"Who compares the wealth of single parent white households with that of black married couple households? Is this meaningless "apples to oranges" comparison supposed to be good news or something that's useful if we want to close the wealth gap?"
Ian Rowe in his book, Agency" that's who. His point, as is mine, is that the factors determining disparate statistical results MUST INCLUDE VARIABLES ASIDE FROM RACE!!
It is not true that the half of Black America 32 or younger have "only experienced stagnation," Clifton. Human beings are not stick figures in statistical measures based on the fallacious idea of race. I believe in clarity and precision in language too. So why not say SOME young people identified as black have experienced stagnation?
Have the children of the 340,000 black-identified millionaires only experienced stagnation?
I don't mean to imply that children of wealthy parents don't have problems, goodness no. But, for goodness sake, why can't you grok that from a business and investment perspective, there must be assets of some kind, tangible to intangible, to draw upon to raise angel or venture capital?
Your narrative of lack and limitation, I daresay, lends itself more to the bias narrative than the development narrative. The bias narrative is focused on how historical discrimination and so-called systemic racism is the reason we see disparities. The bias narrative is more focused on external obstacles over internal communal and cultural resources, whether expressed by individuals or the group. The development narrative points to the need for Afro-Americans to develop the skills, habits, and mindsets that will allow us to improve ourselves internally, within the group, to ameliorate the disparities and problems that still beset us.
By painting an exclusive picture of lack and limitation, you provide fuel for those who center on the bias narrative. They will point to the same statistics you do, but will look at external causes as the basis. My perspective, which transcends the bias narrative while including the reality that we as a group, and as a society, have far to go, paints a picture of our actual historical and cultural achievements as a people, and supports thereby a development narrative. One develops based on foundations. Our achievements is one such foundation.
Although personal, individual accounts aren't "statistically significant," they still can serve as representative anecdotes with larger implications. Take my daughter, for instance, now 27 years old. She is in the cohort of 32-and under that comprises 50% of the group. She grew up in an environment of working to middle-class people; within the family, it was primarily Afro-American in ethnic and cultural terms, at school, it was a diverse mixture of students from various ethnic and cultural backgrounds on Staten Island.
Her mother and I divorced when she was very young; her mother and I both remarried, so according to "statistical measures," she grew up in a "broken home." NO. She had a birth mother and a stepmother, a biological father and a stepfather--we all loved and love her and supported her growth and development. As a pre-teen, she stayed with me on weekends, and I would take her to Barnes & Nobles regularly for her to be around books and literature. She was surrounded by books and music and art at home too. She studied at the Harlem School of the Arts when I lived in Harlem.
How did she fare? Well, she was deeply disappointed when she wasn't accepted to any of the NYC specialized schools. But God works in mysterious ways. My former wife, her mom, and I agreed that she should come live with me and my wife in New Rochelle, NY, and attend the very good public high school there, rather than the lackluster high school she was zoned for in Staten Island.
She blossomed academically and otherwise, coming into her own as a young lady. And when she applied to college, she did so via early admission at Dartmouth . . . and was accepted! She continued to blossom there, majoring in computer science. In her junior year, she was selected as one of the top ten college women of the year by Vogue magazine, and was also one of three Afro-American young ladies honored by Michelle Obama on the Black Girls Rock television program.
After graduation, for several years she worked as a computer engineer in Silicon Valley. Two years ago, she applied for graduate school. She was accepted, and is currently in her last semester in a joint MBA-Engineering program at MIT.
Does my daughter's story not matter because it's relatively rare, indeed exceptional for a young person of ANY background? Cannot her story of Afro-American success despite the odds inspire others? This is an example why stories of actual success and achievement are crucial: they can inspire others who can themselves see what's possible, and can build their own aspirations for growth and development.
Here's a quote from my mentor Albert Murray on why such asset-framing is essential:
“Sometimes Americans are disposed to fair play and sometimes they are not. But they almost always invest their time, money, and enthusiasm in assets with promise, not liabilities. Even those who become involved in salvage operations have been sold on inherent potential.”
