So reports ABC News:
A photo first posted to the humor Web site FunnyJunk.com and later to the Latino Web site Guanabee.com shows packages of Mattel’s Ballerina Barbie and Ballerina Theresa dolls hanging side by side at an unidentified store. The Theresa dolls, which feature brown skin and dark hair, are marked as being on sale at $3.00. The Barbies to the right of the Theresa dolls, meanwhile, retain their original price of $5.93. The dolls look identical aside from their color....A Walmart spokeswoman, who could not verify the exact store shown in the photo, said that the price change on the Theresa doll was part of the chain’s efforts to clear shelf space for its new spring inventory....
But critics say Walmart should have been more sensitive in its pricing choice.
“The implication of the lowering of the price is that’s devaluing the black doll,” said Thelma Dye, the executive director of the Northside Center for Child Development, a Harlem, N.Y. organization founded by pioneering psychologists and segregation researchers Kenneth B. Clark and Marnie Phipps Clark.
“While it’s clear that’s not what was intended, sometimes these things have collateral damage,” Dye said.
Other experts agree. Walmart could have decided “that it’s really important that we as a company don’t send a message that we value blackness less than whiteness,” said Lisa Wade, an assistant sociology professor at Occidental College in Los Angeles and the founder of the blog Sociological Images....
Wade said that Walmart could have chosen to keep the dolls at equal prices in an effort not to “reproduce whatever ugly inequalities are out there.”
Now it’s hard to figure out the precise reason for the price cut (and I assume here, based on the implications from the article, that there was a price cut). Maybe the black doll is indeed selling less well because (as Prof. Wade is paraphrased as conjecturing) “black parents are more likely than white parents to buy their children dolls of a different race.” Or maybe black parents were as likely to buy the black doll as white parents were to buy the white doll, but the store bought more black dolls than proved justified by the demographics of the store’s customers. Or maybe black parents are on average unwilling to pay as much for Barbie dolls as white parents (perhaps because black parents are poorer, or because they aren’t as into Barbie). Or perhaps (as the article suggests) the black Barbie doll is less attractive to blacks than the white Barbie doll is to whites. Or maybe there’s some other reason.
But what puzzled me about the story is that it didn’t discuss the effects of the price cut: (1) It disproportionately saved money for black parents (assuming, as is likely, that black parents are the ones who are more likely to buy black dolls). (2) It also made it more likely that white parents would buy the black doll for their white children, which might have broadened their child’s racial horizons (a symbolic effect on the child, perhaps, but the article is all about symbolic effects).
Conversely, while surely Walmart indeed “could have absorbed whatever loss it might have suffered had it kept Ballerina Theresa’s price the same as that of Ballerina Barbie” (to quote the article’s paraphrase of a source), keeping the prices the same means some loss to black parents as well as to Walmart. And while black parents could surely absorb a $2.93 price difference, too, the question — which the article did not confront — is whether they should have to.
EMB says:
I wonder whether this pricing decision was even made by a human being in the first place...
Quote
March 9, 2010, 2:23 pmMaryG says:
Traditionally, Barbies don’t have big bottoms. Maybe black parents want a more representative doll for their children. Even some white parents object to her unrealistic body/beauty type.
Maybe the tourists to lesser developed areas who stock up on toys and essentials to donate to children would have scooped up all of those darker-toned dolls, since American kids likely would prefer another trademarked character while plenty of kids just want any old doll.
Maybe... (wait a minute, EV. You really make a living doing this type of speculation. Who said the PC mentality that even seems to socially dictate that even two plastic items in a privately owned store must mandate equal pricetages, is rewarding across the board, eh?)
If a child — pick a color — throws a tantrum in the toy aisle, “Mommy! I don’t WANT a cheap Barbie!!!” do tell: Will the child be cited for an unlawful hatecrime, if indeed it is determined that the doll’s skin tone factored into the ugly words and behavior. (“No honey — don’t toss that dolly on the floor. Nooooo!”)
Hmm. The story didn’t confront that either.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 2:23 pmCrunchy Frog says:
Or maybe some people just need to get a life.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 2:24 pmJohn Burgess says:
Crunchy: Not only do these institutional complainants have a life (of sorts), they have jobs that seemingly require them to focus on the trite and inane. Further, those institutional complainants generally thrive on tax dollar-funded grants.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 2:31 pmneurodoc says:
I’m surprised Barabies retail for so little, both the black and the white versions. But the real profits come later, don’t they, when the child starts buying the clothing and other accoutrements, which I think must be without racial particularity.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 2:32 pmDangerMouse says:
Lisa Wade, an assistant sociology professor at Occidental College in Los Angeles and the founder of the blog Sociological Images
Oh good lord....
Here’s her blog. Mock her appropriately.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 2:34 pmConstantin says:
Wow.
Wasn’t this stuff supposed to go away circa Nov. 2008?
Quote
March 9, 2010, 2:34 pmht4 says:
Appologies in advance to the overly-sensitive people out there...
I heard that Walmart is looking for a new head of public relations after responding to this complaint with reference to Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution, also noting that the white Barbie was mismarked and should have only been $5.00.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 2:35 pmarthur says:
Since this is a constitutional law blog, I must note that if Barbie costs $5.93, Theresa should be valued at $3.56, not $3.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 2:39 pmruuffles says:
Isn’t this the same strategy used for pricing disposable razors?
