Talk:White privilege: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White privilege article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White privilege article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Discrimination Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 March 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 October 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Reference acknowledges that academia has inclusionist policies and that Indigenous people have preferential employment. "controlled by white people" and "hires many white professors" is a result of a lack of qualified applicants rather than any descriminatory policy or actions. This requires rewording for neutrality or deletion.

put here for further comment. I think the acknowedgement of the lack of "qualified aplicants" does not disqualify this from being an accurate portrayal of white privilege in this context. It seems perfectly consistent with other references that suggest that white privilege can exist in the absence of active discrimination or racism, or even in concert with efforts towards multiculturalism. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The key word is neutrality. The current wording lacks context and implies that the hiring of white professors and universities being controlled by white people is a conscious or subconscious act which is not the case. Only 0.7% of Australian school teachers are Indigenous which highlights the lack of applicants. Wayne (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the current wording implies conscious action necessarily. Is there a way we can express this trend without shutting out the possibility that this may be due to unconscious or systemic bias, which is sort of the counterpart of the article topic? I do not have a better wording to offer at the moment. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that an article written by someone with firsthand experience in the area—but then also citing dozens of sources and subject to peer review—would be one of the most highly prized sources on a topic. Wayne: maybe you could contribute to the article by doing some research on "white privilege" in Australia. Just do a search somewhere for "white privilege Australia" and see what comes up. Maybe there are, for example, systemic aspects of education in Australia that contribute to the "lack of qualified applicants". It is typically not done to 'flag' a peer reviewed journal article as insufficient evidence because you personally disagree with its conclusions. Peace. groupuscule (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the lack of qualified applicants is largely a result of the low rate of schooling but that is a cultural issue not white privilege. If the author cites "dozens of sources" then they should be used instead of one with a COI. Wayne (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot just include every person's allegations of racism in the article. The paper [1] which was cited in the section on Australia, alleging deliberate exclusion of aborigines from Indigenous Studies departments in Australia, is no basis for making as broad a claim as "Indigenous Studies in Australian Universities remains controlled by white people, hires many white professors, and does not always embrace political changes that benefit indigenous people or respect their sovereignty." The paper by Bronwyn Fredericks appears to be a long complaint against an Australian university, which had invited her to take part in a curriculum review but which refused to offer compensation. Fredericks has a right to draw her conclusions from this dispute, and others may agree or disagree with her, but it is another thing for Wikipedia to repeat her allegations of racism in the academy in an authoritative voice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear to me why "white privilege" cannot also be "a cultural issue." I also don't think that this can be classified as a CoI. -- ~~

White privilege can be a cultural issue but a low rate of schooling is a cultural issue separate from the white privilege concept. Wayne (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we might be getting a bit too far into a discussion about the topic itself, but i could imagine that appropriate access to schooling could be a "white privilege" issue. Would be happy to continue the discussion on one of our personal talk pages.-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following disturbing line has been inserted into the article by groupuscule:

"White (Western) epistemology and pedagogy are treated as universal while Indigenous perspectives are excluded or treated only as objects of study."

What are "white epistemology and pedagogy"? Is there a "black epistemology" or an "Indigenous epistemology"? This seems to me a racist assertion -- ones views on epistemology do not follow invariably from ones race. I'm going to remove this statement. We cannot phrase an assertion like this factually. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you find this claim confusing or ambiguous, why not read the four sources cited to support it, and then expand the claim based on the information you find? Given all that is written about white privilege in Australian education, as well as the example of the USA subsection, we could definitely create a new subsection on this topic. I look forward to your interpretation. Merry Christmas, groupuscule (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These claims, if they merit inclusion, should be written in an objective tone. This is a very general problem with the article. We also need to be careful not to endorse racist views in the article. We certainly should not be writing the article from an assumption that there exists a "white epistemology." -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to strike a more acceptable-to-critics neutral tone in the sentence at issue, meaning adding hedging language. I do think that there is not quite as great a need for conciseness in the larger article as there is in the lede, so we can afford to explain or expand a little bit. The need for conciseness in the lede can, I think, tend to push things into Mainchean all/none territory.

