There is a new study by psychology researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and University of Louisville that maintains that those people who maintain a “color-blind” racial philosophy are actually fostering racism. There is a growing movement from elementary schools to colleges that it is not enough to be non-racist. You must be anti-racist. A collateral position is that color blindness allows white people to evade racism or racial justice questions. The question is whether the study in the Journal of Counseling Psychology will be used to support universities requiring affirmative anti-racism statements and other direct responses from faculty and students.
Researchers Jacqueline Yi, Helen Neville, Nathan Todd and Yara Mekawi refer to “color-blindness” as either “color evasion or power evasion.” They maintain that “colorblind racial ideology (CBRI) provide information on barriers to naming the problem of structural racism against Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) as a source of racial inequities in society.” The study is dismissive of the view that color blindness is anything other than conscious evasion, stating that it is intentional for many white people: “conceptually, color evasion or denial of race and racial categorization is an intentional strategy some White people adopt in interpersonal relationships to appear nonbiased and ultimately to promote greater racial harmony.”
In an interview, Lead researcher Jacqueline Yi asserted that
“The denial of structural racism appears to be a big barrier to racial equity because it allows for more victim-blaming explanations of systemic inequality. The more that BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) individuals are blamed for racial disparities, the less likely it is for white people and institutions to take responsibility for the continued effects of systemic racism.”
The researchers argue that color blindness ignores race to “reduce prejudice and possible tension or focusing on human similarity rather than differences linked to racial group membership,” while the latter is the “denial [or] minimization” of structural racism.
If the study is accepted, the question is how such findings translate to school policies on the training and expectations for faculty and students. The study states “[o]ur meta-analysis established that CBRI, specifically power evasion, is associated with greater prejudice against Black people, thus providing evidence against the idea that CBRI is a way to ‘get past’ racism.”
The study specifically recommends changes in light of the findings that include:
• Create opportunities for CP students and faculty to support organizations in naming the role of LIs in their policies
• Change the racial makeup of institutions and CP programs by increasing representation of Black folx
• Train CP students to challenge the racial status quo and engage in structural analysis
• Incorporate the role of structural racism and anti-Blackness in mental health diagnosis and treatment
into CP curriculum
• Use multicultural, SJ, and anti-Black frameworksin CP supervision models
• Educate policymakers in helping professions on the role of CBRI in perpetuating anti-Blackness and systemic racism (e.g., licensing boards, funding agencies)
The expectation is that this study will receive broad application as universities address diversity and anti-racism priorities.
Why are you taking this “study” at face value? Before I accept any study that a priori assumes “systemic racism,” I will analyze its methods, theoretical framework, data collection, and researchers’ biases. We can expect many more such “studies” in the future, because academia is the only place the woke mob has little to no opposition. They’ll use these studies to reinforce their own biases — it’ll be the world’s biggest echo chamber.
These are almost certainly millennial professors. They love their data driven, everything fits into a box in a linear fashion, a-b-c always works so I don’t have to feel bad and use my brain world view. Unfortunately human beings are autonomous creatures that do not exist on rails. Our DNA proves us all human with common ancestry (they hate actual science, too). We all have free will, even if the right to it in society is revoked. These are little fascist and their mentors that are a hair’s breadth from saying, ‘The Jewish ‘race’ asked for it.’ Or its equivalent with someone else. Culture and tribe evolved out of survival necessity, they are not genetic or inborn. These fools admit as much when they get apoplectic about choosing gender.
When can we acknowledge we need to stop funding this BS?
Many of us Turley readers will remember when we were in grade school and high school that some, not all, of the black boys, and far fewer black girls, felt that doing well in school was being ‘too white.’
How ridiculous
Welllllll … meta analysis can be very tricky. How data are included and combined for analysis is fraught with opportunities for bias. I noted no use of blinding or validity checking of the methodology. When they coded 3 people should have coaded bling and their results should have been reconciled and used in the actual analysis. Did this happen?
A cursory examination of this study suggests that the researchers came in with a hypothesis and ended up supporting it. The tone and tenor of this paper is suspect in that the conditional seems to be rarely used. I might also suggest that the sources of their data are questionable in that it is unlikely that a paper that is not “woke” (for want of a better term) would be published in the first place. And that is the outcome of a subversion of science into religion. I noted no evaluation of the research quality of the sources used. Sloppy. And calls into question the whole thing.
I note that the correlations reported are weak (,22 really?) which indicates that as a model their meta analysis accounts for virtually none of the variance (average r2~.04). That was the finding that should have been reported.