Quote
March 9, 2010, 2:44 pmOff Kilter says:
I had a humorous retort, but arthur wins the thread...
Quote
March 9, 2010, 2:44 pmneurodoc says:
Yes, a strategy often credited to Gillette.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 2:58 pmPatrick J. Charles says:
Do not read too much into this story. I am sure most people that read this blog have not managed or done inventory at retail stores. Walmart has to change prices on thousands of products a week for those that don’t know. Do you think they sit in a conference room and discuss this and look at two different products? The fact of the matter is that sales reports generate what is selling and what is not. What happens then is the employee in charge of price changes finds the products and places the price changes on the products. The price disparity can be explained by the “black” barbie probably has a different UPC code than the “white” barbie and was not selling well. Why? It just is that way with slightly different products. In other words, blame the computer and sales reports, not Walmart.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 3:01 pmneurodoc says:
Yes, droll to be sure. Like so many of ArthurKirkland’s contentions wrong, however, this one for more than 140 years now.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 3:03 pmMaryG says:
“I’m surprised Barabies retail for so little, both the black and the white versions.”
I suspect this is more low end Barbie, with less packaging too. If you’ve been in Wal-Mart, they really do have toys (dolls, character figurines, sports equipment) for all budgets.
I’m sure they sell the fancier Barbies too at WalMart a shelf or two up — both black and white, even Asian and Hispanic — that retail in the teens and low $20s.
More packaging and “accessories” — very important to little girls — plus some gimmick, like Vetrinarian Barbie to match the Ballerina Barbie here. (Btw, the white one is “Ballerina Barbie” the other one is “Ballerina Theresa”.
Betcha that Barbie name alone counts for something in not marking it down, compared to “Ballerina Theresa”. Plus, if Hispanic Walmart customers limit the amount their children can spend on toys, while other market segments don’t, it might just be smart research here.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 3:03 pmArthur Kirkland says:
If Barbie is anything like beer, the most likely circumstance is that Theresa is a discontinued (perhaps by design) SKU, and that Walmart, like most chains, prizes prompt elimination of a discontinued item from shelves (to free space for its replacement, and to streamline operations) to the point at which it practically gives it away.
A more inconsiderate, or nefarious, situation is possible, but the early and smart money is on discontinued SKU discounted mindlessly.
I hope parents take advantage of the discounting to introduce Theresa to their children, just as I counsel that anyone who encounters a stack of differently labeled beer at a steep discount ignore the “new and improved” label and stock up on the “old” label.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 3:06 pmVisitor Again says:
And for many law treatises. The hard back volumes are dirt cheap; it’s the periodic supplements that cost and arm and a leg and that bring in the profits.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 3:07 pmptt says:
No doubt they’re both Chinese immigrants. Documented, of course.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 3:12 pmDave N. says:
It’s not fun when it’s low hanging fruit.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 3:13 pmBenjamin Davis says:
Given Walmart’s approach to relentless price reduction, I think it was an as essentially economic choice by Walmart to maximize profits (i.e. volume effect, inventory effect, market segmentation effect — whatever). As to the symbolism of the price differential, I suggest that the legacy of race relations in this country is the key to this. It is like a Rorschach (sp) moment with different people reading different things into the picture. We have no breakdown on purchases by race of one or the other. And even with that, the significance of those patterns today may or may not be relevant. Given the huge oppression against blacks in the time of Brown, Kenneth Clark’s work with dolls had an important impact on the court in seeing the consequences of internalizing racism on black children. Today, in the current different environment, the dynamic may be different or the issues of race are seen to play out in less clear manners because of the progress of the last 60 years. However, that desirability issues for toys would be reflective of something internalized by kids would appear to be something that social scientists would be studying which would no doubt inform the debate here. Thanks for the Walmart tip.
Best,
Ben
Quote
March 9, 2010, 3:14 pmCB says:
How ridiculous. How is this news? I guess ABC news doesn’t want you to look behind the curtain and notice the really bad stuff going on in business these days. Entertain them with circuses you know.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 3:15 pmEvilDave says:
ABC has a problem with Wal-Mart’s affirmative action?
Quote
March 9, 2010, 3:19 pmYankev says:
Someone has a future in the revamped DOJ, which has announced a renewed emphasis on statisticl disparities.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 3:19 pmMike says:
I thought this was well known? I remember reading in high school that Mattel’s attempts to introduce “ethnic” Barbies had generally resulted in lower sales for the non-white dolls. That sounds like a pretty obvious reason for the lower price of the closeout stock of product that isn’t selling.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 3:23 pmMaryG says:
Besides, it Bratz dolls, not Barbies, that are cool these days. Everybody knows.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 3:23 pmYankev says:
MaryG: I’m sure they sell the fancier Barbies too at WalMart a shelf or two up — both black and white, even Asian and Hispanic — that retail in the teens and low $20s.
The really expensive one is Divorced Barbie.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 3:24 pmFrank Drackman says:
I think its that whole “3/5″ a person thing...
