Dear All,
I agree that we should move on from discussing whether there are problems to considering meaningful steps that might be taken to address these problems. One possible initial step
is to consider the antiracism literature where people have been thinking seriously about this for some time. It seems that much of this literature is field and context specific but could be a good place to begin in our own field.
Taking the position that nothing can be done is functionally equivalent to the position that there is no problem. Accepting either of these arguments has the same result – nothing
changes. I would also like to reiterate the point that I think Alex was making in relation to “color blindness”: to argue that everyone should from now on just be treated the same ignores the fact that the playing field has not been level. If everyone is simply
treated the same, people who have previously benefited are in a stronger position to continue to benefit disproportionately. As an analogy, it seems pretty well accepted that funding opportunities specifically for early career researchers are important and
necessary because without them it is hard to compete with established senior researchers with strong track records.
Tim
From:
AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Douglas Scott <jdmusictuition@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, 13 June 2023 at 05:09
To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: arXiv web of trust
Hi Alex
I think we can all agree that reducing or even eliminating unfairness is a good thing to strive for, but the problem is how to go about achieving it. The danger is thinking that one can redress historic harms
by counterbalancing with current deprivations. Not only has that never worked, and has always been actively counterproductive, but it couldn't even conceivably work in principle.
The problem is that every human interaction involves countless needs and wants, such that if we were to try to balance external outcomes like (say) money, we are not doing anything towards achieving fairness.
People value things like time, physical well being, risk, free-time and sorts of things differently, along with monetary compensation.
Obviously, there are things that, with hindsight, were unfair in the past. But that doesn't mean that we could have fixed it even if we were to go back to that past with present knowledge and the power of
redress. The result of such meddling would inevitably either be (a) some other unfairness or (b) a worse bargain for everyone involved at the time the bargain was made. It would be a Faustian game.
How much more difficult is it to imagine that we can now, in the present, do things that would re-balance things involving other people who have long since passed without causing worse imbalance (or deficiencies)
for those yet to come?
I feel that the correct way to go about things is to always maximize efficiencies in the present, while acknowledging mistakes made by past peoples as valuable lessons to guide our way. We simply can't fix
historical unfairness with unfairness today. The only way forward is with fairness. What we can learn from the past is that harms of unfairness stick around, and to the extent that we can do better, we should. But that will never stop future peoples from looking
back and (rightfully or wrongfully) identifying what they, from their future perspective, would consider to be unfair either then or now.
I realize, of course, that there is much more at play in all of this, and it's never
that simple. It certainly is not my place to decide for others (past, present or future), what is or is not fair. But all too often we risk becoming the pawns of others who stir the flames of righteous indignation in us for their own benefit. The cycle
stops when we choose to stop the cycle, not when accounts are settled. Because the accounts will never truly be settled as long as human beings with their wonderfully irrational passions are involved.
We shouldn't smother our humanity in a vain attempt to satisfy the machine.
Hi Doug,
Thanks for your reply – I’m trying to understand what you are saying here, but not sure I am understanding you correctly. I don’t think
I am saying that we should increase prejudice under any justification, noble or not. I think when people talk about reducing bias they are arguing for the minimization of prejudice – reducing the likelihood that people will be treated unfairly based on demographic
factors. I think the goal is to stop perpetuating historic harms, and I don’t think that the act of attempting to redress them means that we are guaranteed to perpetuate them. I think sometimes people put forth an argument for “color blindness” – that we shouldn’t
even acknowledge that people differ in their race, etc., and that doing so is in and of itself discriminatory. But I would argue that this just further blinds us to instances when people are being discriminated against based on these factors. I’m not sure
if that’s what you’re arguing for here or not. I do think minimization of harm caused by bias and prejudice is a desirable outcome, both as an end to itself and because diversity makes science better and more creative.
Best,
Alex
Hi Alex
Thanks for the valuable perspective.
I understand that position, but I still think it is fundamentally misguided.
Prejudice, however noble the justification, affects individuals and perpetuates historic harms, even in tge act of attempting to redress
them.
