I would say you should look up authoritative, peer reviewed, scholarly (blah blah, blah) articles studying differential academic achievement based on race or income in what ever country/state you are from.

That way your arguement is buttressed by the work of someone the prof. may take as authoritative. Also, he is an academic, you need to speak in his language.

This article is a great sort of shorthand for understanding privilege:
http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html

I also second the idea that you should get scholarly articles- try searching race and sociology journals through the university library (I'm partial to J-Stor, if they have a subscription). Also, if the prof is really, honestly interested, tell him to audit some women's studies/black american studies classes! Good luck.

white, male, physics prof?

Ask him, first of all, how many women are in the classes he teaches, or in the physics major, in general...then ask him how many of these women participate in physics-related activities outside of class compared to the number of men that do that.

I know at my university, there's an award for the woman who has contributed the most to the math department. This involves the math club, tutoring, etc. I feel like they need this award because really...there are barely any women who are motivated to do any of this, considering the number of guys who are. And this makes no sense to me because the classes seem split 50/50.

"Ask him, first of all, how many women are in the classes he teaches, or in the physics major, in general...then ask him how many of these women participate in physics-related activities outside of class compared to the number of men that do that."

That is no good unless you can show him (in a manner he respects) that women choose to avoid physics classes for larger, structural purposes.

If you ask him why no women are in his physics classes he could repsond "Why do so few men take Women's studies? Answer: lack of interest."

Also, you start getting into rhetoric and opinion. If there was a scholarly article about physics (or other math/science enrollment) you could lay an academic smack down.

Also, when you point out one instance (his classes) you open yourself to all sorts of problems with sampling. Better to have article that has already covered those bases.

Also, talking about physics enrollment may not be the best way to talk about scholarships on a University wide level.

I can only speak from my own experience here, but here goes. I am white, hetero, female, and come from a relatively poor background. The high school I went to, however, was pretty rich and I was able to get a pretty good education there and get into college because of the money that came into that high school. I wouldn't have even been able to get into college (much less art school, as a poorer high school wouldn't have had the resources available for me to develop my artistic skill, talent or no) had I gone to a poor high school.

In college I got grants and scholarships based on my family's income (and additional loans based on my mothers hideous credit and inability to qualify for the Parent Plus loan) and that was pretty much the only way I would have been able to go to college, not having the privilege of parents who actually thought "this child might want to go to college, we should save up for that".

So there's my story of grants and loans making up for what a lack of privilege could not provide. I do consider myself pretty lucky to have gone to the high school I did though.

privilege, power, and difference by allan johnson... an easy read, clear and concise about privilege. and it's applicable to many sorts of privilege.

I think it's odd that this physcis prof wants to talk to you about it. Am I the only one getting red flags? Maybe you should bring another academic to speak with before you meet with this person. Science is still notoriously misogynistic so don't expect a lot from this guy.

privileges he might not realize he gets a a white heterosexual male off the top of my head:
he is not held to unattainable standards of beauty, catcalls are not something he regularly deals with, he is not told to be careful of attacks at night, sleeping with multiple partners is not something he will be castigated for, strange men to not feel the right to touch him, should he turn down a proposition it will most likely not be questioned, when alone on a room with multiple members of the opposite sex he does not likely become uneasy, he does not make sure that he watches his drink every step of the way to his table at a bar for fear of date rape, if he has children they will not be considered detrimental to his career, he can kiss his partner in public with out fear, statistically he has better access to health care and did so even as a child, statistically his parents sent him to either a "good" public school or better, statistically, statistically his parent made enough money to allow them free time to be actively involved in his life/schooling as a child, statistically he went to school with out being hungry or worrying about how the electricity bill would be paid or exhausted from working a full time job while trying to graduate high school, statistically his parents could afford to cosign on a school loan, statistically his teachers did not write him off because of his race, sex, or nationality, his parents/siblings did not need his financial support to survive, and his parents had enough schooling to help him with his homework, most likely the also spoke English.

but looking up the statistics is a really good place to start.

A regular example I usually bring up in conversations like this is the college application process. Colleges look at several factors when determining whether to admit a student and/or give them money.