Quote
March 9, 2010, 3:26 pmgeokstr says:
Given that this is a con law blog, and Walmart is often associated with flyover country and rednecks, I’m surprised that no one on the left has surmised that they actually were going to price them at only one-fifth of a white doll but figured that would be too obvious.
:-)
Quote
March 9, 2010, 3:28 pmYankev says:
You missed Arthur’s post above — 3/5, though, if Arthur and I remember the constitutional provision correctly.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 3:35 pmPeteP says:
( Ain’t monopoly a grand game ? )
Racism ! Racism !
Pay $ 10,000, do not stop at Al Sharpton, go directly to Jesse Jackson .....
Quote
March 9, 2010, 3:48 pmVirginian says:
This is great news. True racism clearly no longer exists if people need to resort to bitching about this petty crap.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 3:51 pmMaryG says:
“The really expensive one is Divorced Barbie.”
LOL !
Quote
March 9, 2010, 3:51 pmThe Berserker says:
I have an idea! What if Occidental College were to refrain from raising tuition and instead “absorb the loss” by cutting faculty salaries.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 3:56 pmMaryG says:
“If Barbie is anything like beer...”
Tastes great, less filling.
You thinking along those lines or something?
Quote
March 9, 2010, 3:57 pmSarcastro says:
No one owes Orin a Barbie!
I would also like to join in on piling on the knee-jerk racism strawman! Where is Borris when you need him?
Quote
March 9, 2010, 4:03 pmArthur Kirkland says:
More like affordable, mass-market, brand-driven consumer goods priced largely by image and emotion.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 4:04 pmOrder of the Coif says:
At big-box stores, price cuts are ordered by a color-blind computer program that tracks sales by SKU number. Just like anonymous grading in law schools. The SKU system is non-political and lets the chips fall where they may. Slow selling items get the earliest and deepest discounts. There is no “raceism” involved by the Wal-Mart.
Life is fair even if it the results aren’t identical.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 4:04 pmA. Dawson says:
Does it really matter if the dolls are priced at $3.00 or $5.93??? They are both priced under $10... which kind of makes them a cheap trick either way.
Instead of blaming (or praising) Walmart... why isn’t the ire directed at the consumers. I seriously doubt Walmart prices products differently based on racial criteria but rather a response to consumer demand.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 4:21 pmwfjag says:
Do you think it’s an accident that ABC decided to fire half of its “reporters” and close its bureaus, so that its remaining “reporters” will now work out of affiliates’ offices and be responsible for their own editing and production? Perhaps the other networks will figure out that “news” means reporting facts, and not merely stating opinions, and that the American public isn’t so dumb but that it can tell the difference. But, I’m not holding my breath.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 4:22 pmRoyLitmus says:
So clearly the demand, for whatever reason, for these black barbies is lower than white barbies. So, the solution to this problem is not to discount the product that is in lower demand until it reaches a price where the supply starts moving, but instead keep on overcharging resulting in the stock remaining on shelves and in warehouses? The result of maintaining the artificially high price will, instead of black barbies actually being sold to those who would like to purchase them at market price, they will probably end up is the dollar store or a dumpster.
I don’t know what is worse — discounting a black barbie by a dollar at a mainstream store so people buy it or relegating them to discount stores (which tend to appear at greater density in poorer minority areas) and/or just throwing them out.
If your motivation is one of perceived equality you would be better off letting Wal Mart discount and move the black barbies instead of rather seeing them in a landfill.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 4:24 pmA. Dawson says:
Anyone remember the legal challenge that Tom Forsythe went through?
http://creativefreedomdefense.org/
http://creativefreedomdefense.org/Results.cfm?category=12
Quote
March 9, 2010, 4:26 pmTRE says:
There are many people that don’t understand that the price of something is not its value.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 4:39 pmloki13 says:
Anonymous grading at law schools? I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell ya....
(In all seriousness, the law school veil of anonymity, at almost every school, exists only so far as the professor chooses to observe it. Which is to say that it makes fair professors grade fair, and doesn’t do much to police unfair professors. Except in large classes, where they usually can’t be bothered to be unfair.)
Quote
March 9, 2010, 4:41 pmArthur Kirkland says:
As was explained earlier, this situation probably hinged on Walmart’s demand for shelf space and streamlined operation far more than on consumer demand for Theresa (or Barbie).
Quote
March 9, 2010, 4:43 pmJackOfClubs says:
What Walmart should say (but never will): “If you wish to purchase the Theresa doll, we would be happy to charge you full price. If you do not wish to make a purchase, why should we care what you think of our prices?”
Quote
March 9, 2010, 4:49 pmTiger says:
Buyer beware: I went for the Bratz dolls although I still had a Supermodel Barbie at home. The were cheap at first, but the undisclosed hush fees were outrageous.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 4:51 pmmax says:
Dang it, Theresa is not black, she’s the Hispanic barbie — Kristie is the Black one. Some people obviously spend too little time with little girls, or maybe I’ve spent too much time with them.
**checks collar for brain residue from spending too much time with children**
Quote
March 9, 2010, 4:57 pmBored Lawyer says:
Totally off-topic:
You have almost hit upon one of my most useful rules of legal practice.
The First rule of Adjudication is: do what minimizes work for you as the judge.