You ask about my deracialized version of blackness. Simple: it acknowledges that we are a people, an ethnic group, with a powerful culture, who have made strides in spite of almost insurmountable odds, and have contributed greatly to America's culture and conception of freedom. I don't use the term "blackness" per se because it is too akin to a persistent belief in race and racialization. We are a people, nonetheless, as I've said, with an ethnic and cultural identity. It is not necessary to hold onto the idea of race, the practice of racialization, and the mindset of a racial worldview, to have a personal and ethno-cultural group identity.
I'm just trying to get more people to realize and accept that reality, but racecraft keeps getting in the way. But there are a growing group of persons, for instance, Amiel Handelsman, who see the light at the end of the tunnel, and rather than making excuses for why the time isn't right to deracialize, shows the courage to do so NOW.
With all due respect, your arguments don't hold up under scrutiny. I gave Amiel concrete examples of the lack of absolute (inflation-adjusted) and relative economic progress made by Black America over the past 20-30 years. Feel free to refute this with data from credible sources if you can.
Black people who are 32 or younger, which is half of Black America, have come of age during a period of minimal black economic progress. There's no way around this. You can find a handful of black people who are doing well, but the macro-level numbers don't lie.
Half of Black America has come of age during a period when academic progress in relative and absolute terms has been almost nonexistent. Derek Neal's paper shows that the black-white skills convergence stalled out in the late 1980's. His work demonstrates relative stagnation. The most recent NAEP scores show absolute stagnation since test scores are now lower than they've been in decades:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The COVID-19 pandemic caused historic learning setbacks for America’s children, sparing no state or region as it erased decades of academic progress and widened racial disparities, according to results of a national test that provide the sharpest look yet at the scale of the crisis.
Across the country, math scores saw their largest decreases ever. Reading scores dropped to 1992 levels. Nearly four in 10 eighth graders failed to grasp basic math concepts. Not a single state saw a notable improvement in their average test scores, with some simply treading water at best.
Those are the findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress — known as the “nation’s report card” — which tested hundreds of thousands of fourth and eighth graders across the country this year. It was the first time the test had been given since 2019, and it’s seen as the first nationally representative study of the pandemic’s impact on learning.
“It is a serious wakeup call for us all,” Peggy Carr, commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, a branch of the Education Department, said in an interview. “In NAEP, when we experience a 1- or 2-point decline, we’re talking about it as a significant impact on a student’s achievement. In math, we experienced an 8-point decline — historic for this assessment.”
Researchers usually think of a 10-point gain or drop as equivalent to roughly a year of learning.
The declines were most noticeable for groups that were under-performing before the pandemic began.
We'll have to respectfully disagree if you think wordplay and other ways of avoiding the "brutal facts" will lead to progress. I've watched people do this for years. The results speak for themselves.
The larger context of the lack of progress by Black America over the past 20-30 years is the lack of progress of the working class and the middle class in the U.S. period in the post-industrial period. As you point to in a comment below to Amiel, a belief in the American Dream itself has greatly decreased.
I'm in full agreement with the development narrative over the bias narrative. No argument there. I also agree that the future is with the young, and that to successfully face the future, they must gain better skills to be competitive. One reason my daughter is successful is her application of a range of soft and hard skills in university and corporate settings.
Where we apparently don't align is in the value of telling the stories of those of us who have gained the skills, and overcome the obstacles. Such examples and stories exemplify more than some formula for success; they demonstrate in pragmatic and pro-social ways how individuals have been able to achieve despite the odds. Our young people should know about these stories to bolster their aspiration and sense of possibility.
Since you're a data guy, can you please quantify the number of people--an estimate would be fine--that comprise the "handful" of black people who are doing well? Thanks for continuing our exchange.