It's just playing the same old game, in the end, just with different players.
The big fallacy at the root of it all is the idea thag eqaulity of outcome is a desirable outcome, the absence if which is an evil that
needs to be exorcised.
I'd say the opposite. I want to make choices and have those choices result in different outcomes, even if a subset of those outcomes
could be condidered dettimental to me, at present or with hindsight.
The alternative is the denial of my humanity.
Hi Doug,
Thanks for your email – there are at least two separate but overlapping concepts being discussed here. One is systemic bias, a reflection
of unfair treatment at the institutional level toward individuals of marginalized groups. In academia, we see examples of this in gender and race gaps in funding, faculty positions, citations, etc. There is also implicit bias, which reflects unfairness directed
by someone from a privileged group toward an individual from a marginalized group. We cannot say that just because someone is from a given background they have absolutely faced implicit bias or have perpetuated it, and I don’t think anyone is trying to claim
that here. But the academic system is wrought with systemic bias, and we have a lot of research and data to support this (see some of the citations others have posted here). The point of the conversation isn’t to victimize individuals based on their minority
status or demonize individuals based on their privilege, the point is to acknowledge that this bias exists to make the academic system fairer. Part of that starts with acknowledging in what ways we are part of privileged groups with the express goal of reducing
the likelihood that we will perpetuate the harm of implicit bias. I think a common fallacy in these conversations is that we are reducing the success of those from privileged groups to their demographics (or vice versa). Rather, we are suggesting, based on
our data that reflects systemic bias, that individuals from privileged groups are more likely to benefit from their demographic backgrounds and that individuals from marginalized groups are more likely to suffer. This is why individual examples become moot
in this conversation – one example of a minority who has been treated fairly and one example of a privileged person who has not does not erase the existence of systemic bias, which is by definition an institutional problem. I hope this clears things up!
Best,
Alex
There is no valid inference from someone's gender, race or cultural background to whether they have been treated fairly.
We can talk probalities, sure. But as a younger academic not from America who hasn't "made it" I know if a lot example of people of all
sort being unfairly advantaged and disadvantaged.
Using a reference as a standard in this case only makes sense if you assume adequate resources. If we do
not have enough money to pay both Fred and John at market value, what do we do? There is a limited amount of scientific funding, a limited number of faculty jobs, etc. Historically, people from certain demographic backgrounds have largely been the recipients
of this funding and have populated these positions. If people who look like Fred are repeatedly chosen to get grants and to fill faculty slots, while people who look like John are not, can we just throw our hands in the air and say “well, Fred is being treated
fairly”? No, Fred is benefitting from the privileges of his demographic background while John is not. So yes, I do understand the difference between two values and the case when one is a reference (I have, after all, been a trainee in this field for over 10
years!), but I question the validity of using a reference here at all.
I didn’t make your point, you negated it. You stated that you and “other white guys” were not given some
undeserved privilege and that nothing was handed to you, implying that you deserve the privilege you have and that therefore privilege can somehow be earned. Now you suggest you have no privilege at all. I have maintained throughout this conversation that
privilege can reflect factors outside of our control, such as our race and gender, and is undeserved. Suggesting you have no privilege implies that people are, in fact, not treated differently based on these demographic factors. If your life would have looked
any different by altering any one of these factors, for example if you were born a black man or a white woman, then you have privilege.
You have decided that injustice does not exist in our field basely solely and entirely on your own lived
experience. Why is your experience the null hypothesis? How is that scientific? Others have supported their arguments with references and citations, you have not contributed anything other than your own perspective, which is the perspective of, in your words,
“a fairly successful old white guy.”
Allyship is not about “taking sides”, it is about listening to, supporting, and advocating for people from
different backgrounds than your own. There’s been a great show of that on this thread and that is a positive product of this conversation. I don’t think acknowledging that is stoking polarization.
