Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality

[Neurotic Guy]

Im not a SJW at all, and they are mostly confusing race with economics IMO, but I kind of agree with this specifically about the SAT, and I got a 1520 and an 800 on the writing SAT2 about 15 years ago. The SAT is somewhat culturally biased and will certainly be biased depending on the quality of school systems, any tutoring, etc. Someone who was trained since age 7 to take the SAT and got a 1400 can have less potential than a black kid just trying to survive who pulls a 1200 with no one encouraging his education.

By and large, this is true. Also, it's one of the reasons why many top schools are stepping away from standardized tests as an admission criteria.

https://blog.prepscholar.com/the-complete-guide-to-sat-optional-colleges

I'd rather they do IQ tests.  At least that tells far more about a person's potential and aptitude than anything else.  Someone who is poor and poorly educated (if at all) could have an IQ of 150, but essentially fail something like a SAT, while someone who is rich and over educated might have an IQ of 100, but score significantly better on the SAT then the poor and uneducated kid.  Given the same opportunity in college though, the smarter kid would likely do better than the more educated kid.

It doesn't make much difference. IQ testing is standardized, too, and as such is sensitive to practice and preparation.

Sure if you practice you can get better (and certainly less likely to be nervous), but there is only so much you can do since it really does measure your intelligence.

Not certain these days, but many years ago when I was giving WISC (IQ) tests there undoubtedly was cultural bias in the testing intrument.   Normed on tasks, vocab, etc that were more likely practiced, experienced in white middle class environments. 

[mmmmm]

Shoe-horning in “diversity” characters, miscasting actors / actresses, and hiring less qualified cast and crew to meet quotas — which is the implication of McDermond’s post-Oscars comments — doesn’t do anybody any good.

You mean, beyond the women and minorities (probably 75% +/- of the population)?

Does it do women and minorities good to guarantee them slots even if they don’t deserve them?

Maybe this question should be posed to all the white men who, for generations, were guaranteed the slots even when they didn't deserve them?   Did it do them good?

[fairweatherfan]

I don't know what the factual basis of these claims about hiring is, but controlled studies on hiring behavior consistently find precisely the opposite.

Here's a summary of a recently published meta-analysis covering 28 studies with 55000 job applicants over a quarter century.  It finds persistent, severe discrimination against black applicants, and to a lesser degree Latino applicants.

https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/september/research-finds-entrenched-hiring-bias-against-african-americans/

Here's one where they just changed the names on otherwise identical resumes. Stereotypically white names received 50% more callbacks than stereotypically black names with the same qualifications. The gap in response to black- and white-associated names was equivalent to the effect of having 8 more years of experience for what were mostly entry-level jobs.

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

This is one of my favorites because just to eliminate the racial disparity in callbacks and job offers, they had to give only the white applicants felony convictions for cocaine dealing with 18 months served.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915472/


It's not a subtle trend. Control for qualifications but attach them to different races and the patterns jump out. Shak's characterization isn't true for each and every employer but in general it's spot on.

I would be very interested to see the methodology here. Are these mom and pop stores or major corporations? My point was to corporations because small businesses could have personal biases. I doubt that major corporations would risk having incredibly bad PR and lawsuits, however, if it is, I'd like to know which ones they are so that I can boycott them as I find it unacceptable.

The articles are either directly linked or linked within the summaries posted, so the info is available.

They're not going to list individual companies both for space and privacy issues, but generally most researchers are using publicly posted job listings, mostly in major cities, so it's likely a mix of all sorts of businesses that offer entry-level positions to broad audiences. The important point is that the studies collectively incorporate tens of thousands of listings over decades, so it's not a matter of handful of bad actors, it's systemic.

The kicker is, most probably genuinely don't believe they're deciding based on race. Bias is slippery that way.

[mmmmm]

Roy, I'm getting a tad confused. I get how maybe an employer can't say "We're gonna hire this many of this" but I'm not sure why an actor can't say in their contract "I won't be in the movie unless you hire this many".   Does that make it an illegal contract because you're trying to force an illegal action?

Yes. Clauses that require unconstitutional discrimination are unenforceable.

The ice is starting to get pretty thin here.   I'm not sure that a person can be forced to work in an job environment if he chooses not to because it has a racial/ethnic make-up he is not comfortable with.

Right to assembly comes into play here, as does freedom of expression.   You are allowed to say, "I think your work environment does not have the kind of cultural, racial & ethnic make-up I would be comfortable working in.  So I'm not going to work there."

The company can choose to not hire you.  Or if they want you so bad, maybe they re-examine their diversity hiring practices. 

This is not a federal or state program or expenditure we are talking about.   So I don't believe this is really a constitutional/legal issue.

