I can’t help but think about your social psychology post, in which you showed that many of the most famous experiments in that field were either outright frauds or at least didn’t support the authors claims.
I don’t think any false statement is as likely to be readily accepted. What makes some statements more believable? The funny thing about “white women are AA biggest beneficiaries” is that it’s not common sense. It doesn’t pass the smell test. So why did so many journalists accept it without checking the sources?
I suspect that, somewhere along the way, someone misinterpreted something, but the misinterpreter was respectable enough and the claim was desirable enough that it was taken seriously.
"I suspect that, somewhere along the way, someone misinterpreted something, but the misinterpreter was respectable enough and the claim was desirable enough that it was taken seriously."
More likely, it is the narrative they were told to promulgate
They obviously don’t benefit from affirmative action, but they do benefit a lot from government. The bulk of our government is “Ed’s and meds”, which is dominated by female employment. Affirmative action isn’t the right word for teachers and nurses getting a sweet deal at our expense, but I think it’s part of why women see the government as being in their side.
It's funny that liberal pundits are making the same underlying claims as conservative pundits - that all our most of the professional gains by white women have not been because of merit but affirmative action.
In my personal experience as someone who has owned and run a small tech company selling connectivity products to the broadband telecom industry for 26 years, white women are absolutely the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action by far. It's not even close. As a white male, my once 40mm company has been pushed out of the industry by affirmative action. The "minority" companies that dominate are white female owned.
You can answer the question by defining the terms. Do white women count as diversity hires under federal guidelines?
If so, it seems obvious that they will be chosen more often when diversity is mandated because a) they are the most prolific diverse group and b) they are probably the most qualified on average as a diverse demographic group.
You presented a somewhat convincing argument that there isn’t much evidence to suggest that white women are the primary benefactors of AA, but you didn’t present much evidence that they aren’t, either.
Theorists are masters of inventing explanations for errors, see DiAngelo's framing:
"You can’t manipulate the white populace via racial animus by focusing on how affirmative action has benefited white women. In fact, white women might get behind it. So that aspect is left unsaid."
A masterpiece of race grift rhetoric. Googling the claim gives tens of articles confirming it so I have no idea why she thinks it's "left unsaid", but if she learns it is, I'm sure she could explain why.
I can’t help but think about your social psychology post, in which you showed that many of the most famous experiments in that field were either outright frauds or at least didn’t support the authors claims.
I don’t think any false statement is as likely to be readily accepted. What makes some statements more believable? The funny thing about “white women are AA biggest beneficiaries” is that it’s not common sense. It doesn’t pass the smell test. So why did so many journalists accept it without checking the sources?
I suspect that, somewhere along the way, someone misinterpreted something, but the misinterpreter was respectable enough and the claim was desirable enough that it was taken seriously.
"I suspect that, somewhere along the way, someone misinterpreted something, but the misinterpreter was respectable enough and the claim was desirable enough that it was taken seriously."
More likely, it is the narrative they were told to promulgate
> the number of executives in color
That should be *of* color.
As far as outlets that have parroted this claim, add Politico: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/women-rule/2023/06/16/what-women-have-gained-from-affirmative-action-00102397
Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/30/affirmative-action-supreme-court-white-women/
ACLU: https://www.acluok.org/sites/default/files/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Affirmative-Action-Mythbusters.pdf
The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/30/affirmative-action-over-only-black-people
HuffPost: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/affirmative-action-white-women_n_56a0ef6ae4b0d8cc1098d3a5
CNN article: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/27/us/affirmative-action-scotus-blake-cec/index.html
Nola.com: https://www.nola.com/news/politics/article_c8732135-4f73-5ca2-b8be-2611797730d8.html
The Mirror: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/who-benefits-most-affirmative-action-30356404
They obviously don’t benefit from affirmative action, but they do benefit a lot from government. The bulk of our government is “Ed’s and meds”, which is dominated by female employment. Affirmative action isn’t the right word for teachers and nurses getting a sweet deal at our expense, but I think it’s part of why women see the government as being in their side.
Further, like every HR employee is a woman.
POC are the biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action
It's funny that liberal pundits are making the same underlying claims as conservative pundits - that all our most of the professional gains by white women have not been because of merit but affirmative action.
I don't understand the charts, mostly because I don't understand what the numbers in the x-axis represent.
In my personal experience as someone who has owned and run a small tech company selling connectivity products to the broadband telecom industry for 26 years, white women are absolutely the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action by far. It's not even close. As a white male, my once 40mm company has been pushed out of the industry by affirmative action. The "minority" companies that dominate are white female owned.
Sean Last also covered this rather well:
https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2022/05/25/white-women-and-affirmative-action/
You can answer the question by defining the terms. Do white women count as diversity hires under federal guidelines?
If so, it seems obvious that they will be chosen more often when diversity is mandated because a) they are the most prolific diverse group and b) they are probably the most qualified on average as a diverse demographic group.
You presented a somewhat convincing argument that there isn’t much evidence to suggest that white women are the primary benefactors of AA, but you didn’t present much evidence that they aren’t, either.
Theorists are masters of inventing explanations for errors, see DiAngelo's framing:
"You can’t manipulate the white populace via racial animus by focusing on how affirmative action has benefited white women. In fact, white women might get behind it. So that aspect is left unsaid."
A masterpiece of race grift rhetoric. Googling the claim gives tens of articles confirming it so I have no idea why she thinks it's "left unsaid", but if she learns it is, I'm sure she could explain why.