At my high school (white, middle-class), we were told that we need to have a large amount of and extensive involvement in extracurricular activities. I was told that one in not enough, no matter how much time you spend doing it. It also looks better if one or several of these activities is charity work. Looking at this for college admittance and scholarships is incredibly classist. Who has time to devote to hours of extracurriculars? Who has the money to invest in those extracurriculars? Only the middle- and upper-class students. Ones who don't have to work to help support their families, or babysit while both their parents work.

Colleges also expect students to have both good grades and SAT scores. Not only are most public and private schools fraught with middle-class and white values and curriculum, but so is the SAT. Minorities consistently make worse SAT scores than their white contemporaries. Part of this is the bias of the test, and part of it is the cost of prep courses. I remember the only prep course offered in my high school was upwards of 500 or 600 dollars. Not only that, but taking the SAT costs money as well, and scores always improve the second time. Richer kids can afford prep courses and a second test taking, while poorer kids cannot, and their scores can suffer significantly because of it.

Hope that helps.

Whoops, I don't know why I typed "always" there. SAT scores obviously do not ALWAYS improve the second time, just usually.

I can think of two specific examples. I'm chronically ill. Most people who go to college have to worry about doing well in class, I have to worry if I will be healthy enough to even walk to class. I have to excell even when the mscles in my hands are so cramped that I can not write, even when my vision slides out of focus to the point where I can not write, even though I have to go home every third weekend for doctor's appointments. I go to class (regularly) with a high fever, with joints that are damaged to near immobility, with searing migraines. I have to face the hill in the center of my campus and climb every. agonising. step. to even GET to my fucking class. Most healthy students have no clue what it is like to be disabled and a student.

I also have a relatively low income student. This means several things.

1. I'm graduating in three years. This meand I take 20-30 credits every semester, instead of the usual 16. This means way more work, and I still have to do just as well as my classmates, better, even since I want to get into a top graduate program.

2. No summers or vacations off. I take credits at my local cheap community college and work full time or more to save money in the summer. I can't do those enriching unpaid internships that look to good on a resume.

3. I work 20-30 hours a week during the semester. This means my job is my extracurricular activity. I have no time for all those extracurricular activities which build a resume. So to a scholarship committe, I don't appear "involved in the community." I don't have to time to pursue other academically and personally fufilling things in my free time. Not to mention, working this much makes it very hard to excell in school.

I will also say this, in my field, despite taking history for years, often 2-3 courses a semester, I only had 3 female history or social studies teachers in my 12 years of primary and secondary education. It wasn't until I got to college that there were even female role models for me in my field.

I'm applying for the Marshall scholarship...if you go to the websites for the really prestigious undergraduate fellowships (The Rhodes, Marshall, Mitchell and Gates Cambridge ones) and read the applicant bio, you'll see that all the students are priveleged. They list not only stellar grades, but also dozens of extracurriculars. I don't have time for those. My college's faculty sponsor is trying to figure out how to "package" me so that the committees see me as desirable. There's a chance they won't, because I'm not the typical priveleged student who can do all these things in my free time.

I fight every day to simply be in school and do well. I have time for little else.

Also, maybe another example which he might find more "relateable." One group which consistently fare badly in college admissions is what I call the "rural New England valedictorians" group. These can be bright students from any rural area, really. They usually play varsity sport or two, but the local team is only decent and has no real recognition. They are usually at or near the top of their class, but the school isn't very competitive and most students aren't college bound. They've usually taken every advanced course their school offers--but that may just be one AP, competing against students with 6-10. Most college don't want these students, moreso because they're "expensive" in terms of financial aid, without bringing up diversity statistics.

Maybe its a group the professor will have an easier time having sympathy for than, "those angry feminists and scary brown people." *insert sarcasm here*

Another obvious privilege: I was encouraged to take the SAT/ACT multiple times. I got a good score, so I didn't, but my brother did and his SAT went up quite a bit. Studies have shown students do better the second, or even third time (controls for stress, preparation, etc), so it was pretty much a no-brainer for everyone in our schools, some of my peers actually signed up for two before they took the first.

And all this was possible because we are deeply privileged. We didn't worry about having to miss work to get there. We didn't have to worry about actually getting there. We didn't worry about the $45 price for the first one, or the later ones. Even if our parents were putting multiple kids through that process, we didn't have to worry, because of privilege.