The Gini Index, a measure of income inequality, is higher for blacks than it is for any other racial group in America. Here's a definition of the Gini Index from the U.S. Census Bureau:
The Gini Index is a summary measure of income inequality. The Gini coefficient incorporates the detailed shares data into a single statistic, which summarizes the dispersion of income across the entire income distribution. The Gini coefficient ranges from 0, indicating perfect equality (where everyone receives an equal share), to 1, perfect inequality (where only one recipient or group of recipients receives all the income). The Gini is based on the difference between the Lorenz curve (the observed cumulative income distribution) and the notion of a perfectly equal income distribution.
Here are Gini Index numbers for families by race as of 2021 according to the US Census Bureau:
All races - .462
White alone - .452
White alone, not Hispanic - .443
Black alone - .483
Asian alone - .455
Hispanic (any race) - .456
Use this link, then download Table F-4 if you want to do a deep dive:
Here are the family income cutoffs (upper limit) for blacks by quintile as of 2021 according to the US Census Bureau:
Bottom - $25,000
Second - $47,000
Third - $75,035
Fourth - $123,782
Top 5% - $230,016
The ratio for the cutoffs for the top 5% and the bottom 20% is 9.2 (230,016/25,000)
Here are the comparable numbers for white families:
Bottom - $43,000
Second - $74,602
Third - $113,001
Fourth - $177,700
Top 5% - $325,165
The ratio between the cutoffs for the top 5% and the bottom 20% is 7.6 (325,165/43,000)
Here are the numbers for all families (All races):
Bottom - $40,000
Second - $70,506
Third - $109,354
Fourth - $174,001
Top 5% - $319,769
The ratio between the cutoff for the top 5% and the bottom 20% is 8.0 (319,769/40,000)
These numbers show the same pattern as the Gini Index numbers by race. There are wider gaps between those at the bottom of the black distribution compared to those in the upper tiers than for white families and all families. Use the same link above and download Table F-1 for individual racial groups if you want to do a deep dive.
Just as there are two America's economically, there are two Black America's. It's easy for people who've "made it" to lose sight of this. Pew Research did an analysis of income inequality withing Black America last March as part of a report titled, "The Growing Diversity of Black America:"
Income inequality within the Black population remains one of the widest within a major racial or ethnic group. In 2019, Black-headed households with income in the 90th percentile among the population of Black households earned 14 times that of Black households with income in the 10th percentile. The 90th percentile of households in the overall 2019 population, by contrast, earned 12 times that of households with incomes in the 10th percentile.
Pew's calculations are based on different numbers, but they show the same pattern. Their analysis also confirmed the income stagnation issue I highlighted earlier. Here's another excerpt:
Since 2000, the U.S. Black population has not seen significant increases in median household income. The median income for households headed by a Black person was $44,000 in 2019 (before the COVID-19 pandemic-induced recession). But household income of Black households varies. Roughly three-in-ten Black households (29%) made less than $25,000 in 2019, while a quarter earned between $25,000 and $49,999 – which means that more than half (54%) of Black households made less than $50,000 in 2019. About one-in-six Black households (17%) made $50,000 but below $75,000, 10% earned at least $75,000 but less than $100,000, and 18% earned $100,000 or more in 2019.
People within the lower tiers of the wage distribution saw higher gains than most since the beginning of the pandemic according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta's Wage Growth Tracker, but wages haven't kept up with inflation. Middle and working class families have struggled to make ends meet as a result.
Use this link to access the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta's Wage Growth Tracker:
I simply wanted your estimate of the number of Black Americans you thought were doing well, out of approximately 44 million. Of course doing well is a relative term. I didn't want to wade through a lot of data, just your own estimate, since you have the stats at the ready.
Speaking of the Gini index, do you think that there is a correlation between income inequality and violent crime? Some researchers connect the two. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/338347. If this correlation is accurate, might that have anything to do with the violent crime rates in certain urban locales?
Perhaps some who have made it lose sight of the differential class and economic structures among black-identified folks. Not me. Not only is there a range of different economic levels within my own family, that's also the case for many others in our tribe. I've lived in housing projects, and struggled financially for many, many years. I worked my ass off to get where I'm at now. I sacrificed to provide for my family, and gave a foundation upon which my daughter could rise farther faster than her parents did. I'm not one to forget where I've come from. In fact, that knowledge is a basis for my lived, pragmatic understanding of what it takes, and what's possible.