At the same time, i am a bit concerned about how this general dispute over neutral tone (and what that means to the various active editors) might lead to a bit of logorrhea. The article still needs to be understandable by a general audience. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC) added language in italics after initial posting -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 02:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gather you meant to write "Manichean all/none territory." In any case, terms like "Manichean" and "logorrhea" might be considered less than "understandable by a general audience." Apostle12 (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some particularly egregious examples of biased writing which I have removed from the section on Australia:

1. Indigenous Australians (2.4% of Australia's population) are welcomed to participate in a "multiculturalism" that celebrates their stories and artwork—however, they are not allowed to challenge the authority of white society, or the narrative of European colonizers as peaceful settlers. Thus, white privilege in Australia involves the ability to define the limits of what can be included in a "multicultural" society.

This is not a statement that most academics would agree with. Are indigenous Australians legally barred from challenging the authority of "white society," or the narrative of European colonizers as peaceful settlers? Are those who suggest that European colonizers illegitimately took the land socially ostracized? Do historians of Australia, as a whole, maintain and enforce a fiction of peaceful European settlement? What is written above is clearly a thesis held by some writers. As it is clearly not accepted universally, we cannot represent it in the definitive language above. If you want to include it, make it clear that this is a thesis, and attribute it to the proper people.

2. Indigenous studies in Australian universities remains controlled by white people, hires many white professors, and does not always embrace political changes that benefit indigenous people or respect their sovereignty.

That Indigenous studies departments are "controlled by white people" is not so much a statement of fact, but again, an argument that someone is making. Are we claiming in the article that there are no indigenous professors? Are we going to make the contention that white people do, in fact, control indigenous studies departments? To do so is to throw the encyclopaedia fully behind the opinion of one group.

3. Prevailing modes of Western epistemology and pedagogy, associated with the dominant white culture, are treated as universal while Indigenous perspectives are excluded or treated only as objects of study.

I don't agree that what is termed "Western epistemology" here is associated with white people, and I doubt you would find a majority of scientists who do. Are we stating that because the Enlightenment occurred in Europe, scientific methods are associated with white people? What of black scientists who contribute to our modern understanding of science and scientific methods, or Arab scientists, or Chinese scientists, or African scientists? And who is doing the associating? Do certain people associate "Western epistemology" with "white culture," or does everyone? Reading this sentence, you would think that everyone associates the prevailing modes of epistemology and pedagogy with "white culture."

4. For Australian whites, another aspect of privilege is the ability to identify with a global diaspora of other white people in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere. This privilege contrasts with the enforced separation of Indigenous Australians from other indigenous peoples in southeast Asia.

Here, the article makes two claims that one or another person might find convincing, but which hardly rise to the level of fact. Is it incontestable that the ability to identify with a global diaspora is a privilege? And who is forcibly keeping indigenous Australians separate from other indigenous peoples?

5. Global political issues such as climate change are framed in terms of white actors and effects on white countries.

This flat-out contradicts my experience reading the paper, where climate change often framed from the perspective of food insecurity, increasing aridity and scarcity of water resources, the rising of sea levels above island nations, all issues which, it is often stressed, affect Third-World nations more than developed countries. Here's the title of one of the top hits from LexisNexis ("climate change" in the Sydney Morning Herald): "Climate change threatens the fight to end poverty." The article goes into various consequences of climate change on the poorer nations on Earth, with a particular focus on Africa, as well as central southern and southeastern Asia. I could go on with more articles stressing the impact of climate change on countries which are not predominantly white - it wouldn't be difficult at all, because many such articles are written every day - but I think everyone gets the point. The problem here is again that a thesis advanced by certain writers is being proclaimed as the truth.

