Being white is highly correlated with being privileged due to historical circumstances, but it is only a racist reading of the word that thinks that being privileged is being white.
When pro-white racists exist and are more common than anti-white racists in positions of influence, being white is, on its own, an advantage other people don't have.
It may also correlate with wealth, parental education, and other sources of privilege, but it is a source of privilege itself.
> but it is only a racist reading of the word that thinks that being privileged is being white.
Being white is, ceteris paribus, being privileged, not the other way around.
And, sure, that's a product of the existence of racism, but it's not racist thinking to recognize the effects of racism.
>One of the first things they showed us was a photo of the parents who had protested against the schedules devised by the algorithm. Nearly all of them were white. The majority of families in the Boston school system are not white. White families represent only about 15 percent the public school population in the city.
followed by:
>Optimizing the algorithm for greater “equity" also meant many of the planned changes were "biased" against families with privilege.
Since the author didn't clarify what they meant, or differentiate between them I am assuming they used the two terms interchangeably.
One funny thing I noticed. You could argue that since white families only constitute 15% of the public school population these changes disproportionately negatively affect a minority group.
When we speak of wanting to assist minorities this is when they are disadvantaged minorities. i.e. they are the opposite of privileged.
Please don't just play word games.
Don't disproportionate negative consequences constitute a disadvantage? Especially when faced with the existing issues of being a minority in a school system? Who really is disadvantaged here?
You can compound that with the new racism definition and I'm starting to wonder where all this supposed privilege is.