Perhaps you're right that by telling young Black Americans how far behind they are relative to other groups will be motivator. Some could be motivated, but far too many, I suspect, will become despondent and lean into the very bias narrative you decry, as an excuse that allows them not to admit that failure or success is their responsibility.
Intra-racial data can point to the gaps and the problems. (It also reifies racial classification, but apparently you don't see that as a problem.) But actual stories of real life people who have overcome, who have actually "developed," is a far better motivator for most people. As much data as you use to paint your incessant picture of the "brutal facts," I bet that you yourself were able to do well in life because you had human beings who set examples for you. When you were 12, 15, 18, 21, were there people actually motivating you by pointing out to you how far behind your racial group is? if you have children, did you lay out the stats on our "lack" as a people to motivate your children?
Yes, self-motivation and self-responsibility is key. But, ultimately, none of us do it alone. Stories of real life people who overcome is key for those young people you ostensibly desire to influence. How many of our people in the 19th century were inspired by the stories of Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and so on, into the 21st century?
When Jack Johnson and Joe Louis triumphed in the ring, was that not evidence that we could rise to the very top of that sport? When Jackie Robinson and Willie Mays triumphed in baseball, was that not proof that when given a chance we could perform as well or even better than others in the game? Does not the fact that Stephon Alexander teaches theoretical physics at Ivy League institutions and is an author and speaker in documentaries, etc., show that we can compete at that level? Does not Glenn Loury's example as a renowned economist and public intellectual demonstrate what's possible? Does not the fact that Barack Obama rose to the presidency, and Dick Parsons, Ken Chenault, and Ursula Burns ascended to the heights of corporate American mean anything?
I think so. They represent what's possible. Studying their lives and example won't by itself change the wealth and other gaps, but for some young people looking for examples of possibility to inspire them, it could give them a boost and example. That's nothing to sneer at.
Admitting how far we have to go and how far behind we are does not mean that we can't or shouldn't acknowledge and affirm those who have overcome. At the turn of the last century, they called it an ideology of "racial uplift." There's wisdom in that ancestral tradition. I'll maintain my faith in and fidelity to that ancestral tradition, yet I call it "cultural uplift." With that, I bid you adieu, Clifton Roscoe.
Different people have different ideas about what it means to live well. That's why I provided the distribution. Pew Research defines the boundaries of the income needed to be in the middle class as $47,189 on the low end and $141,568 at the top end. About 60% of black households are middle class or better if you accept that definition. That said, most families who live in cities would struggle to make it on $47,189.
You could also look at other economic indicators such as wealth and a household's ability to pay their bills each month. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau says that 25% of black households had zero or negative net worths as of 2020. About 39% had net worths of $50,000 or higher. Use this link if you want to do a deep dive:
An analysis from the Consumer Financial Protection Board says that over 50% of black households were having trouble paying all of their bills as of February of last year. Use this link if you want to do a deep dive:
You could also look at how many members of a household have stable employment situations and stable incomes. You could also look at credit scores, credit history, and credit worthiness. The possibilities are endless.
I've looked at many of these metrics, but I haven't tried to estimate what percentage of black households are in good shape financially and are living well. That said, my guess is that the number is between 30 and 50 percent.
Here are quick responses to some of you other questions:
1. There's a robust debate about whether income inequality leads to crime. People like Rafael Mangual at the Manhattan Institute don't think there's much of a connection. Others disagree. The carjackings perpetrated by teens in cities all over the country seem to be mostly rooted in culture. There's no rhyme or reason to their actions. The stolen vehicles are usually found abandoned and trashed within a few days, but not chopped up for parts. Shootings and homicides often stem from interpersonal conflicts. That's the word from police chiefs around the country.
