Racism!

Last night I spoke at the Columbia Club of New York, along with some of my political science colleagues, in a panel about politics, the economy, and the forthcoming election. The discussion was fine . . . until one guy in the audience accused us of bias based on what he imputed as our ethnicity. One of the panelists replied by asking the questioner what of all the things we had said was biased, and the questioner couldn’t actually supply any examples.

It makes sense that the questioner couldn’t come up with a single example of bias on our part, considering that we were actually presenting facts.

At some level, the questioner’s imputation of our ethnicity and accusation of bias isn’t so horrible. When talking with my friends, I engage in casual ethnic stereotyping all the time–hey, it’s a free country!–and one can certainly make the statistical argument that you can guess people’s ethnicities from their names, appearance, and speech patterns, and in turn you can infer a lot about people’s political attitudes from their occupations, ethnicities, and so on. Still, I think it was a pretty rude comment and pretty pointless. How was he expecting us to respond? Maybe he thought we’d break down under the pressure and admit that we were all being programmed by our KGB handlers??

Then, later on, someone asked a truly racist question–a rant, really–that clearly had a close relation to his personal experiences even while having essentially zero connection to the real world as we understand it statistically.

I’ve seen the polls and I know that there are a lot of racists out there, of all stripes. Still, I don’t encounter this sort of thing much in my everyday life, and it was a bit upsetting to see it in the flesh. Blog commenters come to life, as it were. (Not this blog, though!)

P.S. Yes, I realize that women and minorities have to deal with this all the time. This was the first time in my professional life that I’ve been accused of bias based on my (imputed) ethnicity, but I’m sure that if you’re a member of a traditionally-disparaged group, it happens all over. So I’m not complaining, exactly, but it still upsets me a bit.

15 thoughts on “Racism!

  1. I would much rather deal with racists than people who have "race on the brain".

    I am not interested in searching the world for people free of racism, because it is hard to imagine people who *really* don't allow race to inform *any* judgement whatsoever. I have met some children and adults who I would guess come very close, but so very very few to make the effort not worthwhile.

    So I would much rather deal with racists, because, honestly, I must judge myself a racist.

    I *do* have a problem with people who have "race on the brain" — when the topic of race comes up they are reduced to blithering idiocy and vile reactionary tribalism. White males haven't cornered the market on this particular form of idiocy — it is embarrassing when Latino candidates win office on nothing more than their publicized ethnicity (such as the insubstantial Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, aka Tony Villar).

    Political correctness makes physical and verbal violence against traditionally disadvantaged groups less likely, and that is good, but it cannot do much to lesson "race on the brain" on both sides of the racial divide. Only the self-imposed discipline of critical thinking can do that, and people get too much pleasure from their vile reactionary tribalism to self constrain their thought.

  2. Back in DC I thought my black friends were too sensitive to racial issues. However I really understood why they are that sensitive when as a person of middle eastern descent, I moved to TX. Now dont get me wrong, not everybody who typecasts you has a bad intention, being typecast day in day out, gets tiring. By itself none of the "incidents" that happened to me is even irritating. It is the accumulated effect that gets to you and thats why the minorities get to be sensitive on these issues. Ofcourse I am sure there still is a line that can be classified as too sensitive and seeing everything within the context of race, which actually can be very detrimental for public policy/health issues.

  3. Of course even when making the statistical argument, you have to apply it to many people over time, or as a group, for it to really pay off.

    To just apply it to a single person is to make the same statistical mistake, but in reverse, as projecting a single person's beliefs or behaviors onto everybody else of their race.

  4. What was the "truly racist question?" It would be interesting to find out if all your commentators would agree with that characterization. One statistician's "casual ethnic stereotyping" is another man's racism . . .

  5. David:

    I don't remember the details but it was something about how immigrants nowadays get everything for free (not like the old days when people had to actually work for a living) and also was phrased in a way that implied that only white people could be called Americans.