If you want to see the danger in the destruction of scientific methodology read about Lysenko, this is where we are heading. Incidentally, if a paper uses buzz words or neologisms, that is a sign that you are reading crap. Just my 2p.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko
Is Obama white? Colored? African American? Jamaican? India?
Judge not by the color of ones skin. Get rid of all this race yak. BLM means better learn military. White Only means no freckles allowed. Move up north means you are a chump.
And by the way. Close the southern border and kick out all those who climbed the fence.
Having read medical and semi-medical journals for 46 years before retiring, I would caution the reader that they really have to know the centers that publish in this field and what that Center’s bias is. They vary significantly over the country and some, obviously, have greater expertise than others. I have not read this journal or even heard of it. The statements by some of the authors certainly are suspicious with the catch phrases of anti racism scattered thru. Meta analysis used in studies in top ranked medical journals can be legitimately helpful, but meta analysis in psychology in this day and age is extremely problematic and severely crippled by author and researcher bias. It’s almost an oxymoron. Meta analysis rarely establishes anything. More appropriately they should have said that their analysis of multi center data suggests their viewpoint and further studies are needed. That should lead to more specific parameters of study with clearly defined goals and endpoints of research. More funding will be needed, sic.
It would seem that they decided on a viewpoint and produced something that supported it. A never ending problem in this field and medicine in general. Don’t waste hard drive space for this or even a bookmark.
Many psychologists like the ones cited here are carney barkers with an agenda and no surprise they have one of the highest suicide rates of all the professions. Too bad these “researchers” didn’t add to the stats before publishing this racist trash. By their standards, MLK, Jr was a consummate racist enabler. Lol
Are they trying to create a caste system? Where your social score will be based on the color of your skin? Job prospects? Loans? College applications?
If I own a company, how do I determine who is the most qualified if things like grades, certifications, or even asking to prove the ability to do a skill required of the job opening is now . . . racist?
America needs an amicable divorce.
Unless these institutions want to forgo federal funding via grants and loans, these “affirmative” morality statements violate the establishment clause. Justice William O. Douglas wrote a concurring opinion in Engel v. Vitale (1962), contending that “once government finances a religious exercise it inserts a divisive influence into our communities.”
Today is a big day for the Big Lie:
“Trump’s ‘Big Lie’ takes center stage in second Jan. 6 hearing”
“Former Trump campaign director Bill Stepien and a U.S. attorney the then-president weighed firing are among those who will testify Monday as the Jan. 6 committee works to show how former President Trump forged ahead with plans to remain in power despite being “told again and again that he didn’t have [the] numbers to win.”
“Stepien will be joined on a panel by Chris Stirewalt, a former Fox News political editor who was a member of the team at the network that made the decision to call Arizona for now-President Biden on election night 2020.”
“BJay Pak, once a U.S. Attorney in Georgia, will speak publicly for the first time since resigning as Trump fumed over the Justice Department’s refusal to investigate his baseless allegations of voter fraud. Pak will be joined by conservative election attorney Ben Ginsberg and Al Schmidt, a Republican election official in Philadelphia who drew Trump’s ire after he refused to say the 2020 election was rigged.”
https://thehill.com/news/house/3520755-trumps-big-lie-takes-center-stage-in-second-jan-6-hearing/?fs=e&s=cl
I’m sure Turley will be watching these witnesses expose Trump’s election lie. I know the lying Trumpists here will smear them as RINO’s. I also know that NeverTrumper Turley will not. Will he question the integrity of these witnesses? He did not question Barr’s and Ivanka’s damning testimony.
But for the broadcasting for weeks Trump’s Big Lie by Fox News, 1/6 would never have occurred. These hearings are not a good look for Fox or Turley’s association with Fox. It has blacked-out the hearings on its News platform and relegated them to its tiny by comparison Business platform. Despite this Little Brother censorship by his network, all we hear from our Turley is
Crickets…
There is ZERO content in jeffsilberman’s comment that is related to this blog post, zip, nada, nil, ziltch, bupkis, absolutely nothing; the comment is a pure unadulterated trolling deflection.
DON’T FEED THE TROLL!!!
Hey, Steve, don’t have a cow, man!
Turley is doing a little trolling himself by throwing out this line to gets some hits from his school.
Ignore the troll. Not worth even reading his blah blah, blahs….
Wen bars,
The truth hurts. You can’t run from it. Face it like a man.
Your post has nothing to do with the topic which is typical behavior for trolls. You are rude and disrespecting Turley and others on here with your childish behavior.
Is it a court-martial offense? Thanks for your service, Sarge.
Yes. what’s the sentence for a court martial??????
Off topic. Irrelevant.
Currentsitguy,
The truth hurts. You can’t run from it. Face it like a man.