2. We have very different ideas about what motivates people. I won't knock "cultural uplift" or other feel good approaches, but motivation that based upon emotion is rarely sustained. That's especially true when you're trying to effect change at scale. Jim Collins talked about the need for organizations to "confront the brutal facts" in Good to Great. Here's a similar quote from General James "Mad Dog" Mattis:
"You cannot allow any of your people to avoid the brutal facts. If they start living in a dream world, it’s going to be bad."
I've seen people avoid the brutal facts for many years. The results are almost never good. People I knew who said they were inspired by the ascension of Obama to the White House, for example, quickly fell back into their old ways. That "hopey-changey, thingy" that Sarah Palin joked about didn't have legs.
The vibe at the Million Man March was amazing (I was working in DC at the time and spent a few minutes in the crowd), but one would be hard pressed to find large, sustained impacts.
Emotions come and go. To paraphrase young people, most folks have to be willing to "get on the grind." They have to be willing to do hard things for long periods of time if they want to achieve better than average results.. We do young people a disservice if we pretend otherwise. Sly and the Family Stone said it best, "The nicer the nice, the higher the price."
I mentored Catholic middle school students from a tough part of Chicago many years ago. We had frank discussions about what was required in order for them to be successful. We talked about making good decisions, the importance of developing plans to achieve their life's ambitions, etiquette, grooming, looking and acting like they belonged when they were in new surroundings, etc. I didn't sugar coat anything for them. One of the kids told me how much she appreciated the fact that I "gave it to them straight." The other kids nodded in agreement. Their confidence grew as we had more conversations and they had opportunities to see the ideas I shared with them work in the real world. The nun who accompanied me when I visited them or took them on field trips mentioned more than one how much they had changed since our initial session.
I won't try to change your mind. To use another Sly and the Family Stone quote, "Different strokes for different folks."
Thanks for answering my queries, Clifton. It's good to hear that you worked to help young people via a "straight, no-chaser" approach. You were a real-life example of someone who had achieved success, and were pointing them to how to get better themselves. You embodied, in word and deed, the kind of example necessary for them to see what's possible. Such an example is the main point of my listing of achievers from our tribe in my last message. Yes, the words of advice and counsel was imperative. But you being who you were and are, taking the time and energy to give back, is a fundamental component of why those young people were willing to listen and follow the good advice in the first place.
I have taught and coached many youth over the course of my life. I spent two years as Academic Coordinator of a program, held during school hours and afterschool, at a middle school in Brooklyn in the late 90s. I did substitute teaching work in various schools in Harlem in the early 2000s. My view of young people, and the public school system, isn't built on just reading about it; I saw for myself the deep problems and predicaments. More on education below.
The issues we're discussing, on one level, involve matters of differing perspectives, and on another, different solution sets. Yet we do share much in common, even though our vigorous exchanges might make it appear otherwise.
Take your example of "brutal facts." The related context of Jim Collins' use of the term in Good to Great is his discussion of "The Stockdale Paradox." As you likely know, Admiral James Stockdale was a prisoner of war from 1965 to 1973, and was tortured close to two dozen times in Vietnam. How did he survive? In part, it was because he faced the brutal reality of his circumstances.
Our people have long acquaintance with facing brutal reality, as you know. That's one foundation of the blues as an art form, folk psychology, and philosophy of life.
But Stockdale also had an unwavering faith that he would eventually be free again. "I never doubted not only that I would get out, but also that I would prevail in the end and turn the experience into the defining event of my life, which, in retrospect, I would not trade," said Stockdale.
My focus on vision and possibility isn't an avoidance strategy. Nor is it a denial. That's why I agree with this quote from Stockdale: "You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end--which you can never afford to lose--with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be."
Good to great leaders will face the brutal facts AND maintain faith that we as a people (both our tribe and America overall) can and will prevail.
My own way of putting this aligns the thought of Viktor Frankl (Man's Search for Meaning") and my (and Glenn's) late friend, Stanley Crouch. Frankl and Stanley both used the phrase "tragic optimism."
So I'm no starry-eyed optimist with my head in the sand. But as with Stockdale, who helped build the morale of his fellow prisoners to better withstand the suffering, and keep the faith, I try to point the way to what's still possible.
