can't really see what is so inherently desirable about parity, if that is indeed the goal. It seems like it's simply a state at which a field exists or does not, and that things can be dominated by one sex at one level, but by the other at another (so how 'down' is this search for parity to go, and why?). Also, what about other fields, outside of academia or the sciences? Should nursing be equalized such that it is no longer female-dominated? Teaching? Secretarial work? Or should trash collection, lineman (lineperson?) work, kickboxing, etc. be aiming to be less male-dominated?

And by the way, both my daughter and son are registered nurses.

 

[dzheremi]

It’s a competition to speak at a lecture with a cash prize. It’s not a job posting

I'm sorry. I should have made it more clear that I was asking about PloverWing's specific post, not the symposium mentioned in the OP. I'm curious about the idea as it is applies across entire fields, not a specific symposium somewhere.

 

[Emmylouwho]

I'm sorry. I should have made it more clear that I was asking about PloverWing's specific post, not the symposium mentioned in the OP. I'm curious about the idea as it is applies across entire fields, not a specific symposium somewhere.

No offense where none was intended. Peace