Category: Social Justice

Happy Fall Harvest Season to everyone.

State Street Bank had a private event going today at a local pick-your-own apple orchard. The company is Certified for “Global Inclusion”, according to the top/big banner for the “Black Professionals Group”. Underneath this group are the following:

• Asian Professional Alliance
• Indian Employee Network (Indians aren’t Asian? Or they are Asian, but not “professional”?)
• Jewish Professionals Network (because it is difficult for Jews in finance to find other Jews who work in the American finance industry?)
• Asian Professional Alliance (there is only one Asian “professional” (note singular), but the alliance needs to be listed a second time)
• Latin American Professionals Group
• Working Parents Group (why not simply “parents group”? if this is for State Street employees, don’t they all work?)
• Black Professionals Group (again)

 

This was in the western exurbs of Boston, home to roughly 50 Black Lives Matter banners for every person who might identify as “black.” Despite the primacy given to the Black Professionals Group, we didn’t see an unusual number of African-Americans among the trees.

I wonder if a State State employee who was childless, white, non-Jewish, and non-Hispanic would have been able to join and skip out on paying $20/bag for the privilege of laboring in the orchard. As the event was fairly small compared to the 36,643 employees (Wikipedia), I think the answer is “no”.

Also unanswered:

• Is the “Latin American Professionals Group” for people who specialize in investments in this region of the planet? (maybe the real experts shorted Venezuela when Hugo Chavez was elected and they’ve retired to the beach?) Or for people who have some ancestry from this region?
• Where was Senator Elizabeth Warren to protest the lack of a “Native American Professionals Group”?
• The U.S. Census Bureau considers “Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander” to be a race. Why is there no group for these individuals among the 36,000+ State Streeters?

Related:

• Boston Globe article on Harvard study that found Boston suburbanites developed anti-immigration once they had three days of exposure to Spanish-speaking immigrants vaguely near their neighborhoods (Enos and his staff took to Craigslist to enlist pairs of Mexican immigrants, mostly men in their 20s, to wait every day on platforms on the Franklin and Worcester/Framingham line. The immigrants were instructed to stand at the platform, but were not told what to say to one another or that they needed to speak at all. “Because we are chatting in Spanish, they look at us,” wrote one of the Spanish-speaking riders in a report to Enos. “I don’t think it is common to hear people speaking in Spanish on this route.” … Compared with initial survey responses, the routine riders who had noticed the new Spanish-speaking riders for three days were less enthusiastic about increasing the number of immigrants in the United States, less willing to allow undocumented immigrants to stay in the country, and more likely to believe that English should be declared the country’s official language.); see also the original paper

Full post, including comments

From Incarnations: A History of India in Fifty Lives by Sunil Khilnani, a chapter on Bhimrao Ambedkar:

In his youth, Ambedkar had burned a copy of the Laws of Manu, a legal text by the legendary Brahminic lawgiver whose ancient decree was said to have created the caste order. Now he wasn’t about to waste the chance to subvert that order by pressing into the Constitution the most sweeping system of affirmative action anywhere in the world.

To Ambedkar, the caste system was generated by the exclusionary social and kinship rules of the Brahmins, and it spread because other groups, especially those lowest down the order, aped the Brahmins’ precepts. They did so believing that spiritual, social, or economic benefits might come to them, too. This analysis would lead to a crucial insight: that the caste hierarchy was able to enforce itself with minimal physical coercion. It operated largely by voluntary submission, based on what Ambedkar described brilliantly as “an ascending scale of reverence and a descending scale of contempt.”

A right to equality of opportunity in public employment has also been affirmed. Ambedkar did more than anyone to embed these principles in the Constitution. But out of them grew a politics of reservations, or affirmative action, that was paradoxical in its effects. Initially, the principles were supposed to sanction, for a finite period, the reservation of places (quotas), in government employment and educational institutions, for Dalits, tribal groups, and others defined as “economically backward.” (A ten-year jump start was the initial hope.) Yet the power to determine eligibility for reservations was given to India’s state legislatures, and a constitutional principle thereby became an electoral expedient. Politicians can promise, in the name of equality, to expand the number of reserved places, and to extend them to include newly defined “backward classes.” Caste groups, even successful ones, compete and sometimes campaign violently to be deemed backward in order to benefit from reservations, which today apply to just under half of all positions in India’s national government institutions. In one state, the figure approaches 70 percent. So, in terms of social mobility, down is the new up. It’s one of the profound ironies of India’s democracy: reservations, designed to erode caste identities and fortify individual citizens, have invigorated caste categories now defined by the state.

So everyone is equal in India under the Constitution, except that some people are entitled to jobs based on personal characteristics. And the sorting of job applications by personal characteristics was supposed to last from 1948 through 1958, but instead has endured through 2018 (more than 60 years past the expected expiration date).

Readers: Does this show that an affirmation action program inevitably ends up being permanent?

Related:

• The Son Also Rises: economics history with everyday applications (economist follows Indians through multiple generations and finds lower social mobility than in the US, UK, or Sweden)
• “Booker releases ‘confidential’ Kavanaugh documents” (from today! They’re fighting about this in the Senate right now because Trump’s nominee said that some Supreme Court Justices wouldn’t like racial set-asides)

Full post, including comments

As part of my software expert witness slavery I was visiting a big law firm’s office here in Boston. In the cafeteria/break room they had a sign up from “YW Boston” urging employees to “Stand Against Racism.” The tagline for YW Boston is “Eliminating Racism, Empowering Women.” What was this organization? It turns out that it is the old “YWCA“, but without the now-discredited “Christian” stuff.

I don’t want to show the photos that I snapped because they contain full employee names. But the “Stand Against Racism” poster urged people to say “I will learn about the concept of anti-blackness and challenge it when it shows up.” (nothing says “pro-blackness” like moving to the whitest region of the U.S.) Also “I will apply a racial equity lens to all aspects of my company” and “I will donate to organizations that promote racial equity”.

Life at the firm is obviously more interesting when the topic is not software. One woman wrote “I will speak up when I hear racist remarks!” (don’t think hatred of Java counts). One formerly timid soul pledged “I will be color brave by discussing racism in the hiring committee” (I didn’t see a single black employee during my two days at this office, though they did offer black coffee).

A person with a traditionally female first name wrote “No matter our differences, visible or not, I treat everyone with respect.” I wonder if she would respect a co-worker in a MAGA hat and NRA T-shirt?

Lawyers take a more flexible view of illegal immigration than did Congressman Sonny Bono (“when something is illegal, it’s illegal”): “I will support orgs that advocate for immigrants and DACA.”

When you’re billing $900 per hour, talk is neither cheap nor unwelcome: “I will remain open and actively engage in conversations on racism.”

The next generation is going to be awesome: “I will educate my children about acceptance.” Next to this was “This!” and a bold arrow. (We cannot reliably educate American children regarding arithmetic and grammar, but we are confident in our ability to teach them the more complex topic of acceptance?)

Circling back to the headline topic… does changing “YWCA” to “YW” make the organization more likely to succeed in the long term? If so, can we make big money as brand/image consultants who go around advising organizations that describe themselves as “Christian” to get with the times and drop the word?

Full post, including comments