So-called “anti-racism” is a con, based on appropriating the statistical disparities arising from the black underclass to invent a theory of “systemic racism.” The actual mechanism of how these “structures” affect black achievement is never revealed.
The success of poor black and Asian immigrants with intact families, and cultures promoting advancement through education, is ignored. That roughly 70% of black American children are raised in single parent homes, often by poor unmarried young women, is ignored. That black Americans are disproportionately the perpetrators and victims of violent crimes is ignored. That middle class college-educated blacks in intact families have for decades fared as well or better than their white counterparts is ignored.
Any analyses that consider the forces of disintegration arising from within the black population are dismissed as “blaming the victim.” Even black intellectuals, such as Thomas Sowell, Glenn Loury, Jason Riley, Wilfred Reilly and Bob Woodson, are dismissed on this basis.
This is nothing more than another iteration of The Grift. Just follow the money boys and girls, whether it was Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or later on BLM or the booming DEI hiring orgy on campus and in corporate America. The bottom line is always, hire more black people, enroll more black people, arrest fewer black people, release more black people from prison, give black people more money in the form of reparations. There may be some worthy goals regarding assisting people that are poor, including black people, but The Grift always seems to help the grifters first and foremost.
Jonathan wrote, “There is a new study by psychology researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and University of Louisville that maintains that those people who maintain a “color-blind” racial philosophy are actually fostering racism.” (emphasis mine)
This study is pure gaslighting.
The argument that being “color blind” and not engaging in racist behavior and racist actions fosters racism is absolutely absurd on it’s face, and more than that, it’s immoral to imply otherwise. When you dig down deeper into their arguments they become more and more absurd to the point of being pure racism. When irrational social justice warriors have a preconceived bias to ram down the throats of the public they will go to any extent to accomplish it, the ends justify the means to these immoral people.
That race baiting immoral political hack Ibram X. Kendi may be applauding the kind of absurdity at the core of that biased study but Martin Luther King Jr. is justifiably rolling over in his grave.
So not using racial criteria is now racist. Up is down, east is west. And Martin Luther’s dream of judging people on the content of their character was misguided.
People who are obsessed with racism are the racists. Those of us who treat people as they are don’t need to be labeled. Telling us we need to be anti-racist to meet their requirements is ‘identity politics’ at their best.
Face it. When it comes to “racism”, it is basically me protecting myself and family from dangerous individuals who have been brainwashed to believe that I am their problem.
Fact is that THEY are their problem.
This psychological gobbledygook is foolish, but what can I expect from an organized, methodical plan to undermine and demonize white people?
Many in this – so called field – attempt to make definitions to meet that ideological narrative. Having attended a large number of these so called anti-racist programs, the definitions are all slightly different. Conclusion, I refused to participate in their lies and ideology. Identity, group think may suit narrow conversations for specific reasons, but to expand beyond that causes them to jump into marxists-socialist ideology. Fine for a conversation; horrifying destructive and antithetical to a democratic republic. I refuse to participate.
Amazing how there is one set of rules for academia and another set for intercollegiate sports. Why is it that some racial minorities are over represented in NCAA basketball and football rosters but under represented in STEM specialties at all universities?
Turley just reports; he does not reveal where he stands on this research.
This article is casting a bucket of chum into the waters for the sharks on this blog. They are circling now….
All else aside, the gratuitous use of ‘Black folx’ is absurd. Rather brings the intelligence of the writer into question no?
Certainly brings the writer’s ability to form plural nouns into question.
Jeff ignores the racist, sickening “study” promulgated by the professors in order to attack Turley…which is just plain odd. Like Jeff.
Bobby,
Whether I’m right or whether I’m wrong
Whether I find a place in this world or never belong
I gotta be me, I’ve gotta be me!
jeffsilberman wrote, “Turley just reports; he does not reveal where he stands on this research. This article is casting a bucket of chum into the waters for the sharks on this blog. They are circling now….”
Anyone else notice the hypocrisy at the core of that comment?
Also, that comment is an ad hominem.
Steve,
If you liked that comment, you’re gonna love the one I contributed below. Enjoy!
jeffsilberman Get a life Jeff, and stop living solely to disparage Turley. Surely you have higher ambitions? Just think of what your epitaph will be if you do nothing more with your life than troll Turley.
Giocon says:
“Just think of what your epitaph will be if you do nothing more with your life than troll Turley.”
It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.
-Dickens
Which might be true if your comments were substantive.
Mistressadams,
The Big Lie has been exposed. Were you duped too like millions of other gullible Trumpists?
You are right. We now know Trump was correct. Democrats cheated and a losing Biden sits in the White House trying to remember his name.