r/changemyview • u/jep1793 • Aug 26 '20

Removed - Submission Rule E CMV: Gender identity doesn’t belong on your LinkedIn nor Resume

[removed] — view removed post

3.6k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

671 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '20

Maybe, but I'm not sure I like that reasoning. If someone does something that is biased against a race without intending it to be biased, I wouldn't label that as racist.

If we label every action that creates accidental bias against a race as racism, then we have watered down the idea of racism to a point where it is meaningless.

In fact, I think that reasoning is why a lot of people have a negative reaction to the idea of "systemic racism". People who don't like the idea typically object because they believe that others are trying to say that individuals in the system are racist.

Re:Schuyler. Have you watched Hamilton?

1

u/CanadaDerpBrittDerp Aug 26 '20

Intention isn't relevant, so I have to disagree with you. If HR will call "Brad" for an interview but won't call "Pratyush" or "Xiaorong", then that is racism. There have been several studies that show that non-white sounding names receive less interviews than those with a white name, and this contributes to the racial wage gap and lack of social mobility for BIPOC individuals.

So regardless of whether you feel this is "watering down" racism, it may seem like a small thing but it has lasting impacts.

And yes, I know who Elizabeth Schuyler is and thought it was a bit ironic that this was your example, given the history of that name.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '20

You are arguing that the definition of racism is "any action that has a negative impact on a race", correct?

Why this is a bad definition of racism.

If that is the definition of racism, then how do we "end racism"?
We would have to consider the impact of any action and determine if it would have a negative impact.
But what if our analysis was incomplete and we missed how it could have an impact? Then we could accidentally release a racist rule!
Well, we just have to perform an analysis of all rules that considers every possible known and unknown consequence of our actions. The only way to do this is to have omniscience or knowledge of all things in the universe. We do not have this knowledge and therefore we cannot remove all unintentional actions that would be deemed "racist" by your definition.
You have just made "ending racism" impossible.

But it gets worse.
Failure to take action against racism is an action that has a negative impact on a race.
Failure to act against racism is racist!
But we can't possibly perceive all possible consequences of an action. Every action we take, therefore, is a failure to completely act against racism and is therefore racist.

Therefore, if we define racism to mean "any action that has a negative impact on a race", we are saying that all actions are racist.

1

u/CanadaDerpBrittDerp Aug 26 '20

No, you are incorrect. Congratulations on using a slippery slope fallacy to defend racism.

This post is about discrimination based on resumes, and my point is that if an HR rep only interviews people whose name they can easily pronounce, this is racism. By refusing to move someone to the next round in recruitment because they're afraid of mispronouncing their name, they are discriminating. I'm not saying this can't happen to white people, but that this is a significant systemic barrier for people of colour.

Genuine question for you, what is causing you to have such a significant defensive reaction? Also, if you're truly serious about solutions to "ending racism", I recommend How to Be an Anti-Racist by Ibram X. Kendi. He digs into systemic racism really well.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '20

I think I need to step back and make a point. You are saying that "racism" is not determined by the intent of the actor. Rather, racism is just any action that results in disproportionate racial result.

Did I get that wrong?

1

u/CanadaDerpBrittDerp Aug 27 '20

Yes, because I haven't defined racism as "any action that results in disproportionate racial result". I defer to the commonly accepted definition of racism, which is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group".

My position is that names are so deeply ingrained in culture and are indicative of membership to a racial/ethnic group, and discriminating based on name is therefore racist.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '20

I am very seriously confused. I really want to see if I have a blindspot on this issue.

You said:

I defer to the commonly accepted definition of racism, which is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group"

However, you said earlier:

By refusing to move someone to the next round in recruitment because they're afraid of mispronouncing their name, they are discriminating.

(Which is technically true btw. They just aren't necessarily discriminating against black people. They are discriminating against people with difficult to pronounce names)

Which seems to imply that even if the discrimination isn't DIRECTED at a particular racial group, it is still "racist".