    In any case, my problem is not so much with the racism but with saying this sort of thing in public. My "casual ethnic stereotyping" is racist too–but I try to do it with the door closed and not in a public venue. Each of us has lots of bizarre views that may be based on our personal experience but don't have much correspondence with external reality. But most of us have the good sense to say these things in private.

  6. Let me clarify a bit more.

    I would have no problem with a questioner who, Larry-Summers-like, pointed out some uncomfortable statistics and then made some speculation, frankly labeled as such. And I would have no problem with a questioner who guessed at my ethnicity and guessed at my political views. But I do have a problem with someone who makes those guesses and then says that he's sure I'm biased.

    Similarly, if the second questioner wanted to report his personal experiences or even some statistics he's heard and then to speculate based on that, that's fine. But I don't think it's appropriate for him to uncork the racism.

    Anecdotes, statistics, and speculation are fine. Inappropriate certainty in the service of offensiveness, not so much.

  7. I can't tell if some of this was meant to be tongue and cheek or not. either way, you seem to be far less self aware than you give yourself credit for. No one has ever questioned your motives based upon inappropriate certainty in the service of offensiveness? WOW. Someone really needs to do an ethnography on liberal white male professors at elite U.S. Universities in large urban environments. It would benefit your research immensely to seek out this type of experience as much as possible. This is how a majority of the American electorate thinks and behaves regardless of socioeconomic level. Take a sabbatical and get a job as a low level campaign communications staffer for a democrat in a House race in a red state or as community college professor. You can't reason with people who are poorly educated, willfully ignorant, and know they are right. Frustrating isn't even close sufficient in describing being forced to deal with them anyway.

  8. Nicki:

    I'm pretty busy right now, but you can feel free to apply for that low level campaign job or that community college job, and to do that ethnography yourself. Best of luck!

    In the meantime, in the service of qualitative research, let me emphasize that the above (like nearly everything on this blog) was written in perfect sincerity.

  9. In dealing with the irrational, my wife swears by the technique your fellow panelist employed: asking for examples. The key is trying to seem sincere and non-combative, like you hadn't considered that you might be biased: which statement was it? No, I'd like to know, so I can work on it? Can't think of _any_ of the things I said? Hmm…Well, we could discuss it if we knew, but if you can't think of any are you sure I really was being biased? …

    Some people and some topics aren't amenable to the technique, and I doubt its as effective online, but for casual conversations where somebody professes an offensive view very emphatically, it seems to work wonders.

  10. @Paul: I strongly believe in coaxing examples out of people as your wife suggests. The problem I run into is the following reasoning:

    All X are Y
    a is an X
    a is not a Y
    ———————————————-
    ∴   a is an exception that proves the rule

  11. Or ∴ A is not a true X (No true Scotsman)

    "All X are Y" seems to be precisely the situation where the technique breaks down, because how can you ask for an example of "all X are Y"? E.G., the "immigrants get everything for free" commenter, if questioned could point to an example (their children can go to public school). Instead, you need to provide the counter example (A is X but not Y), and that seems to lead to a more traditional argument where the other side just denies your points outright).

  12. Paul:

    I use the play-it-straight strategy on hostile blog commenters (see above in this thread for an example). Usually they don't reply; I don't know if it's 'cos I've convinced them of the error of their ways or because they decide I'm not worth responding to. My guess is that some people are itching for a fight, and they don't really know what to do if you respond to their comments directly and straightforwardly.

    Still, the racist comments were a bit much. I'm just not used to hearing that sort of thing. I also can respond to unreasonable remarks more easily in the blog format than face to face.

  13. It's sort of a bummer to see you be the target of hostility, when I think you are so generous with your time, both with this blog and with teaching and published research.

    I do think there is a special risk for econometricians and statisticians more generally in the social sciences though, in that they are often dealing with contentious issues that everybody has a visceral opinion about using methods which are accessible to very few people. Tyler Cowen put it very succintly in the opening of this post here.

Comments are closed.