Quote :

"Nice trap. You will always have an out because no one can know that 'true' misbehavior rate anywhere, only what is reported and/or disciplined. You'll say there is bias in what gets reported or actually has consequences depending on race, so you'll get to throw out any data that anyone presents to you. You have already concluded that any data-gathering method is tainted by white racism. It's a nice game, being impossible to prove wrong. So, why don't you go to a poor, mostly black school. Then go to an equally poor, mostly white school. Then get back to us."

Holy fuck man. Do you have any idea how ironic this shit is? You're hand-waving away the usefulness of evidence and whining that it's ME who's couching himself in an impossible-to-prove-wrong position. I have posted data and studies, I have responded to critiques of their methodologies as well. I knew this would happen when I posted them, because that's part of the whole process of actually learning and discussing things.

You saunter in here, post a single graph with no context (Except that they're old..but why would that matter?), no accompanying paper, and are indignant when I actually ask you to put a little more behind it. Then you have the nerve to tell me I have an impossible-to-disprove position? Give me a fucking break, your position is "Black kids had lower SAT scores in this one study. Also niglets are rowdy. Case closed, stupid lieberals why don't you see the common sense!"

Quote :

"And believe-you-me it was hopeless. Maybe I didn't get to the part where they found black kids are punished more for the same offense, but if they wanted me to get to that point, maybe they should have made a summary that was less than 3 pages long."

These papers aren't written for the Sunday reading pleasure of armchair sociologists, sorry. Here's a pro-tip from a computer whiz: Use the control-F key to search a document for a phrase. I mentioned "Cigarette smoking", so type "smoking" into the search bar and it'll take you to about page 13, where big bold letters say "Differences in referrals by race". There's a lot of big scary statistical liberal gobbledy-gook there, and I'm guessing you wont understand it, so I suggest going to the "Discussion" section, which is right after and reading it in full. It's less than three pages, and mostly layman-accessible.

Quote :

" Everything I did read was along similar lines of what TULIPlovr is saying. That you can't trust A statistic, you can't trust B statistic. Again, maybe they figured out a way to tease out the bias but not as far as I can read. It's obvious that they wanted to get to that point from the title alone."

You only read to page 3. You don't get to make broad critiques like this when you literally didn't even get to the data. Again, these general arguments against the usefulness of statistics are cute, but quite obviously you're employing them to insulate yourself from either responding intelligently to my own citations, or finding your own. In other words, you want to put the least possible effort into understanding this subject aside from consulting your gut.

Quote :

"What I got from the paper is that this either can't be done with the data out there, or it turns up a null result."

What I got from this post is that you don't read material presented to you, then comment on it as though you did. The weirdest part is you think you should be taken seriously for it. I understand you're trying to contribute, but saying "It's too many words, but I think [thing I would have said anyway even if I didn't read page 1]" isn't contributing, it's just muddying waters. Asking me to refer you to a specific page is what an intellectually honest, sincere person would do.

I mean, goddamn, I've seen people read a paper and then dismiss it on fallacious grounds. That's one thing. But not reading a paper, then dismissing it, then claiming your very dismissal is based on "What I got from the paper" ? That's some aaronburro-in-the-global-warming-thread shit right there.

[Edited on October 24, 2012 at 8:56 AM. Reason : .]

10/24/2012 8:50:01 AM

well i got fed up and tried to get the conclusion, but the discussion goes pages 14-19. I mean, is the conclusion really so complicated that no less than 6 pages will suffice?

Table 3. blah blah blah blah

last measure: No. of Days Per Suspension

total

Black: 2.38 days, n=1715
White: 2.33 days, n=823

I saw this figure. Ok I say, so the data that sits there clear-as-day is inconclusive. What does the paper say? The paper says a whole lot of stuff, almost none of it useful. To the extent that I read, it got to the point that it recognized that the punishment isn't greater for black kids when they're referred.

After 3 more paragraphs of doubting the quality of the data, I was pretty sure it wasn't getting to a point where it reverses the observation it just made convincingly. This data doesn't show anything.

10/24/2012 8:58:02 AM

Quote :

"Do you have any non-anecdotal evidence of this?"

I don't have any but my own anecdotal experience and perceptions, which I think match up with common perception among whites: kids who emulate "thug-life" are more likely to disrespect teachers and misbehave, regardless of skin color. I've seen thuggy white kids get the hammer and I've seen nerdy black kids get treated like princes. Is this not the perception you're trying to change; to prove that raw racial discrimination plays a part in handing out discipline? Or is this just about tww 1-up-manship?

Anyways, I skimmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2678799/ and it seemed worth reading if I wasn't posting while at work.

10/24/2012 9:14:01 AM

Do you think I didn't read it either? I'm a bit insulted now.