It is most unfortunate that you do not understand the distinctions between a simple difference between two values
and the case when one is a reference. If Fred earns market value for his work and John does not, it is not the case that Fred is privileged. Fred and others should work to ensure that John is paid market value as well. If you still fail or refuse to grasp
the difference, then I cannot help you.
Indeed, the use of "privileged" implies it is undeserved. Thank you for making my point! I do not have privilege. Rather, I believe I have been treated fairly. The sad truth is that others have not been treated fairly and are not being treated fairly.
I never suggested that such societal inequities and injustices are irrelevant simply because some do not face them. That's your invention. I did say, that, in our field, I do not think such injustices are substantive. It is not for me to acceded to your
insistence that I prove the null hypothesis. It is, rather, incumbent upon you to demonstrate that, in our field, such injustice exists in substantive fashion.
This is not about allies or "sides." Your thinking reflects the corruption wrought by polarization. I do not deny the societal ills identified. I simply have a different view of how they arose and persist. That they should be addressed is undeniable, as
I see it. Still, this is the Auditory List. I limited my comments regarding the existence of injustices (or lack thereof), to our field.
On 6/10/2023 12:50 PM, Lesicko, Alexandria wrote:
*** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution responding, opening attachments or clicking on links. ***
There is no difference. By analogy: “it is ok to say that 3 is 5 less than 8 but we mustn’t suggest that 8 is 5 more than 3.” No matter what phrasing of it makes you
feel comfortable, you are referring to the same gap of 5, the same inequity in access to resources, support, etc. There is no such thing as
deserved privilege. It would be very weird to say, “I deserved to be born white” or “I deserved to be born a man.” Privilege can stem from circumstances outside of our control. Regardless, those of us who were born with it still benefit from it. That
does not mean, for example, that I must hate myself to atone for it, nor does it mean that everything I have accomplished in my life is a direct cause of my whiteness and must be reduced to this factor. But it does mean that I very likely had an easier time
in my life and my career than I would have had I been born otherwise. I think recognizing that is the first step in having more supportive and less harmful interactions with the people around me who come from different backgrounds with different lived experiences.
To those suggesting that these issues are irrelevant to them because they have succeeded in the face of obstacles, you are again missing the point. Your personal experience
is not universal, and one example of success does not negate the fact that others suffer the consequences of bias and discrimination. If you work in science, you are part of an international community made up of people from diverse backgrounds, meaning these
issues are relevant to you and the manner in which you engage with other scientists. Further, by saying that these issues are non-existent, trivial, or irrelevant, you are sending a message to anyone in your field who may experience bias or discrimination
that they cannot come to you for support and allyship, because you have already minimized or devalued their experiences. Thank you to Matt, Mario, David, Ken, and everyone else on this thread who have demonstrated allyship - one benefit of having these conversations
out in the open is that members of the community know who they can turn to in the face of such issues.
I'm sorry if I'm being thick but what exactly is the difference?
If the cards are being stacked against rather than in favor... ok... but who benefits from the stacking? Who decides the stacking?
I agree with Ken's views, save for this statement:
The cards are stacked in favor of those with privilege...
No, the cards are stacked against those unfairly denied opportunity and dignity. The difference is both non-trivial and crucial.
Les
On 6/9/2023 4:12 PM, Ken Grant wrote:
*** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution responding, opening attachments or clicking on links. ***
Thank you Alexandria for expressing what it means to have systemic obstacles and barriers to success throughout our society. Folks got
upset when the Black Lives Matter movement took off because they were wondering "don't White Lives Matter as well". Anyone who felt this way misunderstood the entire enterprise. Nobody ever claimed that white lives don't matter, or matter more, or matter less.
A good friend suggested that, if the Black Lives Matter movement had printed signs that read "Black Lives Matter Too". While I understood his point and that I can see how this might have helped white male americans feel better, this too misses the point. Centuries
of inequities do not get wiped away in an instant. Declaring racism over is a monstrous error. Some scientists rise to the top of their fields by working very very hard. But as the cartoon displayed, not all children, adolescents, or teens have the same opportunities.