Therefore, the first rule of legal practice is: try to convince the judge that if he rules as you wish, that will save him or her work. Although I cannot prove it, on many occassions this can sway a judge in your favor.
(I remember on one occassion, an adversary wanted to bifurcate discovery. When I pointed out to the Judge that this would likely lead to TWO jury trials, he botched the idea.)
Quote
March 9, 2010, 4:59 pmBob from Ohio says:
Hispanic Teresa. Not black. I know “they” are look alike to morons but African American Christie is not the same as Hispanic Teresa.
Need to find a new crop of “experts” about how this has something to do with the anti-immigration movement.
More seriously, Wal-Mart needs better spokeswomen. As anyone who has ever had daughters could tell you, Barbie’s friends and family are not as popular as Barbie herself. Girls prefer Barbie over her posse, even the white ones (Ken, Kelly).
Quote
March 9, 2010, 5:09 pmBob from Ohio says:
I see Max beat me to it.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 5:10 pmSigivald says:
The real question is why is the Hispanic one the only one without a boyfriend?
Racism!
Quote
March 9, 2010, 5:25 pmDG says:
Maybe Teresa really digs Kristie? Don’t be closed minded!
Quote
March 9, 2010, 5:31 pmMark Buehner says:
Perhaps the price gun system needs sensitivity training.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 5:35 pmnobody says:
Yeah, she comes with all Ken’s stuff.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 5:37 pmcityduck says:
I’m shocked that a lawyer who writes about Con Law would make this assumption! Haven’t you read Fn. 11 of Brown v. Board of Education which cited Kenneth Clark’s famous “doll test” study?
Quote
March 9, 2010, 5:43 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
When somebody who is of a group we are not a member of expresses a concern having to do with that group, how hard should we try to understand their viewpoint? It’s easy to say “that doesn’t bother me so it shouldn’t bother you”. It’s real easy when we don’t suffer daily slings and arrows that that group suffers.
Example — I don’t watch TV, so I don’t see the commercials that some men complain about, that over and over show the father/husband being clueless and stupid. But for those of you who tell me that it bothers you, I don’t have to watch them and I don’t have to be a man to believe you, that it bothers you; and not to assume that your concern is trivial b/c I didn’t see a problem before you spoke up.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 5:46 pmPatent Lawyer says:
I hear that Nerf brand foam guns sell much better than their generic equivalents. I assume race has something to do with it–it couldn’t possibly be that Nerf is a much more well known trademark strongly associated with foam guns.
Being a heterosexual childless male, I had never heard of Theresa before seeing this story–but I’ve certainly heard of Barbie. This has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the fact that Barbie has a 50 year history as a cultural icon.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 5:52 pmA. Criminal says:
“Now it’s hard to figure out... Maybe...Or maybe... Or maybe... Or perhaps... Or maybe...”
Maybe it’s not unusual for sanctimonious professional race-hustlers to get sympathetic press coverage. Why?
“But what puzzled me about the story is that it didn’t discuss the effects of the price cut: [...long cut] — is whether they should have to.”
No matter what Wal*Mart did — other than keep the prices exactly the same — some shysters would be getting paid to pretend that Wal*Mart’s actions continued to internalize heirarchical notions.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 6:01 pmwumhenry says:
If it had been the other way around — i.e., if the white doll were discounted instead of the black one — would many of the same soreheads be accusing Wallmart of price-discriminating against black customers? You know they would!
Quote
March 9, 2010, 6:35 pmJohn Jenkins says:
Contra Arthur Kirkland, I *have* managed and done inventory at retail stores. The pricing decision was based on the sell-through rate of a specific sku and the person who made the decision (assuming it wasn’t automated!) made it without even laying eyes on the product, most likely.
Retailers try to price seasonal goods so they sell out by the time the next season’s items come in. It’s possible that Theresa is seasonal and Barbie is not, but it is most likely that Theresa just doesn’t sell that well. A retailer like Wal Mart depends on being able to use the same dollar MANY times in a year to generate a decent return on investment. Inventory has a real, tangible cost to retailers and they need to keep it moving. There is no story here other than the relentless pursuit of profit maximization.
If the sociology types want to find an issue here, it’s with the purchasers, not the retailers.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 6:42 pmHerb Spencer says:
And they’re generally provided free legal representation by Big Law lawyers who aren’t exactly forthcoming in telling their clients, whom they bill $500+ per hour, exactly what sort of “pro bono” work they do.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 6:44 pmerp says:
Just when I think we’ve reached rock bottom in absurdity, a new low is revealed.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 6:54 pmjcm says:
I bought the four Barbies Musketeers for my daughter. One of them is black, was the cheaper. There were 3 available . I bought the last one of the other three. I live in Venezuela. I bought them in a faculty run store. ( the faculty of my Universities are the owners of the shop)
So is the same outside of the USA. Worst would be more accurate.
My blond daughter love them all.
Nota bene: the most expensive is the Barbie Lawyer ( This is the one with all Ken´s stuff)
Quote
March 9, 2010, 7:05 pmKazinski says:
Campus Republicans having an Affirmative Action Barbie Sale?