Page 15, starting with the last paragraph, to the end of page 16, specifically deals with the proposition that "They get punished more because they misbehave more."

Not only do they write "We are unaware of any empirical findings that support this position, although there appear to be some that contradict it." but they go on to cite those contradicting papers. Then go on to explicitly state that the discrimination emerges not in the days of suspension given, but in the rate of referrals, with the office acting as a pass-along.

Quote :

"Rather, African American students are referred for and subjected to severe consequences for less serious and more subjective reasons."

In contrast, they found that similar discrepancies in referrals for boys vs. girls actually did correspond to behavioral differences.

Seriously man, either read it honestly and put effort into it, or don't and just say so. Don't fake it.

[Edited on October 24, 2012 at 9:21 AM. Reason : ..]

10/24/2012 9:19:10 AM

If you're too lazy to do research on race issues, you're too lazy to comment on it. At least, if this is going to be a thread filled with "Well one time I saw a thugged out black kid do X in class and..." then I'm not gonna waste time and effort actually digging up data for you guys.

edit: Urrg sorry Lumex I'm a bit fired up right now and conflating my frustration with mrfrog's laziness with you. I'm just a data-driven guy, and when you're talking about racial discrimination, which is necessarily due to subjective biases, the subjective observations of individuals simply aren't a reliable thing to go by.

Like if I say "White people tend to more readily interpret blacks as threatening and defiant." then a white person responding with "Well I don't know about you, but my anecdotal experience is that black people ARE more threatening and defiant!" doesn't really advance the conversation much.

[Edited on October 24, 2012 at 9:36 AM. Reason : .]

10/24/2012 9:33:26 AM

That has a particular compounding effect inelementary school when a student can get labeled as having a behavioral disorder which will affect then for the rest of their school career.

It should almost be illegal to have behavioral things from 1-3rd grade put on your permanent record.

If you accept that the system has racial disparities, isn't affirmative action the lazy solution? Part of the intention is to get people to think about racial bias, but it seems to also serve the purpose of preventing moregranular anti discrimination policies.

10/24/2012 9:35:26 AM

That has a particular compounding effect inelementary school when a student can get labeled as having a behavioral disorder which will affect then for the rest of their school career.

It should almost be illegal to have behavioral things from 1-3rd grade put on your permanent record.

If you accept that the system has racial disparities, isn't affirmative action the lazy solution? Part of the intention is to get people to think about racial bias, but it seems to also serve the purpose of preventing moregranular anti discrimination policies.

10/24/2012 9:35:26 AM

Quote :

"If you accept that the system has racial disparities, isn't affirmative action the lazy solution? Part of the intention is to get people to think about racial bias, but it seems to also serve the purpose of preventing moregranular anti discrimination policies."

This is a decent point. Affirmative Action might be the most blunt, sloppy way to go about changing these things. The general idea is "If we smash enough racial diversity into the workplace and schools, people's racial biases will fade" due to effects which have been born out by many studies, but is indeed working pretty slowly. In schools, for instance, it's compounded by class effects. In the workplace, it's undermined by the wage gap and power relations (Few black CEO's, etc).

Meanwhile, factors like the media and the education system seem to be the primary movers in keeping racism alive, but there seem to be very, very few measures directly aimed at them.

[Edited on October 24, 2012 at 9:43 AM. Reason : .]

10/24/2012 9:39:59 AM

Quote :

"Do you think I didn't read it either? "

Of course not

Quote :

"Then go on to explicitly state that the discrimination emerges not in the days of suspension given, but in the rate of referrals, with the office acting as a pass-along."

Based on lunch status adjustment? They quote an "effect size" predicting more referrals per student for blacks of

unadjusted: 0.248
adjusted: 0.206

And this is the evidence? I don't even see how this fits with the definition of effect size, honestly. And maybe it's because I don't usually read statistical papers, I'll gladly admit that point, but this should still more directly map the data to the conclusions.

Office referrals are 2.08 for white kids and 2.50 for black kids. So what is the effect size? The correct way of articulating this to the best of my knowledge is that going black gets you 0.42 more referrals. So I don't know what information these numbers are giving off the bat.

And then we're saying that correcting for lunch status is sufficient to correct for socioeconomic status? No. Why would you think that. Lunch status, as I understand it, is a binary variable.

10/24/2012 12:39:09 PM

Going back to the spirit of this thread, I think AA really needs to end.

I understood its need back in the 70s, 80s and 90s, but I don't think it's worthwhile today. I think race-based discrimination is nearly gone, and today's racial disparity statistics are showing us cultural discrimination which is 1) simply inherent in our species and can only be mitigated to a reasonable lower threshold; and 2) can be justified in certain rare circumstances (when there is a functional conflict between an applicant's culture and job duties). AA works against the goal of mitigating discrimination by aggravating racial biases (sentiments).