The cards are stacked in favor of those with privilege, and your comment that recognizing this fact might make us more willing and able to consider these systemic obstacles.
I disagree. I think I understand the points and the reality quite well.
From: "Lesicko, Alexandria" <Alexandria.Lesicko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, Jun 8, 2023, 5:06 PM
To: "Bernstein,Leslie" <lbernstein@xxxxxxxx>,
AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [External] Re: arXiv web of trust
*** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution responding, opening attachments or clicking on links. ***
I think it's important to establish the DC-level, sea-level, the "reference level." The societal inequities that exist are not because I and other "white guys" (i.e., the "Richards" in the cartoon) were given some
undeserved privilege but, rather, because some minorities and cultures (i.e., the Paula's in the cartoon) have been unfairly denied
their due. I think it very much matters where one perceives the unfairness to be.
I think you are missing the main point of the cartoons that have been shared here. They are meant to illustrate the point that our gender, racial, etc. identities and economic realities shape our experiences and opportunities in science
and in the world. This benefits some people and works against others. The “perceived unfairness” isn’t on one side of the coin or the other, it is all a product of the same system.
I find the self-loathing concept of "privilege" to be misguided folly I will not apologize for what I have accomplished and for what I have. It was not handed to me. For those who still don't understand, I'll say it again. The social
injustice lies in the fact that the less fortunate (often minority cultures and ethnicities) have been denied the opportunity and dignity they deserve as human beings. That is where we must focus our efforts for change.
I think this is also a misunderstanding - I don’t think that the concept of privilege invokes self-loathing. Nobody is asking you to apologize and hate yourself for whatever privileges you may have. Further, nobody is saying that you
have not worked hard for your accomplishments. My understanding of acknowledging privilege is that it is about humility rather than self-loathing. For example, understanding that my path in life and in my career may have looked different and involved more
obstacles if I were a person of color, queer, disabled, etc. You can still be proud of your accomplishments and your hard work while acknowledging this. I also don’t think acknowledging privilege is the end goal in these discussions or an exercise unto itself,
but a necessary step in the process of beginning to tackle the social injustices that you mention above. If we cannot first admit that these factors play a role in our trajectories, then it is hard to get any further in enacting change - we are blind to what
we are trying to tackle.
It is trivially true to say that, in any field, in any vocation, in any hierarchy, there are biases that come into play. That's because they are all human endeavors. Matters of degree count! In our field of auditory science-- and this
is after all the Auditory List-- others here have asserted that discriminatory factors
must be at play to a substantial degree. I think that is patently false and my observations across decades support that belief.
You cannot say that because you have not experienced or witnessed discrimination in this field that it does not exist. All you can say is that you have not experienced or witnessed it. Other people on this thread are telling you that
their experiences have been different (and citing literature that points to the existence of bias and discrimination at large). Again, it is important to listen to and acknowledge the experiences of other people if we want to address social injustice. People
from different demographic backgrounds can have radically different experiences of the same community. You can simultaneously take pride in your field and your community and want to make it better.
Some of you have acted as "scientists" drawing conclusions on the basis of essentially no evidence when you have implied that I, personally, must have a myopic view because you assume that I'm just another fairly successful old white guy.
Shame on you. You know nothing of my history and that of my family. You commit the genetic fallacy, that of evaluating an idea on the basis of
who generated the idea, rather than on the merits of the idea, per se. In so doing, you commit the very sin that you decry so vociferously in self-righteous fashion!
It seems that most people are replying directly to what you said, point-by-point, not assuming that you must be myopic because you are, as you describe, a “fairly successful old white guy”.
😊
I suggest that you read
this excellent work by the brilliant linguist, John McWhorter.
This began as a discussion of open-access dissemination of scientific results. I hope, if this thread continues at all, it will return to that topic, a topic that is most appropriate for the Auditory List.
I don’t think that these topics are inappropriate and are actually very important and beneficial to discuss.
