Just Wondered/Michelle Obama's Thesis ?s

[gina2000]

Oh, and I don't know whom I am supporting. There's a lot of time between now and November and I'm sure things will become very interesting on both sides of the fence. I'm just watching and listening at this point.

 

[frndshpcptn]

Lots of anger there. Why? She's not the candidate. Who are you supporting?

If it's Clinton or McCain, neither has released their tax returns. These are "supression" tactics. It's "obvious manipulation" that they are withholding real information from the public.

A paper written by a spouse is irrelevant. Refusal as a candidate to give complete information on where your income is derived is "witholding real information" from the public.

I'm just amazed folks will spend pages worrying about an old college paper of a spouse, while ignoring the tax return issue of two actual candidates.

She's not the candidate, no.

But she is the wife of one of the candidates.

And like it or not that puts her in the public eye.

It put Dolly Madison in the public eye, Jackie Kennedy in the public eye, Lady Bird Johnson in the public eye, Nancy Regean int he public eye, and certainly Hillary Clinton in the public eye.

You know what you sign up for when your spouse runs for office. This wasn't (or shouldn't have been) a surprise that all of a sudden people cared to know more about the person that sleeps with the potential leader of the free world.

Who knows why they don't want people to read it. Point is, they decided to make it unavailable for the public to see for some reason. On purpose. With thought behind that choice. They aren't political novices and they've been gearing up for this run since the last DNC. Or possibly before that.

It's politics and perception.

 

[lilyv]

Lots of anger? Absolutely not. Just poking at a very interesting conundrum and making some observations. For the record, I don't care to be manipulated by anyone IRL or the political arena.

BTW, how do you know I'm not interested in Clinton's and McCain's tax returns and their suppression? You're assuming that I'm not.

Good to know you care about an very critical actual issue. Hope others feel the same.

 

[bsnyder]

Huh? Do you think the disciplines of sociology and psychology are just completely bunk then (the people who actually do the research seem pretty sure there is such a thing as unconcious racism!)? Or is this a semantics thing (you just call it "racism" when it's conscious and "smacism" when it's unconscious)?

There have been many studies in which they will try to see whether employers making hiring decisions, editors deciding whether to publish papers, academic chairs looking over CVs of aspiring professors, etc. have different standards based on race or sex.

In one study they took the same resume and sent it out to various employers (who were advertising openings)--some of the resumes with "traditionally black sounding names" and some with "traditionally white sounding names." The resumes with black names were 50% less likely to get a callback. A second study on the same topic found that they had to send out 1.5 times as many resumes with black names than resumes with white names to get 1 call back.

Scholars have noticed that when a top academic journals change their practices to blind-review (so that the editors cannot see the name of the author) of submitted papers the number of papers authored by women that were published in that journal immediately leaped upwards.

(Assuming these studies are well-designed and have been confirmed with similar studies), what are we supposed to make of the results? You don't really think that all of these employers are thinking "I hate black people. I'm not calling this person with a black-sounding name back" do you? The authors of the studies certainly don't think so. The very point of the studies is to show that unconscious racist and sexist prejudices play a huge part in ongoing race and sex differences in education and employment. Aren't these phenomena obvious instances of unconscious racism/sexism?

You'd have to actually produce the studies, rather than just talk in vague terms about them and then claim that they are obvious instances of unconscious racism/sexism.

 

[need_a_Disney_fix]

You can find the thesis here:

http://dyn.politico.com/pdf/080222_MOPrincetonThesis2.pdf

Give it time to download because the file is rather large.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Oh please! Another thread with the racism deniers!

Hey, if wives matter, let's discuss the chronology of one of the other guy's how I met my (new) wife/divorce/remarriage.

Really.

 

[lilyv]

Oh please! Another thread with the racism deniers!

Hey, if wives matter, let's discuss the chronology of one of the other guy's how I met my (new) wife/divorce/remarriage.

Really.

You're on target with what the real issue is.

 

[frndshpcptn]

Oh please! Another thread with the racism deniers!

Hey, if wives matter, let's discuss the chronology of one of the other guy's how I met my (new) wife/divorce/remarriage.

Really.

Ok, I'm in.

(because I really do think it's important to have a good idea about the people in the President's sphere of influence)

 

[wvrevy]

You'd have to actually produce the studies, rather than just talk in vague terms about them and then claim that they are obvious instances of unconscious racism/sexism.

Here...Go to town.

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=study+on+unintentional+racism

 

[CPT Tripss]

Suffice it to say that they met, fell in love and then realized he needed a divorce. she was a lot younger than he and she had the money and connections that would help his political ambitions.


You can look it up - just google the candidates name and divorce.

 

[need_a_Disney_fix]

Here is the link to the link of the thesis.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html

 

[Charade]

And people sometimes use racist or racially insensitive language without realizing they are doing so.

They might but I would tend to give someone a pass if they truly didn't know it was. Especially across cultural or geographic divides.

I generally think of racist comments by the context and tone before I will accuse someone of being a racist or to a lesser degree, knowingly making a racially insensitive comment.

So I take it back. People can sometimes make unintentional racially insensitive comments. But that IMO is still a long way from labeling someone a racist. By the frequent misapplication of the term, it really takes away from it's true meaning and appropriate application. It would unintentionally put a whole lot of people in that group who don't belong there. Point in reference, BOR's "lynching" comment.

I tend to give people a pass if they truly didn't know they've done it. And I also believe there are some people who look for it under every rock when there's nothing there. Sometimes these people are racists (in the true sense) themselves.

 

[wvrevy]

They might but I would tend to give someone a pass if they truly didn't know it was. Especially across cultural or geographic divides.

I generally think of racist comments by the context and tone before I will accuse someone of being a racist or to a lesser degree, knowingly making a racially insensitive comment.