Even if it does improve racial employment parity, is that still a justified end if race-based discrimination is effectively gone? What if all it is doing is giving minorities an advantage in overcoming their socioeconomic starting points or lack of connections?

Note: everything I said is based on my own perceptions and experience. I've read a lot on this subject too, but I don't keep reference at hand. I welcome contradicting evidence, and I wish I could thoroughly prove my opinions, but that would probably take up all my free time. I'm also lazy.

[Edited on October 24, 2012 at 1:28 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2012 1:22:12 PM

So what is it that magically harms black SAT scores without affecting classroom order and behavior?

With whatever you choose, why does that thing (expectations, tracking, media portrayals, whatever) leave behavior intact while killing academic performance?

10/24/2012 1:29:01 PM

^ a quick google search revealed this interesting information:

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009324/tables/sass0708_2009324_t12n_02.asp
race of teachers, white, black, ..., ..., ..., Latino
All schools 3,898,420 83.5 6.7 0.5 1.3 0.2 6.9 0.9

So maybe the fact that proportionally so few of the teachers are black hurts black students. Seems funny when you consider that minorities are represented most strongly in education majors. Maybe they get the degree and don't teach. I'm just making stuff up now.

[Edited on October 24, 2012 at 2:34 PM. Reason : ]

10/24/2012 2:34:27 PM

^I shouldn't have left that one off my list.

It's just that this whole thing doesn't make any sense at all to me. Anything that broadly reduces SAT scores by nearly 100 points per section (vs. others with the same low income) has to carry with it behavioral issues.

Whatever kills self-esteem, self-image, expectations, or changes cultures or hopes, or anything else somehow brings down scores but doesn't affect classroom order.

He's immune to data, so I'm trying simple logic.

10/24/2012 2:50:34 PM

Quote :

" Anything that broadly reduces SAT scores by nearly 100 points per section (vs. others with the same low income) has to carry with it behavioral issues. "

Yeah, 100 points is no small thing.

But it sounds like you've implied that the study we talked about (few posts up) should expect kids with lower test scores to behave worse, even if they're the same economic class. Ok.... quite a few things there.


Firstly, the study didn't establish that black kids are punished more than what their economic situation predicts. They're punished more than what their lunch assistance status predicts. Potentially, they could be punished totally proportionally to what their economic situation predicts. Maybe not.

Let's say that black kids are punished more than their economic status predicts. It's a valid conclusion that the teacher's treatment of the kids influenced their test scores. I mean, if the teacher punishes them more often, I would expect the teacher also tutors them less. This is the claim I've heard before - that white kids get more attention in the classroom. Logically, that would have a direct causal relationship with test scores. If the teacher teaches to you more, you lean it better.

Or it could be that higher rates of single motherhood in black communities literally makes the kids dumber. They then act up more and the teachers ignore them. However, that would require their family structure to affect the school performance of the kids more than the household income. That seems tenuous, but so does the claim of the study based off school lunch status...

10/24/2012 3:09:53 PM

Quote :

"I think race-based discrimination is nearly gone, and today's racial disparity statistics are showing us cultural discrimination which is 1) simply inherent in our species and can only be mitigated to a reasonable lower threshold; and 2) can be justified in certain rare circumstances (when there is a functional conflict between an applicant's culture and job duties)."

It depends what you mean by "race-based".

I think you could argue that racism of the nature "i don't like blacks, I will do what I can to work against them" is marginal enough that policy shouldn't be based around it (unless youre talking about Mississippi, W. Va., and probably a few other states) .

But there is more than enough systemic racism, partially introduced by the policies that pre-date the Civil Rights era, that still has significant effects throughout society.

I completely disagree that the racial construction of U.S. society is a result of qualities inherent in our species however.

[Edited on October 24, 2012 at 4:37 PM. Reason : ]

10/24/2012 4:36:25 PM

An interesting systemic issue I read about a couple months ago...government-subsidized pre-k programs are often required to include a certain percentage of children with disabilities (10% in the article) in order to get funding. But the students don't have to have identified disabilities when they're enrolled...the programs get to enroll the students and identify the disabilities after they've worked with them, which makes sense...except that they have to identify the disabilities.

10/24/2012 5:03:55 PM

Quote :

"But there is more than enough systemic racism, partially introduced by the policies that pre-date the Civil Rights era, that still has significant effects throughout society."

Give me an example.

Quote :

"I completely disagree that the racial construction of U.S. society is a result of qualities inherent in our species however."