Les
I think it's important to establish the DC-level, sea-level, the "reference level." The societal inequities that
exist are not because I and other "white guys" (i.e., the "Richards" in the cartoon) were given some
undeserved privilege but, rather, because some minorities and cultures (i.e., the Paula's in the cartoon) have been unfairly denied
their due. I think it very much matters where one perceives the unfairness to be.
I find the self-loathing concept of "privilege" to be misguided folly I will not apologize for what I have accomplished and for what I have. It was not handed to me. For those who still don't understand, I'll say it again. The social injustice lies in the
fact that the less fortunate (often minority cultures and ethnicities) have been denied the opportunity and dignity they deserve as human beings. That is where we must focus our efforts for change.
It is trivially true to say that, in any field, in any vocation, in any hierarchy, there are biases that come into play. That's because they are all human endeavors. Matters of degree count! In our field of auditory science-- and this is after all the Auditory
List-- others here have asserted that discriminatory factors must be at play to a
substantial degree. I think that is patently false and my observations across decades support that belief.
Some of you have acted as "scientists" drawing conclusions on the basis of essentially no evidence when you have implied that I, personally, must have a myopic view because you assume that I'm just another fairly successful old white guy. Shame on you. You
know nothing of my history and that of my family. You commit the genetic fallacy, that of evaluating an idea on the basis of
who generated the idea, rather than on the merits of the idea, per se. In so doing, you commit the very sin that you decry so vociferously in self-righteous fashion!
I suggest that you read this
excellent work by the brilliant linguist, John McWhorter.
This began as a discussion of open-access dissemination of scientific results. I hope, if this thread continues at all, it will return to that topic, a topic that is most appropriate for the Auditory List.
Les
On 6/4/2023 9:24 PM, Svirsky, Mario wrote:
*** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution responding, opening attachments or clicking on links. ***
I have a small contribution to the very interesting conversation between Matt Winn and Les Bernstein.
I recommend those of you who are also interested in this conversation watch “Picture a Scientist”, which is on Netflix in the U.S. until
June 12. It is a fascinating description of some of the obstacles faced by women in general and black women in particular, in academia.
I agree with Les that, ideally, status as a researcher should be earned by a person’s contributions to their field. The problem is that
in the real world women get fewer resources and less recognition than men given the same intellect and productivity. Ditto for minorities. “Picture a Scientist” doesn’t even get into the issues of class, nationality, or able bodiedness, which are also important.
Or instead of watching Picture a Scientist (which, after all, will take you 103 minutes), you could invest just two minutes in reading
the cartoon below. About the concept of having things handed to you on a plate (or “being born on third base and thinking you hit a triple”, a quote attributed to Barry Switzer, 1986).
Error! Filename not specified.
Error! Filename not specified.Error! Filename not specified.
Error! Filename not specified.
Mario A. Svirsky, Ph.D.
Noel L. Cohen Professor of Hearing Science,
Professor of Otolaryngology (School of Medicine) and Neural Science
Vice-Chairman for Research
Department of Otolaryngology
Error! Filename not specified.
Address:
Dept. of Otolaryngology Phone (direct): 212-263-7217
NYU Langone Medical Center Fax: 212-263-7604 or 212-263-8257
550 First Ave., NBV-5E5
New York, NY 10016
Pronouns: he, him, his
CONFIDENTIAL - NYU SCHOOL OF MEDICINE SENSITIVE DOCUMENT
“This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is proprietary, confidential, and exempt
from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by return email and delete the original message. Please note, the recipient should
check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The organization accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.”
--
Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. |
Professor Emeritus
Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) | UConn School of Medicine
263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3401
Office: 860.679.4622 | Fax: 860.679.2495
Error! Filename not specified.
--
Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. |
Professor Emeritus
Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) | UConn School of Medicine
263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3401
Office: 860.679.4622 | Fax: 860.679.2495
Error! Filename not specified.
--
Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. |
Professor Emeritus
Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) | UConn School of Medicine
263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3401
Office: 860.679.4622 | Fax: 860.679.2495
Error! Filename not specified.
This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
attachment.
Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
where permitted by law.
|