Quote
March 9, 2010, 7:28 pmvinnie says:
They priced dolls without consideration of race??? Racist bastards!!!! Only racist don’t consider race in EVERY decision!
Quote
March 9, 2010, 9:04 pmChiara Brown says:
I remember when I was little, we were poor so instead of regular Barbie I got Hispanic Barbie. She was cheaper, and to me she was prettier anyway. Even when I was that little, I figured more people wanted regular Barbie, and fewer people wanted Hispanic Barbie, so she was cheaper. Seemed like a good deal all around to me :D
Quote
March 9, 2010, 9:06 pmgasman says:
And if they had charged more for the black barbie the same group would have just trotted out a different version of their argument to prove racism.
Some folks can find racism where ever they look.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 9:35 pmUbertrout says:
Just a quick comment...assuming the demographics of the area roughly match those of the United States (66% white and 14% black), and assuming that dolls of the same race as the purchaser are preferred (by both black and white people), wouldn’t it necessarily follow that there would be greater demand for the white doll? I’m not saying that this is the case here, but it’s not necessarily racism.
Quote
March 9, 2010, 11:37 pmalishabaths says:
Hello,
It’s really good post
group would have just trotted out a different version of their argument to prove racism.
Some folks can find racism where ever they look.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge
Alisha
Quote
March 10, 2010, 1:02 amceebee says:
Typical of walmart. Do you really think these big corporations such as walmart give a damn about people’s opinions and feelings? No. The only thing they give a damn about is $, $ and $.
Quote
March 10, 2010, 1:36 amHans Clapton says:
–by a couple bucks, yeah. This chick gets paid big bucks to sit around dreaming up these astounding pronouncements.
Quote
March 10, 2010, 4:53 amFender Usa Showmaster Strat | Electric Guitar Sales says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » “Black Barbie Sold for Less … [...]
Fender Usa Showmaster Strat | Electric Guitar Sales says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » “Black Barbie Sold for Less … [...]
ChrisHo says:
I would suggest by that definition that Congress is a Corporation as well.
Quote
March 10, 2010, 7:12 amsubpatre says:
In case nobody noticed, this nation is obsessed with ‘race’ —whatever that means— and it is now official. On the 2010 census form, the amount of space devoted to the questions is (in order):
.
10% NAME
15% RELATION
04% GENDER
10% AGE & DOB
50% RACE
11% RESIDENCE
Half the questions are devoted to whether the individual is Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin like Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, or Spaniard; or White, Black, African Am., Negro, American Indian or Alaska Native (print name of enrolled or principal tribe), Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Other Asian such as Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Native Hawaiian, Guamanian or Chamorro, Samoan, Other Pacific Islander such as Fijian, Tongan, or some other race (print race).
What a legacy we pass to the future, that our government’s most pressing concern about a person was their racial purity. It says far more about us than it says about the individuals listed on the form.
Quote
March 10, 2010, 7:34 amRichard Nieporent says:
So now we know what happened to all of those bureaucrats from the South African apartheid regime. They were hired by the Census bureau.
Quote
March 10, 2010, 9:13 amLymis says:
And precisely how much of the census SHOULD be taken up with name and age?
Short questions with short answers are going to be a smaller part of the form. Uh, duh?
Work harder on your outrage.
Quote
March 10, 2010, 9:49 amSarcastro says:
Because the space devoted to a subject has nothing to do with how difficult it is to get a subject across, and everything to do with racial purity!
WAKE UP WHITE PEOPLE!
Quote
March 10, 2010, 10:14 amKen Arromdee says:
The problem is that the answer can’t be “we must try infinitely hard”. So where do you stop? You’ve got to stop somewhere, and you probably want to stop at some point before you’ve just handed power to the most easily offended person.
This gets especially bad when the activity
1) can happen by chance as a result of factors unrelated to racism (like setting prices based on an inventory system that doesn’t even have pictures of the dolls) and
2) is offensive for vague enough reasons that acting differently, or even doing the opposite, could still have offended someone
Quote
March 10, 2010, 10:29 amBlack Barbies at Wal-Mart « Gucci Little Piggy says:
[...] And as the Volokh Conspiracy points out, selling black dolls more cheaply than white dolls would be the perfect solution to inducing black children to play with black dolls instead of white ones – if that is a problem. It would be difficult to dictate that black kids should play with black dolls if they are in less demand and are sold at the same price as white dolls. If black kids do like white dolls better, they’d choose the white dolls in this case. [...]
subpatre says:
Sarcasstro is the perfect example of where this quest for race has taken us. The binary thinking about race —it’s either “white” or “one of many”— makes a conflict where there wasn’t one.
Past censuses have included occupation, amount of education, last address, birthplace, property owned or income. The census needs to count the country’s population, but it should also help illuminate the condition of the nation today, something that race does poorly. The census’ primary purpose it to show where we have been, what the American people are doing, how they are changing. Race doesn’t help that; race is of no historic significance.
Since Sarcastro brings it up, what race is “white”? The Serbians and Kosovars are different races; which one is “white”? What about the Franks and Gauls? Greeks and Turks? Russians and Georgians? The Sammi and Norse? All are better definitions of ‘race’ than the Census has for assigning different ‘races’ to people from adjacent Pacific islands with identical appearance and DNA.
