Category: The Dish

Razib Khan asks why discussions of resegregation focus on the South:

The South has a particular history with race, and that is an important history. But the continuous focus on this region of the country is I think driven in part by the reality that the cultural elites, often white progressives, are not keen on shining a light on the segregation which they themselves have passively accepted in their own lives.

In fact the worst segregation of blacks and whites is in major urban areas of the Great Lakes. According to the Census the most segregated cities are Detroit, Milwaukie, New York, Newark, and Chicago. But for some reason there are fewer exposes on how upper middle class, usually white, couples in major “Blue America” urban areas flee racially diverse public schools for the suburbs or private schools. The reasons for these actions are defensible in my opinion, but one should probably admit that these are likely the major causes of resegregation in the South as well.

To further his argument, Khan cites Reihan Salam’s recent piece on interracial dating. Reihan argues that intermarriage is an important social good:

There are good reasons to question the moral appropriateness of strong same-race preferences and their close cousin, in-group favoritism.

In The American Non-Dilemma, Nancy DiTomaso argues that persistent racial inequality in the United States is not solely or even primarily a reflection of racism and discrimination. Rather, it reflects the fact that whites tend to help other whites without ever discriminating against or behaving cruelly toward blacks and other nonwhites. As long as whites tend to dominate prestigious occupations, and as long as they control access to valuable social resources like access to good schools, the fact that whites, like all people, will do more to help family, friends, and acquaintances than strangers will tend to entrench racial inequality, provided that white people choose to associate primarily with other whites. DiTomaso observes that while Americans place very high value on the idea of equal opportunity, virtually all of us seek “unequal opportunity” in our own lives by leveraging our intimate relationships to achieve our goals, including our professional goals. Yet most of us don’t see the help of family and friends as an unfair leg up. This kind of “opportunity hoarding” is accepted as par for the course.

We could make an effort to eliminate in-group favoritism, but such an effort would inevitably fail, as in-group favoritism is a powerful human impulse. A more sensible course of action would be to do our part to expand the boundaries of the in-group.

Khan adds:

What if in fact most racial inequality is a function of social-cultural racism, rather than institutional racism?

Recent Dish on resegregation here and here.

Buffalo Bills cheerleaders won't perform after suit alleging unpaid work, sexual harassment http://t.co/Msg25KvG1G pic.twitter.com/rZPiGfgCU1

— Palm Beach Post (@pbpost) April 25, 2014

Emily Shire lists the grievances of the former Buffalo Bills cheerleaders who are suing the franchise for minimum wage violations and a host of other indignities:

[T]he alleged exploitation was more than just unpaid labor. The Buffalo Jills allege that Stejon [Productions Corp]  and Citadel [Communications Co.] essentially ran a racket, forcing the women to buy calendars and other Bills-related items out of pocket and then sell them on their own time. They even imposed damages if they failed to sell their quotas, according to the suit. Each woman was required to buy 50 to 75 Buffalo Jills swimsuit calendars at $10 each and sell them. If she did not sell them, she was left in the red and “subject to further penalties at the discretion of defendants.” The same went for Jills golf tournament tickets and gift baskets, which could cost each woman $590. Other out-of-pocket expenses included travel and hotel accommodations for the events they had to attend and $650 in uniform costs, the suit says.

That’s not all. From exposure to sexual harassment to menstrual hygiene instructions, the alleged physical appearance rules paint a deeply disturbing picture of archaic, invasive, and manipulative requirements. According to the lawsuit, the Buffalo Jills were given a list of 17 rules governing “general hygiene and body maintenance.” They included “how to properly wash ’intimate areas’ and how often to change tampons.”

Noting that the Jills’ lawsuit comes on the heels of similar actions by the Oakland Raiderettes and Cincinnati Ben-Gals, Amanda Hess asks why these women’s poor pay and exploitation are only just now coming into the spotlight:

Professional cheerleaders have always presented a dilemma for the traditional feminist movement. On the one hand, feminism is committed to fighting for fair pay for women in all areas where they are discriminated against because of their gender. On the other hand, this particular kind of labor—one where women, not men, are enlisted to jiggle their assets at the local golf tournament—suggests another kind of gendered exploitation, and one that’s hard for some feminists to rush to defend. (Headlines about the recent spate of cheerleader lawsuits may focus on the scandalous details, but looking sexy for men is a feature of the job, not a bug.) Lately, it seems the feminist movement has caught up to the cause; it’s no longer particularly controversial to stand up for the legal rights of the women who perform work that nevertheless fails to reflect the ideal, gender-equitable society.