This is not what neutrality looks like. The existence of essays which argue a point, regardless of how convincing you find the argument, does not render it a fact, especially in the humanities. You have to ask yourself: "Is what I am writing a belief or thesis within portions of academia or society, or is it a fact universally acknowledged by people knowledgeable in the subject?" When we are dealing with questions such as, "Do white people control this branch of academia?", we are clearly dealing with questions which are open to a certain degree of interpretation, about which knowledgeable people will come to different conclusions. This acknowledgement has been lacking in much of the writing in this article, with the above statements being just a few egregious examples I found in one section. I hope this makes it clearer what the major NPOV problem is with this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you hang a lot of your claims on an apparent knowledge of what a "majority of scientists" or "most academics" agree with. please feel free to provide sources for your assertions. I don't think we're going to be able to usefully address the issue of publication bias, but we have to work from what we've got. Some of the language could definitely stand to be rephrased, and i would invite you to help me and the others do so, rather than delete sections wholesale. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is possible to dispute, in good faith, that, for example, climate change is often framed in terms of nonwhite actors and its effects on countries which are not majority white. The sections I highlighted above are simply not defensibly written. There is a difference between finding two or three papers which argue a thesis (especially in the humanities), and that thesis being incontrovertible fact. We are writing about somewhat subjective issues - whether white people control indigenous studies or urban planning in Australia, or whether absence of a certain form of oppression is a right or a privilege - about which we must all acknowledge there is disagreement. That is the central recognition that editors here must make before we can move forward. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thucydides411 that the above statements, while they might be included in the article as perspectives held by specific people, cannot be stated as fact. The example regarding climate change being "framed in terms of white actors and effects on white countries" is especially egregious; this should only appear if it is immediateley countered by fact that climate change is frequently framed in terms of its disproportionate effect on non-white populations.

Also clear is the example regarding Western epistemology and pedagogy being "associated with the dominant white culture." This is nonsense: science is science and has nothing to do with race.

Patently untrue statements ("Indigenous Australians...are not allowed to challenge the authority of white society, or the narrative of European colonizers as peaceful settlers") have no place in this article. "The narrative of European colonizers as peaceful settlers" went out with the 1950s; no one supports this perspective today. In fact the narrative that prevails in the United States, Central America, South America and Australia is overwhelming critical of the manner in which European colonization occurred - perhaps over-emphasizing the very real and destructive violence of European settlers, as opposed to the inadvertent decimation of native populations by disease, which by current estimates accounted for perhaps 90% of indigenous casualties. Apostle12 (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One source of non-neutrality in this article is the way in which statements made in journal articles are treated as authoritative by other editors here. When considering a publication such as the "Australian Critical Race and Whiteness Studies Association e-journal," we should keep Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship in mind:

Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

ACRAWSA describes itself here: [2]. An excerpt is

"Finally, and whilst acknowledging the social construction of race, we also acknowledge the fact of Indigenous sovereignties and the ontological relationship to land through which Indigenous people carry their sovereignty. As noted by Professor Aileen Moreton-Robinson, founder of ACRAWSA, critiques of the social construction of western categories of race cannot be mapped over Indigenous worldviews and accounts of culture. Taking Indigenous sovereignty as fact and recognising the ongoing claims to land of the many Indigenous nations is thus not counter to the constructionist and critical approach typically adopted within CRAWS. Rather, it recognises that the very need for such approaches stems from the effects of colonisation, empire, and globalisation, which come after, rather than pre-date the existence of First Nations."