Whether it’s Thelma Dye trying to promote it or Sarcasstro trying to ‘defend against it’, race has become nothing more than an industry; cash for lawyers, votes for politicians, influence for NGOs.
The EEOC news shows about one case of racial discrimination per 25 million people in each year. Being struck by lightning is 50 times more common, but even at 100 times that rate —extremely improbable given the huge cash rewards for discovery— it’s time to turn that offense over to private attorneys and move on.
Quote
March 10, 2010, 1:06 pmgasman says:
Since the constitutional mandate to the Congress was to ‘enumerate’, even obtaining the name and age seems to be more than called for.
Quote
March 10, 2010, 1:17 pmDavid Chesler says:
The 3/5 thing was done repeatedly yesterday, but this is very much an innumeracy thing, as the blog entry suggests, the same innumeracy that thinks it would have been better if slave-owners had gotten a full extra vote for each slave they owned instead of only 3/5 of an extra vote for owning slaves.
Quote
March 10, 2010, 2:52 pmA.W. says:
I think there is a really, really simple explanation for why “Black Barbie” is not selling: ITS NOT A BARBIE. yeah, apparently its from mattel, and has that barbie branding, but its Theresa, not Barbie, so one’s got around 6 decades of marketing behind it, and the other does not. As a dude, obviously i don’t know much about the world of barbie, but has there ever been a secondary character that sold anywhere near as much as barbie herself? i doubt it.
Btw, I wonder what they make of other examples. For instance I know off the top of my head that the two action figures that sold the most from The Phantom Menace was Darth Maul and Mace Windu (sp?). Maul was of course that black-clad devil-looking guy. They said he was one of their biggest sellers since Boba Fett, and let’s face it he was so bad-a–ed he almost saved that movie. He wasn’t even human, so no race applies. The other, Mace Windu, is the Jedi Samuel L. Jackson played. So thousands of kids went out and asked for the Jackson doll... er, I mean action figure.
I said this before and i will say it again. We need to stop counting who is what color. We really need to stop. Its just getting stupid.
But i will add this. Walmart keeps having reports of actual racism in their employment decisions. So maybe part of the problem is that Walmart doesn’t enjoy any benefit of the doubt on this subject.
Quote
March 10, 2010, 4:51 pmCurious passerby says:
Using this same rationale couldn’t you say that lower admission standards for blacks (affirmative action) hurt the reputation of fully qualified black college students because their peers would assume they are there only because of lower standards?
Quote
March 10, 2010, 4:58 pmyankev says:
Powerlineblog is publicizing an effort to persuade people to check the box marked “other” and insert the word “American” in the blank.
Quote
March 10, 2010, 5:01 pmyankev says:
A better question might be what percentage should be taken up by race. Some might argue zero. Some might argue that the census form has gone well beyond the information that the constitution requires.
Quote
March 10, 2010, 5:05 pmSarcastro says:
Some might argue that demographic info might be invaluable for research, and that the additional cost is minor.
But whatever isn’t specifically required in the Constitution must be forbidden!
Quote
March 10, 2010, 5:43 pmRocco says:
Or perhaps you get what you pay for :-)
Quote
March 10, 2010, 5:43 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Ken, my point is that it’s probably worthwhile to stop for a moment and ask onesself if one is being fair before minimizing another person’s concern. It could be that if you really thought about what it would be like to be that black parent noticing this, which would retroactively require really thinking like that about a whole lot of other stuff b/c it wouldn’t work out of the context of everything you would experience, you’d decide that it’s not really a concern.
Or it could be that you would decide that it was.
I could be wrong, but I think I see a lot of, excuse me, white men, (not that there’s anything wrong with that,) with the attitude: “I don’t see a problem from my perspective, therefore there’s no problem.” I think that before a person who is not a member of the problematic group makes that assertion, he or she needs to make a good-faith effort to see it from that group’s point of view. If you don’t feel that you can see it from that group’s point of view well enough to make an assertion either way, maybe the best you can do is acknowledge that the other person has expressed concern, and leave it at that. Case in point: the blog that was linked to earlier, with the suggestion that we mock it. I looked at it and I don’t find it mockable; in fact, it looks pretty interesting to me. Perhaps it is not the blog that the person who linked to it would have, and he thinks that if you’re not like him or don’t do what he would do, you should be put down and laughed at. You could mock my blog too. Or you could say “vive le difference” and move on.
Quote
March 10, 2010, 8:41 pmsubpatre says:
Laura(southernxyl) wrote: “I think that before a person who is not a member of the problematic group makes that assertion, he or she needs to make a good-faith effort to see it from that group’s point of view. ”
I think you are right, that perception is important. But is it more important that members of this ‘problematic group’ look at the truth —factual truth— about what is really happening.
According to the EEOC, whose job it is to enforce these discrimination laws, their news page lists a dozen or so cases per year in the entire nation. I believe the real number is higher, but if the number is a hundred times higher, actionable racial discrimination is (statistically) a non-issue. Lightning hits more people than get discriminated against because of race.
Perception is not always reality. It makes for eyeballs on newspapers, cash for lawyers, votes for politicians, and influence for special interests. It just isn’t real.