And don't forget, SAT/ACT scores are sometimes used to determine scholarships, meaning that the privilege that made it easier for us to get into college will also make it easier for us to pay for it. For that, there's little merit in us, at least no more than someone who had a lower grade because they only took it once. And this isn't just for a handful of suburban white kids, it's really prevalent--among people whose parents don't really need that $45 for something else.

The logic can also apply to us having tutors (better homework, better edited papers, at least) and being able to stay at school later to retake tests, or arrive early or stay late for teacher run study sessions, because we didn't have jobs and didn't rely on the bus schedules to get home.

Oh, and one last thing before I shut up: While discussing privilege with the privilege, it's pretty important to note that being privileged doesn't mean you don't deserve what you have, the privileged often work really hard to get what they have, they just didn't have to put up with as much bullshit. We may be white, middle class, straight, cisgendered, but that doesn't mean we didn't work for what we have, and that's where the privilege discussion falls apart. (Admittedly, there is the other side to this: Many privileged people do think being privileged means they deserve better than the people who didn't, such as men who want to keep their hiring privilege.) It's just that the people who are unprivileged need a bump, some privilege of their own.

Speaking as a (white, male) physicist, I can tell you that most physicists are well-intentioned towards creating a level playing field, if often hilariously ignorant and freakishly stubborn about how to do it. Of course, physicists are only people, so you may be met with resistance, but hey, wanting to talk is a good step.

Since we're talking about physicists here, let me suggest the writings of Sean Carroll and his co-bloggers at Cosmic Variance. Sean's been a long-time friend of women in physics (as well as being an incredible teacher who wrote an extremely popular textbook) and he recently wrote an interesting post on spontaneous social symmetry breaking. The gist is, that while we believe (in physics) that certain things are the same, the way they manifest themselves in the real world is drastically different. And, in analogy, while we believe (in life) that certain things are equivalent (whites/poc, male/female) the way they manifest themselves in society is not.

If that all seems a bit heavy, Sean's also written other great
posts about women in science, which might prove useful. The first of those links, btw, also contains a plethora of links to empirical research.

So here's my advice. Go armed with a good analogy (physicists love analogies) and some references to empirical research.

Speaking as a white, female physicist, go read Thus Spake Zuska on scienceblogs.com. Check out her blog roll, too. Sean is a good writer and all that, but if you want some real insights into privilege, read the people who suffer from its lack.

I have a question - A previous post mentioned that the SAT is biased towards middle class and white values. I've always heard this about the SAT (and other such tests). My questions is (and I'm asking this because I really want to know - I'm not trying to stir up controversy or to refute the claim): How exactly is the SAT biased? Previous posts have mentioned how the availability of economic resources affect test outcomes, and obviously the quality of a student's high school education (which is related to many socio-economic factors) is very relevant but, excluding such factors, what is it about the test itself that makes it racially biased?

The prof wants to speak with me because he's not sure what he thinks about the subject, and he wants to hear it from someone in a position that they need these scholarships.

I'm Canadian, as well, so the SAT stuff doesn't apply. Thanks for some of the suggestions! Mmm, blogs.

Rachel_Setzer commented on August 26, 2008 4:43 PM: "not having the privilege of parents who actually thought 'this child might want to go to college, we should save up for that'."

For that matter, even some students who do have that privilege still need lots of financial aid because they didn't have the privilege of parents who were able to save up for that.

From what I heard, a lot of parents who do think "this child might want to go to college, we should save up for that" instead of "her husband will provide" or "college is elitist" or whatever try very hard and still can't save up enough (for lots of reasons, including their own lacks of privileges).

Courtney Stoker commented on August 26, 2008 7:15 PM: "Looking at this for college admittance and scholarships is incredibly classist.

Who has time to devote to hours of extracurriculars? Who has the money to invest in those extracurriculars? Only the middle- and upper-class students. Ones who don't have to work to help support their families, or babysit while both their parents work."

That's especially true if these colleges don't count afterschool jobs as extracurricular activities (even though they're literally extracurricular, being outside the students' curricula!) and don't count helping people as charitable when the people you help are your parents, siblings, etc.

Are there any colleges and universities which already count afterschool jobs the same way they count other formal extracurricular activities, accept signatures from employers the way they accept signatures from sports team coaches and music instructors, etc.?