It is a market-driven issue.  If a company wants to hire someone, the work environment is part of the cost of attracting and retaining some people.    What the actors are talking about is making it explicit that this is a part of the cost of hiring them.

[kozlodoev]

Im not a SJW at all, and they are mostly confusing race with economics IMO, but I kind of agree with this specifically about the SAT, and I got a 1520 and an 800 on the writing SAT2 about 15 years ago. The SAT is somewhat culturally biased and will certainly be biased depending on the quality of school systems, any tutoring, etc. Someone who was trained since age 7 to take the SAT and got a 1400 can have less potential than a black kid just trying to survive who pulls a 1200 with no one encouraging his education.

By and large, this is true. Also, it's one of the reasons why many top schools are stepping away from standardized tests as an admission criteria.

https://blog.prepscholar.com/the-complete-guide-to-sat-optional-colleges

I'd rather they do IQ tests.  At least that tells far more about a person's potential and aptitude than anything else.  Someone who is poor and poorly educated (if at all) could have an IQ of 150, but essentially fail something like a SAT, while someone who is rich and over educated might have an IQ of 100, but score significantly better on the SAT then the poor and uneducated kid.  Given the same opportunity in college though, the smarter kid would likely do better than the more educated kid.

It doesn't make much difference. IQ testing is standardized, too, and as such is sensitive to practice and preparation.

Sure if you practice you can get better (and certainly less likely to be nervous), but there is only so much you can do since it really does measure your intelligence.

Intelligence is not something that exists in a vacuum. IQ testing is done in different ways, and different tests measure different abilities. For my MENSA testing, I took Raven's Advanced Matrices test, which is essentially pattern recognition. Other tests assess different types of analytical and deductive reasoning.

Either way, the common thread here is that these tests are standardized. This means they contain repetitive problem archetypes that you can learn to tackle better with preparation. This, in turn, means that someone familiar with the test will do better than someone that isn't (even if their intellectual ability is identical).

This is the same issue that undermines the credibility of SAT and GRE as a predictor of student ability.

[kozlodoev]

Not certain these days, but many years ago when I was giving WISC (IQ) tests there undoubtedly was cultural bias in the testing intrument.   Normed on tasks, vocab, etc that were more likely practiced, experienced in white middle class environments.

Raven's Progressive is a language-neutral instrument (it's essentially pattern recognition in pictograms), but the problem types are so predictable that if you spend one summer solving practice tests you're almost certain to do better than someone as smart as you that sees it for the first time.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

People are either willfully ignorant or naive to believe that people will pick the most qualified person or of two equally qualified people, the black person, if the other one is white. It's just not reality based!

Viola Davis said it much better than I ever could...


https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ

That’s just silly. Millions of “people” / employers will pick the most qualified person for a job. You seem upset about prejudice, while lumping every single decision-maker into the same category.

I mean, if you’re right, how do you account for Dwayne Johnson, Denzel Washington, Vin Diesel, Will Smith, Samuel L Jackson and others being legitimate leading men?

That’s not to say there’s no racism. There is. The solution isn’t forced employment of minorities, however. It’s making great movies regardless of race.  People who are great will be embraced in any profession, I think.

Barack Obama was the first African American POTUS and he came from very humble beginnings, if all blacks just work as hard as he did then...

That's one example of what I think of when I read a lot your non-Celtics posts and I just don't think this is the place to debate you, for a number of reasons.  Maybe I have the wrong impression of you, if that's the case, I'm sorry. I know you have a lot of power/sway and support here so I'm just going to let you have your say and move on.

[Roy H.]

Roy, I'm getting a tad confused. I get how maybe an employer can't say "We're gonna hire this many of this" but I'm not sure why an actor can't say in their contract "I won't be in the movie unless you hire this many".   Does that make it an illegal contract because you're trying to force an illegal action?

Yes. Clauses that require unconstitutional discrimination are unenforceable.

The ice is starting to get pretty thin here.   I'm not sure that a person can be forced to work in an job environment if he chooses not to because it has a racial/ethnic make-up he is not comfortable with.

Right to assembly comes into play here, as does freedom of expression.   You are allowed to say, "I think your work environment does not have the kind of cultural, racial & ethnic make-up I would be comfortable working in.  So I'm not going to work there."

The company can choose to not hire you.  Or if they want you so bad, maybe they re-examine their diversity hiring practices. 

This is not a federal or state program or expenditure we are talking about.   So I don't believe this is really a constitutional/legal issue.

It is a market-driven issue.  If a company wants to hire someone, the work environment is part of the cost of attracting and retaining some people.    What the actors are talking about is making it explicit that this is a part of the cost of hiring them.

And, if it’s explicit in a contract, the clause is unenforceable, but it does open the studio up to reverse discrimination law suits.

Who said anything about forcing people to work? We’re comparing millionaire actors to indentured servants now?

