[231] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: What can we do?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard J. Barbalace)
Fri Apr 27 10:53:05 2001
Message-Id: <200104271452.KAA27764@starbase.mit.edu>
To: golem@MIT.EDU
Cc: mit-talk@MIT.EDU, ifc-talk@MIT.EDU
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 27 Apr 2001 07:16:10 -0000.
<200104270716.DAA23079@melbourne-city-street.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:52:15 -0400
From: "Richard J. Barbalace" <rjbarbal@MIT.EDU>
On 27 Apr, Chris Laas wrote:
> I was one freshman who received that packet, though I'm afraid I don't
> have it around any more. However, I can tell you that when I read it,
> I did not find it in the least racist or sexist --- in fact, they were
> attempting to make the point that MIT's affirmative action program
> degrades minorities and women by setting a lower bar for their
> admission.
The freshmen who received the extropians letter missed out on all the
other more overtly racist, sexist, and simply stupid things they did
on campus. From illegally stealing mailing addresses to filling
campus bulletin boards with clearly degrading posters to starting
obnoxious flame wars, they proved themselves to be more than worthy
of derision by nearly every student on campus. You simply did not get
to see their true nature.
Racism and sexism are sneaky. Overt racism and sexism are easy to
spot and rebuke promptly. But it is much harder to deal with more
subtly crafted prejudice. Someone saying "all blacks and women are
stupid" is being clearly racist and sexist, whereas as someone saying
"blacks and women here are less intelligent than whites and men, but
that is the fault of MIT Admissions, even though I fudged any data to
support this argument" is only being slightly more subtle, but not
less biased. Subtle prejudice cloaks itself in carefully crafted
phrasings to avoid sounding so offensive.
Recognizing subtle racism and sexism requires considering the intent
of such words. Engineers and scientists dislike evaluating intent;
instead they focus on the straight "facts" of what was said and give
the offenders the benefit of doubt. Thus they easily play into the
hands of those who manufacture the "facts" to sound less biased. If
you base your impression of the extropians on merely reading an
ardurously prepared encyclical, you're going to be misled. If instead
you question the extropians directly, observe their behavior directly,
and listen to them when they are tripping over their arguments, you
will realize that in their hearts they are deeply prejudiced against
women, blacks, hispanics, and students of "easy" majors (which to them
included biology, architecture, humanities, brain and cognitive
sciences, among others).
To quote the extropians' web page at the time (the quotes around
"underrepresented" were theirs):
MIT certainly lowers standards for women and
`underrepresented' minorities. The average woman at MIT is
less intelligent and ambitious than the average man at MIT.
The average `underrepresented' minority at MIT is less
intelligent and ambitious than the average
non-`underrepresented' minority.
This paragraph isn't even subtle. If anyone here reads this as not
being racist and sexist, then you need to reconsider how good you are
at recognizing prejudice.
MIT is already good at combatting overt prejudice and violence.
Dealing with subtle bias and discrimination is what needs focus.
+ Richard