Courtney Stoker commented on August 26, 2008 7:15 PM: "Colleges also expect students to have both good grades and SAT scores. Not only are most public and private schools fraught with middle-class and white values and curriculum, but so is the SAT. "

...and the less those high school classes and SAT and ACT have to do with the college's own curriculum, the less relevant those are in selecting students to study that curriculum.

clothilde commented on August 26, 2008 10:55 PM: "They've usually taken every advanced course their school offers--but that may just be one AP, competing against students with 6-10."

Also, it is possible to take an AP exam in a subject without taking an AP-level class in the subject first (I did and I know abother kid who did a few times to get his 10 AP scores). However, that's still harder and less advantaged than taking the AP exam after a year or semester of relevant classroom discussion in the subject.

I had the privilege of having to 10 hours of work at the high school to get a sports/activity fee waiver. I also had the privilege of volunteering at soup kitchens and participating in my Youth Court where youth cases were deferred to the youth court; the files were typically expunged when the teen passes 18 without subsequent offenses. My point is that there is not a huge barrier to extra-curricular activities. I didn’t have a car or license, but Busses run and I had a bike, and I was able to swallow my pride and work around the school to do more than one after school activity. Its about wanting it.

Paul commented at August 29, 2008 1:13 AM: "I didn’t have a car or license, but Busses run and I had a bike"

Good points about opportunities for students whose parents raise them in places with higher population density.

Meanwhile, I was raised in a community where the buses I could take did not stop anywhere but homes, schools, and the library. The town had a school bus fleet, shuttle buses for the elderly, and no other mass transit. Moving to a place where more buses ran wasn't an option when I was 15.

Some other teens are being raised in even less dense areas where bicycling to an extracurricular activity is dangerous thanks to multi-lane highways getting in the way (unless one's eligible-for-admissions extracurricular is at one's home, in a neighbor's house or on campus, one needs a car ride there), and forget about walking to a workplace to earn enough for a bicycle if one's family can't already afford it (unless the neighbors are willing to hire and pay one well for a lot of babysitting).

Before I begin I'd like to state I'm new to this site. I also feel compelled to mention I'm not a Feminist or MRA. Neither philosophy generally identifies injustices that affect the opposite sex. I'll post periodically and will evenly defend women and men. [I know you guys like when people put women before men in sentences] FYI: My grammar sucks.

I've always been fascinated when feminists discuss white male privilege. I see it this way. If anything, white females have become the new privileged demographic. Examples include government entitlements [ie: government induced chivalry], political correctness and the fact that society continues to support the communal goals of women over the individuality of men. I certainly understand the logic when feminists claim these entitlements are necessary to even the playing field. I think of some issues that are unique to men and wonder how society would react if the genders were switched. Women live longer and upwards of 7 federal agencies exist focused primarily on women's health. None for men. I think 90% of work related deaths are male. Men are far more likely to become homeless and commit suicide. The mental illness aspect I know first hand because I work as a Psychiatric Social Worker. [A predominantly female dominated industry that's underpaid considering a MSW is a prerequisite]

Anyway, if these issues were inflicted on females, it would become a national crisis. I'd be naive to suggest women don't face inequity, but we certainly hear about them everyday and the government takes strong initiatives on many of these issues to even the playing field.

By the way, Camille Paglia is my favorite dissident feminist. Sorry ladies, I have issues with NOW because they generally put politics above gender. I also see some victimization. MRA's can be interesting but many are angry and probably lonely. I do like Warren Farrell.

Some more bad news. I'm affiliated with the Independent Women's Forum.

My experience with feminism is somewhat limited. As a Sociology major I did take one Woman Studies class. I found the women highly intelligent but many were hypersensitive.

Quick comments on some other feminist issues.

Pornography: I don't watch it. I find it boring and the music sucks. I do believe people have a right to watch it. Its a woman's CHOICE if she chooses to become a porn actress. Prostitution is also a choice and I suspect some women might find it empowering. I'm very big on individuality. I'm perplexed when some feminists discredit a woman's choice because they feel it detracts from their goals. If a woman is pro life, who is anyone to question that?

Abortion: What the woman down the street does is none of my business. I do have A problem with countries like China and India that use abortion as gender selection. Usually the female fetuses are aborted.

Gay Marriage: Again, what other people do is none of my business. Gay pride is fine, but lets not forget heterosexual pride.