Quote
March 10, 2010, 10:17 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
You mean, than people who have actionable racial discrimination that they can prove, right? If Wal-Mart is in fact downgrading these dolls because they’re black, that’s not illegal and they can’t be sued. That fact would not mean that there is not racism involved.
Also, not always sure that perception isn’t reality. If I tell you that you are being sexist, and that you are insensitive to my concerns because you are sexist; and rather than tell me that you see how I could see sexism in whatever it is but objectively speaking it isn’t there b/c blah blah, you respond that we women are always making stuff up b/c we like to cause trouble, is my perception not real?
Quote
March 10, 2010, 11:02 pmThe computer engineer Barbie makes the web buzz | Sebbie on the Webbie says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » “Black Barbie Sold for Less … [...]
David Chesler says:
If you tell me “Nice weather we’re having” and I respond that women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, your perception would be real. Hypotheticals are not reality.
Quote
March 11, 2010, 12:08 pmKetchup says:
This racist Barbie doll price story is on the level of tabloids.
A paparazzi spends three days trying to get some titillating shot of Stupid Celebrity A, but all he gets is her sniffling away because of a miserable cold. Next day major tabloid headline reads, “Does Stupid Celebrity A have a cocaine problem?” Read all about it here! See the photos!
And given that half of the Forbes 100 richest people list is composed of Waltons, Walton children, Walton children’s children, Walton pet animals, and their pets’ pets, it gives us great pleasure to note that all the Waltons are ugly and look like 19th century farm peasants who recently changed their hairdos to the 21st century. But that “milking the cows” look is quite with them to this very day.
Quote
March 11, 2010, 4:57 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
David, but the complaint about WalMart wasn’t about their saying the weather was nice.
Quote
March 11, 2010, 6:18 pmDavid Chesler says:
No, Laura, the complaint was that their pricing policy was bad because it was racist. And I don’t see anybody responding “You __(group)___ are always making stuff up because you like to cause trouble”, where (group) is members of a particular race or ethnicity or religion or gender. It’s not sexist or racist or wrong to dislike people because of their political views.
Quote
March 11, 2010, 8:39 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
The people who talked about professional complainers were not complaining about their being black, but about their being professional complainers. That’s true. But when you accuse someone of just wanting to find something to gripe about, you are asserting that they do not have a valid complaint. If a black person says he thinks something is racist, or a woman says she thinks something is sexist, I don’t think it makes sense for a white man to immediately say that it is not, and “mock” the person who says it might be, without making some kind of effort to see it their way first. Feel free to disagree with me about that, but if you do, perhaps you’ll admit that that means that the white male viewpoint is assumed to be the default, and any other viewpoint is a probably defective variation on the default. And that you are cool with that.
Quote
March 12, 2010, 12:39 pmDavid Chesler says:
What’s a white male viewpoint? Do viewpoints have race or sex?
How much effort must I make to see something one way before declaring it to be wrong? And how much noise must I make about that effort when the person is quoted in a news story quoted in a blog?
I am cool that my viewpoint on everything is my default, and I’m cool with the conditions of my birth. I find it offensively racist and sexist that you find my viewpoint less worthy because of my race and sex.
I try to be scientific enough that if facts show me to be wrong I’ll change my viewpoint, without any regard for the race or sex of the speaker of those facts. (I don’t have enough time not to take into account the speaker’s expertise and biases. If an expert without a dog in the fight tells me something believable I might be more inclined to believe it as a squirrel away that factoid. I’m thinking HVAC so this week I learned I am supposed to seal off my attic, boilers heat water and furnaces heat air, you’re not supposed to use duct tape on duct work, and you shouldn’t consume hot tap water even in a new system. Do you want to know the races and sexes of who taught me that stuff? Learned some math stuff and some cooking stuff this week too.)
Quote
March 13, 2010, 5:52 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
That’s actually the question I started out with, I think.
I’m cool with it being your default, too. I am not cool with the assumption that it is THE default, if that is what you are assuming. Do you see a difference?
If the viewpoint of a black person or a woman differs from yours on an issue that they have extensive first-hand experience of and you have none at all, and that perhaps you haven’t had occasion even to give serious thought to, do you not think their viewpoint might have more worth than yours on that issue?
Exactly how many little black girls have you personally felt responsible for helping to develop a positive self-image? I don’t know you, for all I know you have fostered or helped raise black children. But if the answer is zero, can you say in the first five seconds of viewing a story such as this, that it’s not a problem and not an issue? Or would you feel that you would have to stop and look at the other person’s argument, consider it seriously, and apply some thought, before you decided that it was appropriate to mock that viewpoint, as another commenter said upstream?
Quote
March 13, 2010, 7:36 pmricky says:
The solution to this problem is to hire an army of Diversity Consultants to appropriately race-code every product so that Wal-Mart can avoid such heinous acts of nondiscrimination in the future.
Quote
March 14, 2010, 11:51 amDavid Chesler says:
Laura(southernxyl):
Is there an answer?
I’m not sure. People may disagree. We can try to convince each other.
I think I’m hearing from you that you think I think my being white and male has some bearing on whether my current viewpoint is correct. I deny that that fact has any bearing (except for correlations, and that my own experiences have been impacted by that situation.)