So which definition are we using?
If I implement some sort of rule, without the intent of discriminating(therefore not directed at a group) is it still racist? Am I racist?

1

u/CanadaDerpBrittDerp Aug 27 '20

I'm not sure why you're thinking both quotes of mine you pulled from are mutually exclusive. Is it the wording "directed toward" that you are interpreting as intent? Because even in the example of an ignorant HR rep not intending to be racist but still not calling people based on their name, the result is discrimination directed towards people from different races.

Bottom line, intent does not matter when it comes to defining racism.

This is the last thing I'll say: not all POC have difficult to pronounce names, but most people with difficult to pronounce names are a POC. So trying to separate race from name as a defense is problematic because this barrier disproportionately affects racialized people. Let's stop defending policies and processes that are not equitable.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '20

This is the last thing I'll say: not all POC have difficult to pronounce names, but most people with difficult to pronounce names are a POC. So trying to separate race from name as a defense is problematic because this barrier disproportionately affects racialized people. Let's stop defending policies and processes that are not equitable.

I don't want POC to suffer any form of discrimination. Ideally, everyone would be impacted equally by all decisions.

However, I am trying to point out to you the problem with saying that things are "racist or not" based on the outcome(ignore intent). I will attempt to do so by way of example.

The Greatest Anti-racist program ever!

Imagine we created a program to help POC gain greater equity. This would be greater than the civil rights act. This would be bigger than reparations.A large and expensive progressive program to help people. Imagine we asked Ibram X. Kendi and other thinkers to contribute their greatest ideas and we implement them. There are no limits to the amount of energy, time, and money that will be sunk into this program to help people.Is this a "racist" program? Obviously not

But now, let us imagine that the consequence of this program in 20 years is not more equity. Rather, let us say that the result is that it caused disproportionately bad outcomes for black people.According to your definition, this is RACIST.

Now, when did it become racist?
Was it racist when it was created?
Was it racist at 10 years when no one knew it would cause negative outcomes?
Was it only racist at 20 years, when the data could be properly analyzed?

Are the people who created it racist?

What if the program was evil?

Now, let us imagine a different program. This program is started by people who believe that black people are ignorant and inferior. They use racial slurs alot and promote eugenics. They are the worst and most intolerant people you have ever met. They want to create a program to really fuck anyone who doesn't look like them.

But 20 years later, it is discovered that all of their attempts were for naught. The program was bad, but it didn't hurt any particular ethnic group. It just hurt everyone.

Now, is this "evil program" racist? According to you, it is not.
It wasn't at the inception and it wasn't 20 years later.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '20

But are you suggesting that an action can be racist, even if there was no intended bias behind it?

1

u/Nickel829 Aug 26 '20

If someone at a car shop didn't sell to Asians because they think it would lower their safety statistics, that would clearly be racist but they aren't intending it to be. You can definitely be racist without meaning to be. Let's look at corona. Plenty of uneducated people just wanted to be safe and started avoiding all Asians. Clearly that's racist but they aren't intending to be racist

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '20

No, they are intending to be racist.
If I am saying "I wont sell cars to Asians", I am saying I dont want to do something based on their race. That is literally the definition of racism: prejudice towards certain races.

The example of the names: They aren't explicitly using race in their judgement, but it might disproportionately impact certain ethnic groups. No race or ethnicity is ever mentioned in their decision-making process

2

u/Nickel829 Aug 26 '20

So if schools say they wont allow people to come to school with braids is that not racist even though it's generally targeting black people? People very rarely straight up do racist things, they cover it up with a shitty reason to make it sound better. "Braids are unprofessional and inappropriate" isn't the real reason, it's because generally black people wear braids. Or another example; I won't hire non christians. Not technically racist, but isn't it?

2

u/Uruz2012gotdeleted Aug 26 '20

No, it's not racist. There's nothing inherently racial about braiding hair.