ACRAWSA is thus partially a political organization. That is not to pass judgement on what it publishes, but it does mean that they represent the political views of the publishers of the ACRAWSA e-journal. Similarly, the journal "Social Alternatives" states "Social Alternatives is an independent, quarterly refereed journal which aims to promote public debate, commentary and dialogue about contemporary social, political, economic and environmental issues." Further, "We are committed to the principles of social justice and to creating spaces of dialogue intended to stimulate social alternatives to current conditions" ([3]). We have to treat views published in these journals, especially when they make broad statements of the type, "Indigenous studies in Australian universities remains controlled by white people," as opinions expressed by their authors. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions and perspectives deserving mention, among others. Not facts. Apostle12 (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked-in on this awhile back, and am surprised to see arguments still ongoing. That "white privilege" exists as a concept that has been extensively discussed and researched in academia is indisputable. That some question whether or not "white privilege" exists as a "reality" (whatever that is) also seems indisputable. Why is there not a section of the article entitled "Detractors" or something similar wherein those who question the concept can be cited? I see the "Limitations" section, but that is quite different from disputation of whether or not such a phenomenon exists in the first place. My own opinion is that whites are so privileged that they are often unable to see how privileged they are. However, NPOV would require that questions about its existence be documented in a comprehensive article on the topic. Meclee (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CRITICISM, as others have pointed out in previous discussions. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does not require weasel words like "are said to have" in the first sentence. It already includes criticisms of the concept that I would characterize as a bit WP:UNDUE. How long "are said to have" has been in the lead makes zero difference to me, it is not a GA or FA so the bar is not set any higher to change things. "are said to have would be, imho, violating WP:SPADE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:WEASEL. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 21:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

propose current language - "those societal privileges" or perhaps "the set of societal privileges". those who are easily offended by the implication that they might have privileges can interpret as "small" or "none". -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 21:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are fond of calling things "weasily" whenever you don't like them. "Are argued" is neutral. It neither underwrites the existence of "white privilege," nor does it constitute a denial that "white privilege" exists. It simply acknowledges the controversy.

Any other language that is neutral is fine by me, but not language that ignores the fact that there IS an argument. You want it your way, UseTheCommandLine, which is NOT neutral. Please accept that several other editors do not agree with you. Apostle12 (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to rewrite the lede sentence without the word 'societal' which is at best obscure. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions? Apostle12 (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry, keyboard on the blink) The current language of the lead already gives plenty of weight to detractors of the concept, enough that I currently consider it WP:UNDUE given that there the scholarly criticism of the concept is rather scant, and what little there is comes not from scholarly sources but from conservative media. Adding additional mitigating language in order to "acknowledge the controversy" completely ignores these facts. I would urge you to bring it to DRN or some other forum before making additional reversions. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 22:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that should be "there are additional criticisms from outside the scholarly domain, but they are largely POVPUSH from conservative media". -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 22:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the first sentence we are talking about, which as you know is critical. "Are argued" has been a part of that sentence for months now, accepted by all. Why suddenly are you in a twit about it?Apostle12 (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Way premature for DRN. Why not live with an actual good faith discussion for awhile, giving the various editors time to note the controversy and respond? What's the hurry after all these months? DRN's are not supposed to be a substitute for good faith discussion (or didn't you notice that the last time you tried one, the editors turned on YOU?) Apostle12 (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. See previous archived discussions about the edit wars, around this very issue, which you instigated some time ago. Take it to DRN. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 22:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Apparently your memory is poor. Apostle12 (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. And for the record, the length of time a phrase has existed in a page on WP is in no way evidence of its acceptance. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 18:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note This page is now protected from editing for a week. Hopefully that will give you all time to resolve this dispute, and to review WP:EW, taking care to notice the details, like that claiming consensus or lack thereof is in no way shape or form a free pass to edit war. I would have been equally justified in blocking the warring parties, keep that in mind when the protection expires. Edit warring is always the wrong thing to do and everyone who particpates in one is automatically in the wrong, so don't any of you go thinking you had the moral high ground here unless you stayed out of it entirely.

If the DRN discussion results in a consensus before the protection expires please either let me know or post a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP if I don't seem to be around. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose replacing current first sentence:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to the set of societal priveleges that white people benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc).^[1]

With the following:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a conceptual framework, derived from critical race theory, that is commonly used to help explain race or ethnicity based inequalities such as those in social status or class, health or access to healthcare, political representation, or economics. ^[2]