As a matter of fact, the energy auditor was black. I believed him. Not because he was black, but because he was trained in energy audits and seemed to know his stuff and explained it. And he wasn’t selling anything (which brings the analogy closer) — he didn’t care if I bought a new boiler or not, so I didn’t doubt that the numbers he gave me were accurate.
Quote
March 14, 2010, 1:09 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Well, IMO, people need to make enough of an effort to satisfy their conscience and not to look like an idiot. Some people will need to make more of an effort than others, I guess.
My opinion again — there is a difference between viewpoints being correct and being default. Going back to the Walmart case — if it was a matter of inventory control algorithms that priced those dolls differently, which it looks like it was, then it is incorrect of anyone, regardless of viewpoint, to say that Walmart was being deliberately racist. But if the question is not what Walmart’s intention was, but rather, is it a problem that a black child sees that the dolls are priced differently — well, your viewpoint might be “that’s not a problem” and that of a person who is raising black kids and sees stuff all the time that you are oblivious to might be “it’s just another brick in the wall”. Suppose that somebody at Walmart said that they could fairly easily code items so that a price disparity like this one would be flagged for a person to look at to make sure that at least the dolls weren’t displayed side-by-side. Should your viewpoint automatically be the one considered when the decision is made whether to do that? David says it’s not a problem, so if anyone disagrees with him we’ll just disregard? That’s what I mean by “the default viewpoint”.
Exactly. Now suppose that this black energy auditor, who has already struck you as being a person who knows his stuff in that area and therefore has some sense, tells you that it hurts his little girl’s feelings to see that black doll priced less than the white doll. He has a different viewpoint than you do b/c you’ve not seen a little black girl in the act of noticing something like that, and he has; and a girl who is dear to him, as well. Whose viewpoint is more relevant on this issue?
Quote
March 15, 2010, 8:08 pmDavid Chesler says:
I see. No, I have to defend my viewpoint if I want to convince others. I can appeal to my authority, as a heuristic time-saver, if that’s applicable.
I never doubted that this might be a black little girl’s impression. This would be a good opportunity for him to explain to his daughter that not only is there nothing nefarious in this[*], for the reasons discussed here, but in this case it works to her advantage.
There are plenty of real offenses to be hurt by; one will be happier if one doesn’t find them where they don’t exist.
[*]At least on WalMart’s part — is it demanded less because people prefer dolls that look like them, and there are more white people than black people shopping there, or is it because people of all backgrounds prefer white dolls to black dolls, or is it because Barbie has the name recognition that Theresa doesn’t?
Is Theresa one of those mythical economic goods where increasing price increases demand? In that case the geniuses in Benton should add that to their algorithms, but if it’s so they probably noticed that discounting Theresas didn’t move them any faster.
I should also add that my viewpoint as a white male should also be valued — just as the little girl is offended by WalMart, and Ms. Dye is offended by WalMart not anticipating a problem, I’m offended by Ms. Dye finding a problem where there shouldn’t be one, and next time I hear a claim of racism or racial insensitivity my a priori assumption will be to believe it that much less.
Quote
March 16, 2010, 12:57 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Well, but look at what Ms. Dye said:
The first thing I see here is her job title and employer. She’s going to have a whole lot more experience than I am in dealing with black kids and the problems they face. That doesn’t make her automatically right, but I think it would make me look like an a-hole if I assume that I know more than she does about an issue she faces every day and I can only speculate about.
The second thing I see is that she says, in so many words: “While it’s clear that’s not what was intended, sometimes these things have collateral damage.” This is exactly what I was suggesting earlier: she’s not saying that Walmart did this on purpose, she’s talking about the effect that this kind of thing has on black kids. Surely you are not unaware of the concept of unintended consequences. Sometimes they are the worst, because if they’re not brought to someone’s attention, they’ll go on and on because people rely on their good intentions to keep them from doing harm rather than think objectively. And then react negatively, as if they are being accused of bad intentions, if they’re asked to think, even if the speaker SAYS she doesn’t suspect bad intentions. I actually think her remark is very temperate. The fact that you are offended by it possibly means that you are a bit too sensitive.
Quote
March 16, 2010, 11:19 pmDavid Chesler says:
Conversely, it makes it more likely that she is looking for these sorts of things, as is and has been easily parodied.
She’s only talking about the negative effects; the basenote points out positive effects she seems to have ignored.
It’s an ill wind that blows no one harm; especially when dealing with unintended consequences one should look at the net impact. Otherwise one is open to the accusation that one is cherry-picking to feed a bias or an agenda.
Since you are not a white male, you cannot know what it is like to be repeatedly accused of racism and sexism.
Quote
March 17, 2010, 8:58 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
David, where do you get that she is accusing you of anything? Isn’t it hypersensitivity, when she says Walmart didn’t have bad intentions but sometimes things like that cause collateral damage to black kids, and you took personal offense? Do you think she is saying that you personally went in and marked down those black dolls? Or what? What’s to be offended about?
Do you think you are an expert on the effect that something like this that you would never notice on your own has on black children? Do you honestly think you know more about that than Thelma Dye does? Really? Are we back to “it doesn’t bother David so it’s not a problem”?
Quote
March 17, 2010, 3:55 pm