I'm not sure what you mean by racial construction. I'm only saying that humans have a natural impulse to associate with like-minded people, and the aggregate of this tiny bias within a large population will be measurable discrimination, e.g. hiring practices. I mentioned this on the previous page. Lets recognize situations where discrimination is simply the aggregate of this impulse and try a different approach rather than futily trying to completely purge bias from our behavior.

For example, a business could introduce a hiring policy where applicant names are excluded from consideration.

[Edited on October 24, 2012 at 5:18 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2012 5:14:47 PM

Quote :

"Give me an example. "

Of what, systemic racism, or jim crow era policies that have lingering effects?

I'll just copy/paste a post I made from another thread:

Quote :

"The results of the study supported Biased Evidence Hypothesis and indicated that participants who saw a photo of a dark- skinned perpetrator judged subsequent evidence as more supportive of a guilty verdict compared to participants who saw a photo of a lighter-skinned perpetrator. "

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1601615

Quote :

"We find that persons of African and Hispanic descent were stopped more frequently than whites, even after controlling for precinct variability and race-specific estimates of crime participation."

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1198/016214506000001040

Quote :

"Does Victim Race Affect Police Clearance of Violent Crime Incidents? Results suggest that the race of the victim, particularly in combination with the race of the offender, is related to police clearance of violent criminal incidents"

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418820802266462

10/24/2012 5:25:25 PM

I should have qualified the fact that I'm just talking about economic and educational areas of public life. I think law enforcement and criminal justice are a separate matter with unique challenges that definitely justify examination and reform.

10/24/2012 7:25:50 PM

you don't think that justice issues affect economic and educational attainment?

10/24/2012 10:43:27 PM

They might become more intertwined as many of our urban middle schools become progressively more militarized. I think the existence of a metal detector and police at the gate will likely affect the performance of the students, not to mention that we don't even try to claim that those police don't racially profile.

Recently, I've been seeing more stories about how school discipline is being elevated to law enforcement at the drop of a hat. They find a butter knife in your stuff and then you're facing a trial. Plus, teachers don't want to take personal risks. Toward middle school and high school you're big enough to be seen as a physical risk, and when assessing that risk everyone profiles whether they admit it or not.

10/25/2012 2:27:03 PM

^^I never implied that. I was talking about AA.

10/25/2012 9:32:45 PM

I'd like to take this moment to point out that you don't have "bad"/dangerous schools when you mix everybody up instead of sending all the poor kids to the same schools.

In fact, bussing would reduce or eliminate so many of the concerns mentioned in this thread. Of course, it wouldn't guarantee equal outcomes, but it would go a long way to promoting equal opportunity.

Race-based or SES-based bussing and reforming the criminal justice system would be da bomb for equality.

10/26/2012 1:29:16 AM

BUT AH DONT WANT THEM NIGGERS THAT THUG ELEMENT IN MAH SKOOLZ ITS WHY AH MOVED HURR

10/26/2012 2:20:16 AM

^^ That seems like a weak solution compared to mixed housing development on a national scale.

But people love to dismiss that off-hand because the Carys of the world throw up whatever building regulation they want - infinitely precluding high density housing, which is the only type of housing poor people could hope to afford there. That goes back to the basic reality that people are selfish. As long as a parents are able to cluster so that property tax gives their kids a better education there's no reason for them not to do so. Other people's kids aren't their problem.

The real solution is to just move a large fraction of SE Raleigh into low cost housing in Cary, whether Cary wants it or not.

10/26/2012 8:24:51 AM

^^^Redistribution/redistricting creates another dilemma in regards to property values. School districts have a dramatic effect on the price of housing.

Will you compensate those families who have paid a premium to buy/rent in a location that originally offered access to a certain district? What if the housing costs of low-income families in certain areas increase once its known the city will ship them to the better schools in the suburbs?

10/26/2012 10:57:01 AM

doubly posted

[Edited on October 26, 2012 at 10:57 AM. Reason : .]

10/26/2012 10:57:01 AM

Wealth distribution is bad. Poor kids should only get as good of an education as their parents can afford. See: living within one's means.

[Edited on October 26, 2012 at 11:13 AM. Reason : ]

10/26/2012 11:12:49 AM

Lewis said the N-word again.

10/26/2012 11:17:54 AM

And you said "the N-Word" again. I'm more offended by your post than his.

10/26/2012 11:19:32 AM

Are there similarly offensive words for Whites or Native Americans?

Surely honky, cracker, or chief aren't as good as it gets.

I want to really be offended here.

10/26/2012 11:51:14 AM

^ "I'm a white man, you can't even hurt my feelings"

10/27/2012 11:08:06 AM

This is what mrfrog sounds like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYqF_BtIwAU

Quote :

"Wealth distribution is bad. Poor kids should only get as good of an education as their parents can afford. See: living within one's means."

See: perpetual and worsening inequality

10/27/2012 12:51:38 PM