So I take it back. People can sometimes make unintentional racially insensitive comments. But that IMO is still a long way from labeling someone a racist. By the frequent misapplication of the term, it really takes away from it's true meaning and appropriate application. It would unintentionally put a whole lot of people in that group who don't belong there. Point in reference, BOR's "lynching" comment.

I tend to give people a pass if they truly didn't know they've done it. And I also believe there are some people who look for it under every rock when there's nothing there. Sometimes these people are racists (in the true sense) themselves.

That's fine that you believe that, John, but completely irrelevant to the discussion. Her paper - and her experience as a minority in a very white collegiate society - may well have said something different than that. I have no idea...I haven't read it. My point was simply that her paper on the subject could very well - likely would, considering the "gotcha! type political atmosphere - be unfairly spun into a weapon for use against Barack to scare a certain segment of the population that may already have problems voting for a black man for president.

 

[Charade]

Huh? Do you think the disciplines of sociology and psychology are just completely bunk then (the people who actually do the research seem pretty sure there is such a thing as unconcious racism!)? Or is this a semantics thing (you just call it "racism" when it's conscious and "smacism" when it's unconscious)?

There have been many studies in which they will try to see whether employers making hiring decisions, editors deciding whether to publish papers, academic chairs looking over CVs of aspiring professors, etc. have different standards based on race or sex.

In one study they took the same resume and sent it out to various employers (who were advertising openings)--some of the resumes with "traditionally black sounding names" and some with "traditionally white sounding names." The resumes with black names were 50% less likely to get a callback. A second study on the same topic found that they had to send out 1.5 times as many resumes with black names than resumes with white names to get 1 call back.

Scholars have noticed that when a top academic journals change their practices to blind-review (so that the editors cannot see the name of the author) of submitted papers the number of papers authored by women that were published in that journal immediately leaped upwards.

(Assuming these studies are well-designed and have been confirmed with similar studies), what are we supposed to make of the results? You don't really think that all of these employers are thinking "I hate black people. I'm not calling this person with a black-sounding name back" do you? The authors of the studies certainly don't think so. The very point of the studies is to show that unconscious racist and sexist prejudices play a huge part in ongoing race and sex differences in education and employment. Aren't these phenomena obvious instances of unconscious racism/sexism?

Eric said unintentional, not unconsious. IMO there's a difference.

 

[Charade]

That's fine that you believe that, John, but completely irrelevant to the discussion. Her paper - and her experience as a minority in a very white collegiate society - may well have said something different than that. I have no idea...I haven't read it. My point was simply that her paper on the subject could very well - likely would, considering the "gotcha! type political atmosphere - be unfairly spun into a weapon for use against Barack to scare a certain segment of the population that may already have problems voting for a black man for president.

But OTOH, it could be a bombshell dropped right on top of the Obama campaign train and knock it off it's tracks.

I'm just sayin'...

 

[SwedishMeatball]

That's fine that you believe that, John, but completely irrelevant to the discussion. Her paper - and her experience as a minority in a very white collegiate society - may well have said something different than that. I have no idea...I haven't read it. My point was simply that her paper on the subject could very well - likely would, considering the "gotcha! type political atmosphere - be unfairly spun into a weapon for use against Barack to scare a certain segment of the population that may already have problems voting for a black man for president.

Do you think something like this would really make a difference to people already inclined to think that way?? I think they risk more by not disclosing it now, rather than putting the date of release as the day after the election. It will raise doubt in reasonable people's minds.

 

[Charade]

Lots of anger there. Why? She's not the candidate. Who are you supporting?

If it's Clinton or McCain, neither has released their tax returns. These are "suppression" tactics. It's "obvious manipulation" that they are withholding real information from the public.

A paper written by a spouse is irrelevant. Refusal as a candidate to give complete information on where your income is derived is "withholding real information" from the public.

I'm just amazed folks will spend pages worrying about an old college paper of a spouse, while ignoring the tax return issue of two actual candidates.

If you believe it's irrelevant, fine. Your choice but you're making that statement as if to tell others it should be to them as well. Obviously it's not. Just let people read it and draw their own (rational or irrational) conclusions from it.

I don't like suppression tactics either regardless of who does it. It stinks and says "I'm hiding something".

 

[wvrevy]

But OTOH, it could be a bombshell dropped right on top of the Obama campaign train and knock it off it's tracks.

I'm just sayin'...

Nah...how could it be? If it was a Harvard thesis, I can't imagine it would be anything that was inflammatory enough to pose a real problem.

And just so we're clear, I'm one who thinks they should have released it. Putting it "off limits" just makes people wonder why, and draws attention to it. I'd rather they simply said "Here...I wrote this 20 years ago, and my views have obviously changed some in that time, so if you have any questions or would like me to clarify something, contact the campaign and we'll get back with you as soon as we're able." Addressing these things directly is really the only way to go, IMO.

I'm just playing devil's advocate and also stating that, disagree with their decision though I do, I also understand it.

 

[Charade]

Oh please! Another thread with the racism deniers!

Of course no one on this thread as made such a blanket statement. Or on any other thread that I'm aware of.

 

[frndshpcptn]

Nah...how could it be? If it was a Harvard thesis, I can't imagine it would be anything that was inflammatory enough to pose a real problem.

And just so we're clear, I'm one who thinks they should have released it. Putting it "off limits" just makes people wonder why, and draws attention to it. I'd rather they simply said "Here...I wrote this 20 years ago, and my views have obviously changed some in that time, so if you have any questions or would like me to clarify something, contact the campaign and we'll get back with you as soon as we're able." Addressing these things directly is really the only way to go, IMO.

I'm just playing devil's advocate and also stating that, disagree with their decision though I do, I also understand it.

I agree. Transparency is the word of the year!