Klarinet Archive - Posting 000223.txt from 1999/02

From: DHmorgan@-----.com
Subj: Re: [kl] Women and orchestras
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 17:21:43 -0500

In a message dated 2/4/99 10:32:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, bhausman@-----.com
writes:

<< At 08:02 PM 2/4/99 EST, DHmorgan wrote:
>In a message dated 2/3/99 5:43:07 PM Pacific Standard Time,
dodgshun@-----.nz
>writes:
>
><< The system we use for auditions here works well in that respect
> - we do them blind. Each candidate plays from behind a screen and is
> identified by number alone; this way you don't get any prejudice creeping
in.
>>>
>
>Ah, but here's the problem. They've done studies that show that even in
>double blind situations, evaluators will rank the performance of people of
>their race and gender HIGHER than other races and genders. The examples I'm
>thinking of have to do with writing, but I wouldn't be surprised if it
weren't
>the same with music. As long as you have humans in the equation, bias will
>creep in. It's so subtly embedded in everything we do that we don't even
>notice it. What to do?
>
If the audition is truly double-blind, the judges will be unable to execise
their prejudices, since they won't know which person to favor or disfavor.
In a writing situation, something in the subject matter may give clues, but
do blacks/women/hispanics/whatevers really interpret Mozart differently
enough that the distinction can be made on sound alone? >>

In the study cited [forgive, but since I 'retired from race relations' I no
longer has access to any thing other than my memory of it] the students
subject matter was not subject to choice--they were proving a legal point
assigned to them. The surprising, startling, unexpected and confounding
result (and I think many people following this thread are in the grips of this
surprise) was that, while the law professors had no OBJECTIVE way of knowing
the race/gender of the student, nonetheless, they were biased towards their
group. We are not talking about objectively poor English, the use of slang,
double negatives, or one student writing a paper about a polo match and the
other sharing their mother's recipe for Gumbo! :-) We are talking about very
subtle hints--use of language, word choice, the way arguments are framed.

While the search for objectivity is understandable, there is a great deal of
research to support the conclusion that perception is always subjective--that
is, we do not OBSERVE passively--we order the world, ACTIVELY, in some way and
then LOOK FOR EVIDENCE OF THAT. In a very real sense this implies that
PERCEPTION IS BIAS. If we order reality, we order it according to our biases
and only then to we 'perceive'. Of course, we all have a large measure of
control over how we order reality, as long as we use our mental facilities to
analyze it and make corrections, which we all do constantly.

What I am positing here--and it is just a hypothesis--is that, yes, in fact
the way someone plays Mozart could have a race/gender 'coding' if you will
that is unconsciously appreciated by those with a similar background and
unconsciously overlooked, or looked down on, by those of differeing
backgrounds. In a society where EVERYTHING is race and gender coded--colors,
textures, TV shows, music, neighborhoods, products, etc., etc.--it might not
be safe to assume that the simple act of playing Mozart on the clarinet is
somehow exempted. Especially since, when we are talking about musical
performance, we are talking about 'expression' within what is arguably THE
MOST EXPRESSIVE art form. Rather than being somehow 'pure' or 'objective,' it
may be, given the infinite range of human expression possible through music,
that race and gender clues which trigger bias exist in a GREATER abundance
than they would in technical legal writing.

Absent a well-constructed study, we can only conjecture. Probably, all anyone
following this thread can do is keep it in mind--but the logic I'm bringing to
bear on this point would argue in favor of not ignoring or dismissing the
possibility of unfair race and gender bias in even the most meticulously-
constructed, double-blind, auditions.

Truly,
Don

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org