I think most people, including people in this thread are vicious racists and do not know it, and that their vicious racism stems from their rationalism.
Here is a simple question to determine whether you practice racism:
“Do you believe that test scores and academic achievements prior to academic or professional training are indicative of increased competence, or are all graduates of a professional program identically competent on graduation day?”
If you believe the latter (all graduates of medical school X are uniformly competent doctors), you are not a folk racist.
If you believe that SAT/GRE/GPA/other factors considered in medical school admission predict greater competence of medical school graduates (a higher score going in makes for a better doctor coming out), then when confronted with a choice between two doctors who on paper are graduates of the same program in the USA, but one is African American, and one is Asian Pacific Islander, you should always judge the AAPI as probably more competent, because the standards for admission that they were held to were higher (most programs practice some form of affirmative action, there may be examples of programs where this is not true, but at many prestigious institutions, it absolutely is).
I assert that the latter is perfectly rational, and would be considered by most Americans as ‘folk racist’, I don’t think Robin would approve either.
The antiracist position appears to be that the ritual of education that empowers one to ‘doctor people’ is expensive, and can only be performed for a limited number of people, so racial balance in provision of access to the ritual is critical. There are no intrinsic attributes which impact one’s ability to doctor people, it all stems from the power invested in them by the performer of the ritual of education (a prestigious ritual in a place of power like Harvard imparts greater doctoring acumen than one performed somewhere less prestigious).
You’re absolutely right, the word vicious is redundant. Colloquially, the word racist is understood to include any negative attribute (such as viciousness) that could be ascribed to a person.
I think most people, including people in this thread are vicious racists and do not know it, and that their vicious racism stems from their rationalism.
Here is a simple question to determine whether you practice racism:
“Do you believe that test scores and academic achievements prior to academic or professional training are indicative of increased competence, or are all graduates of a professional program identically competent on graduation day?”
If you believe the latter (all graduates of medical school X are uniformly competent doctors), you are not a folk racist.
If you believe that SAT/GRE/GPA/other factors considered in medical school admission predict greater competence of medical school graduates (a higher score going in makes for a better doctor coming out), then when confronted with a choice between two doctors who on paper are graduates of the same program in the USA, but one is African American, and one is Asian Pacific Islander, you should always judge the AAPI as probably more competent, because the standards for admission that they were held to were higher (most programs practice some form of affirmative action, there may be examples of programs where this is not true, but at many prestigious institutions, it absolutely is).
I assert that the latter is perfectly rational, and would be considered by most Americans as ‘folk racist’, I don’t think Robin would approve either.
The antiracist position appears to be that the ritual of education that empowers one to ‘doctor people’ is expensive, and can only be performed for a limited number of people, so racial balance in provision of access to the ritual is critical. There are no intrinsic attributes which impact one’s ability to doctor people, it all stems from the power invested in them by the performer of the ritual of education (a prestigious ritual in a place of power like Harvard imparts greater doctoring acumen than one performed somewhere less prestigious).
I can understand why a race realist would argue that beleiving the truth makes you racist, but why a vicious racist?
You’re absolutely right, the word vicious is redundant. Colloquially, the word racist is understood to include any negative attribute (such as viciousness) that could be ascribed to a person.