Respectfully, from a legal perspective your post is almost complete nonsense.

[Roy H.]

People are either willfully ignorant or naive to believe that people will pick the most qualified person or of two equally qualified people, the black person, if the other one is white. It's just not reality based!

Viola Davis said it much better than I ever could...


https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ

That’s just silly. Millions of “people” / employers will pick the most qualified person for a job. You seem upset about prejudice, while lumping every single decision-maker into the same category.

I mean, if you’re right, how do you account for Dwayne Johnson, Denzel Washington, Vin Diesel, Will Smith, Samuel L Jackson and others being legitimate leading men?

That’s not to say there’s no racism. There is. The solution isn’t forced employment of minorities, however. It’s making great movies regardless of race.  People who are great will be embraced in any profession, I think.

Barack Obama was the first African American POTUS and he came from very humble beginnings, if all blacks just work as hard as he did then...

That's one example of what I think of when I read a lot your non-Celtics posts and I just don't think this is the place to debate you, for a number of reasons.  Maybe I have the wrong impression of you, if that's the case, I'm sorry. I know you have a lot of power/sway and support here so I'm just going to let you have your say and move on.

I respect the right to not debate, but I don’t get your Obama example.  Blacks aren’t held to a “you need to be Obama” standard.  Nor are whites.  Millions of blacks excel in all types of fields.

[Big333223]

I think it's telling what gets people upset. There are people who argue passionately against the idea of a racial quota because that would be discrimination and that's true. But those same people don't seem to have the same passion to fight against the actual discrimination that is happening here in reality. That's how it seems to me, anyway.

Incidentally, I did pretty good this year. I went 7/8 on the big awards. I predicted Mcdonagh would win original screenplay but I don't begrudge Jordan Peele his win at all. This was kind of an easy year, except best picture was sort of a tossup so I felt pretty good about nailing that. My wife usually wins our Oscar pool and she predicted Get Out, so we split the pool.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

People are either willfully ignorant or naive to believe that people will pick the most qualified person or of two equally qualified people, the black person, if the other one is white. It's just not reality based!

Viola Davis said it much better than I ever could...


https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ

That’s just silly. Millions of “people” / employers will pick the most qualified person for a job. You seem upset about prejudice, while lumping every single decision-maker into the same category.

I mean, if you’re right, how do you account for Dwayne Johnson, Denzel Washington, Vin Diesel, Will Smith, Samuel L Jackson and others being legitimate leading men?

That’s not to say there’s no racism. There is. The solution isn’t forced employment of minorities, however. It’s making great movies regardless of race.  People who are great will be embraced in any profession, I think.

Barack Obama was the first African American POTUS and he came from very humble beginnings, if all blacks just work as hard as he did then...

That's one example of what I think of when I read a lot your non-Celtics posts and I just don't think this is the place to debate you, for a number of reasons.  Maybe I have the wrong impression of you, if that's the case, I'm sorry. I know you have a lot of power/sway and support here so I'm just going to let you have your say and move on.

I respect the right to not debate, but I don’t get your Obama example.  Blacks aren’t held to a “you need to be Obama” standard.  Nor are whites.  Millions of blacks excel in all types of fields.

You missed the point. The point is, in any field I can give you a couple outliers of people of color being at the top of the field but in no way does throwing out those names show equality of opportunity!

In your own example you named 5 people of color and just made it seem like because they made it they had equal opportunity to get to where they are. You didn't name one woman of color BTW.

Of course it is SLOWLY getting better for people of color in Hollywood (men mainly) but it doesn't argue my point of saying that if you have 2 actors with the same background/resume that the black actor would not be chosen first. Of course Dwayne is now a known commodity so his name would be chosen over most white people for certain roles but I'm talking about the average actors in Hollywood. (S/N I really wish people would stop using Vin Diesel as if most people know he is mixed)

This isn't me just talking about something I don't know, I gave you an actual example of Viola Davis who has actually experienced this unlike you and me!

Budget is a huge factor in what movies fare well and movies with people of color are notoriously under funded. I don't feel like looking it up but Gabriel Union commented on how people always comment on how well black movies do in theaters but she implores that you don't look at how the movies do as a separate but how well they do in relation to the budgets of the films. Of course it's going to seem like they are just making the movies of what they think will sell but if you aren't funding movies with people of color how do you know those movies wont do equally as well or at the very least not lose money in relation to budget (actually a lot of  big budget movies lose money)?  There is no Black Panther without giving them the budget to match the ones of it's counterparts.

[Neurotic Guy]

People are either willfully ignorant or naive to believe that people will pick the most qualified person or of two equally qualified people, the black person, if the other one is white. It's just not reality based!

Viola Davis said it much better than I ever could...


https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ

That’s just silly. Millions of “people” / employers will pick the most qualified person for a job. You seem upset about prejudice, while lumping every single decision-maker into the same category.