Back in January, Billy Haisley also covered the mistreatment of cheerleaders. He spoke with a former Ravens cheerleader:

For cheerleaders, the real money comes from appearances. It’s still not all that great. If the appearance is for charity, the team will charge $175 per cheerleader per hour; otherwise, it’s $300 per hour. Of that money, our tipster explains, each cheerleader takes home around $50 an hour. Sounds good, but in an average season, a cheerleader will make only 30 or so appearances, and many of those don’t pay at all. For certain charity events, like those set up in the NFL’s or the team’s own name, cheerleaders are expected to attend without compensation, and rules require them to attend charity events at least twice monthly, depending on availability.

After investigating the role of terrorism in civil wars in Africa, Jakana Thomas comes away with the sobering conclusion that it’s often a successful tactic:

The popular adage that governments “do not negotiate with terrorists” appears to be untrue, at least in civil war. In a new study published in the American Journal of Political Science, I find that governments embroiled in domestic conflicts in Africa between 1989 and 2010 are more likely to hold negotiations with rebel groups when they engage in more acts of terrorism. Rebels are also likely to gain more concessions from their governments when they execute more terror attacks. …

Instead of asking whether terrorism is effective, we should be concentrating on when and for what purpose is terrorism effective, especially since the empirical record shows that terrorism has both hurt and helped the causes of violent organizations that have employed the tactic. Very little extant research, however, helps us understand this variation.

Reed Wood, co-author of a similar study, makes related points:

Attacks on civilians, we argue, hurt the state more than the rebels — even where the rebels are the ones committing most of the violence. In part, this occurs because maintaining order is central to the state’s victory whereas disorder, instability, and the erosion of state control directly benefit insurgents. When insurgents rely on civilian victimization, they impose significant costs on the state and send credible signals about their willingness to continue fighting a long, costly, and brutal war. The effect is that governments are increasingly likely to make concessions to violent groups, thus permitting the group to attain some of its political goals.

A reader writes:

Hopefully numbers like the price of the hep-C drug will remind us that when it comes to pharmaceuticals, the US is basically subsidizing the rest of the world (and I’m talking to you, countries with nationalized healthcare that negotiate much lower prices than the US).  This is just foreign aid, in another guise, whether it goes to Sweden, France or Egypt.  When we hear about the “efficiencies” and prices of other healthcare systems, let’s remember that part of the reason is coming right out of our pockets.

Another elaborates:

American citizens bear the costs (taxes, military, rule of law, patent system, education of scientists, etc.) of supporting the environment which makes possible the innovation these drug companies achieve.  Then our reward for our collective largesse is that we as consumers get to pay more, by an order of magnitude, for the same drugs than consumers in other countries.  How is that fair?

Another adds:

“For patients with a strain that is more difficult to treat, the regiment is 24 weeks. That comes in at $168,000.” Or $1,680 in Egypt – wouldn’t it be more cost effective for insurers to send US patients to “rehab” in Egypt?  That price difference is enough that building a residential clinic from scratch, and flying all of the patients first class to Cairo, is likely to be more cost effective than treating them here.  There is something economically perverse about that.

Update from a reader:

To the reader who suggested sending US patients to rehab in Egypt to take advantage of lower drug costs: It won’t work for the same reason we can’t all take advantage of lower costs of more run-of-the-mill drugs in Canada. It’s not as if Canada has a cornucopia drug supply. Canadian pharmacies buy the stuff from U.S. manufacturers. If the purchasing behavior of a large portion of the U.S. customer base migrated to another country, the drug companies would know, and they would adjust their pricing or their shipping policies.

Medical tourism can work for the individual when there is incentive for individuals to participate (ie, the cost is out of pocket. My daughter had excellent emergency dental work done while studying in Ghana, good enough and cheap enough that if I needed major work done on my mouth, I might consider a long vacation to Accra -because I don’t have dental insurance.) But it is problematic for an institution as large as an insurance company, and it certainly can’t work for a nation.