After setting up a Likert scale at Portland State University, Peter ran into two of his former students. Here, they examine Kendi’s claim: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” One student agrees; the other disagrees. After some discussion largely focused on the meaning of “discrimination,” Peter asks them to switch positions as a critical thinking exercise.
He's correct that they would not use the term discrimination. They want to maintain the negative stigma of words while doing actions that could accurately be described with those words. Is it discrimination to consider race a factor in a studen't admission and penalize them for it? No if it's Asians and whites. Yes, if it's Blacks and Latinos. But if you called it what it was (discrimination), then you can't oppose discrimination generally and it sounds worse. These words like racism end up having contrived definitions like "contributing to the systemic oppression of marginalized racial groups" which basically let the Critical Social Justice advocates be racist without being "racist" and those opposed to CSJ are racist all the time, even for supporting things like lower taxes cause it contributes to structural inequality.
Great video and learning experience, thank you. This one did feel a little staged compared to the others. Possibly due to one of the participants already thinking though the question, resulting in his answers sounding almost rehearsed. For that scenario, I did think it was interesting to ask them to switch positions. It seemed to help put the other participant at ease regarding the motives of the game itself (maybe affected by the potential audience), freeing him up to focus on the questions more directly. It must be difficult coming up with new ways on the spot to help participants relax.
I am new to this, so this is just my feedback and me thinking through this myself. With this particular question, would it be helpful to start out by asking each participant to identify an example of discrimination of the past and then immediately (after the initial arguments and thoughts on those arguments) ask them to state in their own words how that specific example would be unjust, instead of a definition of discrimination in general? Something along these lines:
"This is interesting, I am still thinking about this. I certainly agree that past discrimination happened and that it was unjust. What is an example of past discrimination that really stands out to you? If you were the one explaining it to the next generation, how was that discrimination unjust in your own words?"
It seems that an articulate reason for why it was unjust would really help later when comparing injustices, because it increases the vocabulary they are allowing into the conversation. I am also trying to think of ways to get more direct answers from the participants when they prefer to avoid the language in the question. When one of the participants was hesitant to use the word discrimination for parts of the question, perhaps bracketing the word until later in game and immediately asking the same question using a word like "effort" would have been more interesting; something like this:
"Let's bracket for a minute whether we call an action discrimination or something else... What is an example of a current effort to account for injustices of the past?"
With the specific example of injustice from the past and hopefully a specific reason for why it was unjust in the participant's own words, you have the sufficient information needed to compare the injustice of past discrimination to the current efforts to "level the playing field." That was tough group though, not sure what line of questioning would yield the most interesting answers. I still think it went well all things considered. Thanks again for creating and sharing the video.
He's correct that they would not use the term discrimination. They want to maintain the negative stigma of words while doing actions that could accurately be described with those words. Is it discrimination to consider race a factor in a studen't admission and penalize them for it? No if it's Asians and whites. Yes, if it's Blacks and Latinos. But if you called it what it was (discrimination), then you can't oppose discrimination generally and it sounds worse. These words like racism end up having contrived definitions like "contributing to the systemic oppression of marginalized racial groups" which basically let the Critical Social Justice advocates be racist without being "racist" and those opposed to CSJ are racist all the time, even for supporting things like lower taxes cause it contributes to structural inequality.
Great video and learning experience, thank you. This one did feel a little staged compared to the others. Possibly due to one of the participants already thinking though the question, resulting in his answers sounding almost rehearsed. For that scenario, I did think it was interesting to ask them to switch positions. It seemed to help put the other participant at ease regarding the motives of the game itself (maybe affected by the potential audience), freeing him up to focus on the questions more directly. It must be difficult coming up with new ways on the spot to help participants relax.
I am new to this, so this is just my feedback and me thinking through this myself. With this particular question, would it be helpful to start out by asking each participant to identify an example of discrimination of the past and then immediately (after the initial arguments and thoughts on those arguments) ask them to state in their own words how that specific example would be unjust, instead of a definition of discrimination in general? Something along these lines:
"This is interesting, I am still thinking about this. I certainly agree that past discrimination happened and that it was unjust. What is an example of past discrimination that really stands out to you? If you were the one explaining it to the next generation, how was that discrimination unjust in your own words?"
It seems that an articulate reason for why it was unjust would really help later when comparing injustices, because it increases the vocabulary they are allowing into the conversation. I am also trying to think of ways to get more direct answers from the participants when they prefer to avoid the language in the question. When one of the participants was hesitant to use the word discrimination for parts of the question, perhaps bracketing the word until later in game and immediately asking the same question using a word like "effort" would have been more interesting; something like this:
"Let's bracket for a minute whether we call an action discrimination or something else... What is an example of a current effort to account for injustices of the past?"
With the specific example of injustice from the past and hopefully a specific reason for why it was unjust in the participant's own words, you have the sufficient information needed to compare the injustice of past discrimination to the current efforts to "level the playing field." That was tough group though, not sure what line of questioning would yield the most interesting answers. I still think it went well all things considered. Thanks again for creating and sharing the video.
They are both being racist while trying to point to others as racist. Discrimination is racist no matter the race.