I don't think this is substantive enough a change to require a reference to the journal, as it is mainly a rewording. It may be useful to break off the reference to critical race theory, or perhaps provide a second reference. If it's broken out into a second sentence, that would allow the possibility of explaining that there are other historical antecedents of the concept. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 07:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may be headed in the right direction. However, especially for the lede, I think the sentence should be simplified. For example, I think "ethnicity-based inequalities" includes race, so to say "race or ethnicity based inequalities" is unnecessary. Also I think we should not try to list specific "ethnicity-based inequalities," e.g. "social status or class, health or access to healthcare, political representation, or economics." Such inequalities cut both ways, with certain ethnicity-labeled inequalities favoring specific groups and other ethnicity-labeled inequalities disfavoring specific groups. To try to list ethnicity-based inequalities makes this a run-on sentence, and it also tends to be reductive of a rather long list, which leads toward over-simplification.

I could support:

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a conceptual framework, derived from critical race theory, that is commonly used to help explain certain ethnicity-based inequalities.

Apostle12 (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Race and ethnicity are not the same. I was attempting to mirror the original sentence in its naming of specific spheres. Since I haven't gotten ahold of the article yet, i am loath to make changes to the sentence other than simple rewording. And technically, it is not a run-on sentence. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 02:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, race and ethnicity are not the same. What I suggested is that ethnicity-based inequalities includes racial categories. Quoting from "Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting" (http://www.aaanet.org/gvt/ombdraft.htm):

"Anthropologically speaking, the concept of race is a relatively recent one. Historically, the term 'race' was ascribed to groups of individuals who were categorized as biologically distinct. Rather than developing as a scientific concept, the current notion of 'race' in the United States grew out of a European folk taxonomy or classification system sometime after Columbus sailed to the Americas. Increased exploration of far-away lands with people of different custom, language, and physical traits clearly contributed to the developing idea. In these pre-Darwinian times the observed differences--biological, behavioral and cultural--were all considered to be products of creation by God. It was in this intellectual climate that the perceived purity and immutability of races originated. Perceived behavioral features and differences in intellect were inextricably linked to race and served as a basis for the ranking, in terms of superiority, of races....The American Anthropological Association recognizes that classical racial terms may be useful for many people who prefer to use proudly such terms about themselves. The Association wishes to stress that if biological information is not objective, biological-sounding terms add nothing to the precision, rigor, or factual basis of information being collected to characterize the identities of the American population. In that sense, phasing out the term 'race,' to be replaced with more correct terms related to ethnicity, such as 'ethnic origins,' would be less prone to misunderstanding."

Among those ethnicity-based inequalities that would be difficult to consider within the white privilege conceptual framework:

The disproportionately high representation of African Americans among girls who rank high in self-esteem vis-a-vis other ethnic subgroupings (latina girls, northern European white girls, southern European white girls, Japanese girls, Chinese girls, Korean girls, Ashkenazi Jewish girls) with correspondingly lower rates of eating disorders, depression, and suicide.

The disproportionately high representation of Japanese, Chinese and Koreans who attend American institutions of higher learning vis-a-vis other ethnic subgroupings (Cambodians, Laotians, northern European whites, southern European whites, latinos, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and African Americans), with correspondingly higher rates of success earning bachelor degrees, masters degrees and doctoral degrees.

The disproportionately high representation of African American men (76%) among National Basketball Association players vis-a-vis other ethnic subgroupings - white European men 20%, latino men 3%, asian men 1%.

The disproportionately high representation of African American men (67%)among National Football Leage players vis-a-vis other ethnic subgroupings - white European men 31%, latino men 1%, and asian men 1%.

The disproportionately high representation of Ashkenazi Jews among American scientists in general and Nobel Prize science winners in particular vis-a-vis other ethnic subgroupings (northern European whites, southern European whites, asians, latinos, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and African Americans).

The disproportionately high representation of African Americans among those who contract STDs each year(syphilus, ghonorhea, chlamydia, venereal warts, and HIV/AIDS) vis-a-vis other ethnic subgroupings (norther Europeans, southern Europeans, Ashkenazi Jews, latinos, asians, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders).

The list goes on, as I'm sure will this discussion. Apostle12 (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]