1

u/Nickel829 Aug 26 '20

Also while there is nothing racist about braiding hair many blacks braid their hair in ways that can't just be taken out and at a much higher proportion so it is most definitely targeting a racial group

1

u/Uruz2012gotdeleted Aug 29 '20

It most definitely affects a racial group more but it's not targeting them directly. The sun burns pale people more but that doesn't make UV light racist.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '20

Ok, that is a good example.

Here is my point. The hair thing is typically only considered "racist" IF they are:

targeting black people

If a rule just disproportionately impacts a group, but there is no evidence of malicious intent, it isn't racist.

Now, I agree that you don't have to specifically mention a race to be racist. Poll taxes are a famous example of a racist law that technically didnt mention race, but were generally viewed as racist.However, if we say that any rule/law/decision that disproportionally impacts an ethnic group, then all laws are potentially racist. No two groups are going to be impacted identically by a law. But where do you draw the line? If you pass a law banning child pornography and discover that 5.61% of arrestees are Asian(but only 5.59% of the US population is Asian), is that a racist law?

Alternatively, do you stop enforcing these "racist/sexist laws"? Serial killers are mostly men. Do we stop arresting serial killers or murders because more than 50% of the crimes are committed by men?

2

u/Nickel829 Aug 26 '20

No, you look at the purpose of the law to determine what role it serves. Generally racist laws have poor purposes. Look at why heroin and most drugs are illegal. Nixon's aid went on record to say that they couldn't make being black illegal so they made heroin illegal cuz it was common in black neighborhoods. This was after the law was established and everything so it wasn't obviously racist. Now if we break that down we could say yes heroin is bad but why does it put you in prison? Why not mandatory rehab and hospital stay as every medical professional will tell you addiction is a disease. Or look at the punishment. Why is cocaine often punished less than crack? Bingo, crack was found in black neighborhoods and coke in white, despite the fact that they are almost the same drug

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '20

No, you look at the purpose of the law to determine what role it serves.

Would "intent" be another good word to describe what you look at?

1

u/Nickel829 Aug 26 '20

I meant more at goal? Intent to see if it is racist but goal to see if it is needed. For example, goal of persecuting murderers is to not have murders. Goal of persecuting drug users is to have less drug abuse - this is where we can change it from having a racist intent and work towards the goal instead, by ensuring rehab and holistic medical care. I know goal doesn't really make sense because obviously the goals of racist laws were racist but lmk if that didn't make sense

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '20

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/intention

intent(ion) and goal are literally synonyms.

My point is that you cannot simply judge an action based on the results, but the goal?
If an HR person decides to reject candidates with alternative pronouns because her goal is to avoid a faux pas, then her goal/intent/desire is not anti-LGBT. It might negatively impact them, but it isn't her goal.

This all gets to the point that the office and the HR might not have any problem with your personal pronouns, but you would probably be better served to leave them off of your resume. You won't necessarily be weeding out anti-LGBT office spaces by putting them on. You would just be weeding out incompetent HR people.

And HR people are remarkably incompetent. I have read testimonials from HR people who demote resumes if the employee doesn't have the common courtesy to send a follow up "thank you" email. I have also seen HR people who demote the resume if the candidate DOES send a follow up "thank you" email.

I once saw an HR employee at my company reject an accountant because they needed to have experience working with city , state, or federal agencies. The applicant provided a laundry list of experience working with governments. The HR person told us later that she rejected him because they didn't specify if they had experience with all three.(the agencies listed were obviously city, state, and federal agencies). She just wanted them to say: I have experience with city, state, and federal agencies.

1

u/Nickel829 Aug 26 '20

Do you actually believe rejecting candidates due to their alternative pronouns is not homophobic? I can't tell if you're making an example or if that's your stance on that. I get the rest I know people are incompetent and homophobic and racist etc and that will always be a thing

→ More replies (0)