Misogyny: A term that's over used. Isn't the word defined as the hatred of women? If I tell a blond joke, do I hate women? Both genders have stereotypes about one another.

Biological Differences: Absolutely! I'm a firm believer boys and girls learn differently.

Why not some quick facts about me?

I'm 26 and graudated from Syracuse and live in Queens.

I'm a social worker.

I have a girlfriend that makes 3x as much money as me.

I breed cats. Russian Blue and Burmese

I like pizza, Yoo-hoo, Devil Dogs, pasta, Canadian Whiskey and Yankee baseball.

I'm 5'10 and getting chubby. My girlfriend tells me I'm getting moobs.

I listen to Industrial Music as well as Heavy Metal. [Ministry, Skinny Puppy, Iron Maiden, Wumpscut, etc] I also love Duran Duran.

I WATCH PRO WRESTLING [yes, I know its fake]

I can't think of anything else. I like this site and plan to stick around.

Before I begin I'd like to state I'm new to this site. I also feel compelled to mention I'm not a Feminist or MRA. Neither philosophy generally identifies injustices that affect the opposite sex. I'll post periodically and will evenly defend women and men. [I know you guys like when people put women before men in sentences] FYI: My grammar sucks.

I've always been fascinated when feminists discuss white male privilege. I see it this way. If anything, white females have become the new privileged demographic. Examples include government entitlements [ie: government induced chivalry], political correctness and the fact that society continues to support the communal goals of women over the individuality of men. I certainly understand the logic when feminists claim these entitlements are necessary to even the playing field. I think of some issues that are unique to men and wonder how society would react if the genders were switched. Women live longer and upwards of 7 federal agencies exist focused primarily on women's health. None for men. I think 90% of work related deaths are male. Men are far more likely to become homeless and commit suicide. The mental illness aspect I know first hand because I work as a Psychiatric Social Worker. [A predominantly female dominated industry that's underpaid considering a MSW is a prerequisite]

Anyway, if these issues were inflicted on females, it would become a national crisis. I'd be naive to suggest women don't face inequity, but we certainly hear about them everyday and the government takes strong initiatives on many of these issues to even the playing field.

By the way, Camille Paglia is my favorite dissident feminist. Sorry ladies, I have issues with NOW because they generally put politics above gender. I also see some victimization. MRA's can be interesting but many are angry and probably lonely. I do like Warren Farrell.

Some more bad news. I'm affiliated with the Independent Women's Forum.

My experience with feminism is somewhat limited. As a Sociology major I did take one Woman Studies class. I found the women highly intelligent but many were hypersensitive.

Quick comments on some other feminist issues.

Pornography: I don't watch it. I find it boring and the music sucks. I do believe people have a right to watch it. Its a woman's CHOICE if she chooses to become a porn actress. Prostitution is also a choice and I suspect some women might find it empowering. I'm very big on individuality. I'm perplexed when some feminists discredit a woman's choice because they feel it detracts from their goals. If a woman is pro life, who is anyone to question that?

Abortion: What the woman down the street does is none of my business. I do have A problem with countries like China and India that use abortion as gender selection. Usually the female fetuses are aborted.

Gay Marriage: Again, what other people do is none of my business. Gay pride is fine, but lets not forget heterosexual pride.

Misogyny: A term that's over used. Isn't the word defined as the hatred of women? If I tell a blond joke, do I hate women? Both genders have stereotypes about one another.

Biological Differences: Absolutely! I'm a firm believer boys and girls learn differently.

Why not some quick facts about me?

I'm 26 and graudated from Syracuse and live in Queens.

I'm a social worker.

I have a girlfriend that makes 3x as much money as me.

I breed cats. Russian Blue and Burmese

I like pizza, Yoo-hoo, Devil Dogs, pasta, Canadian Whiskey and Yankee baseball.

I'm 5'10 and getting chubby. My girlfriend tells me I'm getting moobs.

I listen to Industrial Music as well as Heavy Metal. [Ministry, Skinny Puppy, Iron Maiden, Wumpscut, etc] I also love Duran Duran.

I WATCH PRO WRESTLING [yes, I know its fake]

I can't think of anything else. I like this site and plan to stick around.

Sorry, don't know why there a duplicate post.

The second person who posted left you the link that absolutely made me understand privilege when I was first learning about it! I would definitely use that one!