I mean, if you’re right, how do you account for Dwayne Johnson, Denzel Washington, Vin Diesel, Will Smith, Samuel L Jackson and others being legitimate leading men?

That’s not to say there’s no racism. There is. The solution isn’t forced employment of minorities, however. It’s making great movies regardless of race.  People who are great will be embraced in any profession, I think.

Barack Obama was the first African American POTUS and he came from very humble beginnings, if all blacks just work as hard as he did then...

That's one example of what I think of when I read a lot your non-Celtics posts and I just don't think this is the place to debate you, for a number of reasons.  Maybe I have the wrong impression of you, if that's the case, I'm sorry. I know you have a lot of power/sway and support here so I'm just going to let you have your say and move on.

I respect the right to not debate, but I don’t get your Obama example.  Blacks aren’t held to a “you need to be Obama” standard.  Nor are whites.  Millions of blacks excel in all types of fields.

I won't speak for ImShak as I am sure he can make his point better than me if he wants to, but I'll give a shot to at least something I think he is alluding to.   

The naming of the 5 (sans Morgan Freeman) best known African-American actors may be proof that some have "made it" by surface standards (we see them as rich, powerful "stars").  However, there is so much we don't know about their journeys (generally) as compared to White counterparts.  The video clip earlier in the thread from Viola Davis reveals some of the underbelly that may be unseen or less apparent but experienced nonetheless.  The essence of Davis' statements is that the experience of becoming and remaining a star is generally different for the African-American than the White American.  I don't think the point is that White stars are less talented or less hard-working, but the experience of getting to and sustaining the status is generally different.   The other point is that there is a certain proof by token example that is used to dismiss or marginalize the voicing of oppression, bias, discrimination, or higher bars that have to be ascended. This marginalization occurs when those in the majority (or power) culture essentially point to people of color who have, by outward appearances had equal opportunity and succeeded, as adequate evidence that there is empirical and equal opportunity irrespective of race.   

I think it may be both mistaken and disrespectful to not listen to (or knee-jerk ignore) those who share their experiences, and to avoid looking at the breadth of evidence that suggests that for every Barak Obama there may be 100 brilliant, talented, African-Americans who, for a host of reasons, have not been afforded opportunities or access to sustainable success that are comparable to equally competent White Americans.   The leap of faith in this is to actually believe the ones who are experiencing and sharing rather than dismiss based on possibly inaccurate or under-informed assumptions.

Not sure what I got right in the above paragraphs -- I am an old, not too brilliant, not too talented White guy with an average work ethic who has had all sorts of opportunities to succeed in America.

[Roy H.]

Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html

[nickagneta]

Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html

They just did it poorly. Black Panther had a ton of political themes in it including social justice and did it right. I don't think just because you are pushing a social theme in a movie that that means its going to be bad, which is what you are hinting at here. It is possible to get out political opinions and social ideas and still create a great movie.

[TheisTheisBaby]

I haven't read through the whole thread so if any of this has been discussed my bad.  But it's 2018 folks.  Racism unfortunately still exists but if anyone thinks it's as bad as it was in the 50's and 60's I have beachfront property for you in Indiana.  The biggest issue these days is that people on the left want to group everyone together and judge them off the lowest denominator of a group while people on the right want to focus on individual instances of racism and how to prevent it from happening again.  The perfect example is leftists calling all Trump voters racist because a small % of idiots on the "Alt-Right" voted for him.  And because of this, they call him racist also despite evidence to the contrary.  But then the leftists completely ignore the fact that one of the biggest racists in the world, Louis Farrakhan, was pro-Obama.  There's a ridiculous double standard because of the SJW "movement" and victimhood mentality running wild these days. 

Another issue is when someone like Ben Shapiro uses facts, stats, numbers, logic, etc to show that white privilege is in fact a myth or that the reason the number of POC in prison isn't because of racism yet because POC commit more crimes, the Leftists start screaming and whining about him being a white supremacist (Even though he's Jewish and is the #1 most hated person in the world by the Alt-Right). 

Also, this notion from white people of reverse racism is ridiculous.  There's no such thing.  There's just racism. 

We could talk about affirmative action, sub-prime mortgage lending, college grants/scholarships, and other programs that exclude only white people to prove that the country isn't racist as a whole too.

Lastly, and this is my opinion, I believe everyone needs to treat others as individuals.  Stop lumping everyone together.  Just because you may have had a negative interaction with one POC doesn't mean every other POC you meet is the same way.  If you're still using skin color as a reason to like or dislike someone in 2018 YOU are the problem.  Skin color should be 100% irrelevant. 

I look forward to any kind of civil discourse regarding this subject as I think open dialogue is the best way to find common ground moving forward.