My on-the-ground experience in the public school system, as well as the continuing dismal results of students, before and especially after Covid, tells me that the system needs an overhaul. It's based on a 19th century industrial model, and millions of young people swim in a sea of mediocrity as a result.
The fact that percentage-wise, more Black Americans suffer in this system, when compared with other groups, is secondary to the fact that too many young people of all backgrounds have no choice but to go through this moribund education system, period.
Yes, charter schools are an important avenue to bolster and support. I find it negligent to the point of criminality that teacher's unions fight against charter schools, which help the students most needing cultural uplift.
But charter schools aren't a panacea. They are part of the solution but not the whole enchilada.
We should also consider the visionary ideas of reformers such as Seth Godin, author of "Stop Stealing Dreams: What Is School For?" and education philosophers like Zak Stein, author of "Education in a Time Between Worlds: Essays on the Future of Schools, Technology, and Society."
When one speaks of change at scale, there must by a vision for the future, then strategies and tactics to get there. It's not about fantasy and empty emotions. Sustained change takes will, courage, foresight, and resilience. Emotions of course play a role--movements aren't built on logic alone. But the inherent Cartesian mind-body duality in your dismissal of emotions is belied by the latest research in cognitive science, which connects emotions to rationality, and emphasizes the reality of cognition as embodied, embedded, enacted, and extended (4E cognition).
But that takes us too far afield.
You mention the Million Man March. While working in DC, you observed it, and its lackluster aftermath, in practical terms. That, no doubt, is an apt example of not only emotion over reason, but groupthink over individual agency. So many people I know got swept up in that moment, and even have fond memories of how good it felt to be there that day.
But I stated this then and maintain this to today: I wouldn't follow Farrakhan around the damn corner. He had the nerve to call on racialized black men to atone for their sins, when that so-and-so refused then to now to atone for his own antisemitism and mis-leadership.
But that too takes us far afield.
The point is this: we need the tragic dimension of life, and the brutal facts of reality, to gain what in the military is called "an estimate of the situation." And once we have that estimate, we also need leadership to forge forth anyway, as the best of our ancestors have done right here in this United States, generation after generation.
After reading your latest comment to Greg, I'm still curious about your choice to compare today to 20-30 years ago. In particular: for which audiences do you think this time period works well? Are there, as I suggest, any audiences for whom this time period isn't best?
I get that for the audience of young black-identified Americans, you want to show how bad the problem is and believe that a clear message about the problem will move people to act. But it appears that you think this data works for EVERY audience. I see things differently. Here is an excerpt from what I wrote in my last comment above. I'd still enjoy your response:
"As for the data of 1950s versus today, that would be more valuable for the audience of anyone making decisions about where to invest public and private resources, e.g. public officials, foundations, corporate leaders, etc.—so they recognize the valuable asset they are investing in instead of continuing to see black-identified as liabilities on the balance sheet. I cannot tell you how many liberals, progressives, moderates and conservatives in my acquaintance speak about black-identified Americans (often with compassion, sometimes pity, sometimes apathy) as a problem to solve, as something to feel guilty about, etc (depending on the person), rather than as an asset to invest in. It's endemic."
Clifton, three questions:
1. Do you think the audience I list here is an important one?
2. If so, do you think it's important for them to see black-identified Americans as an asset?
3. If so, wouldn't using data comparing today to the 1950s be particularly valuable in showing this?
The futures of Black America and America as a whole lie with young people. America's prospects dim if our young people are not on pathways to success.
An analysis by Raj Chetty and a team of researchers at Stanford showed that the American Dream, the idea that each generation will do better economically than their parents, has faded badly over the years:
People who were born in 1940 had a 90% chance of doing better than their parents. The odds were down to 50% for those born in 1980. What was almost a sure thing became a coin flip. The biggest declines were for those in the middle class.
Globalization, automation, and immigration have fundamentally changed our economy. Only those with marketable skills are likely to thrive in the future. Equally important, it is necessary to continually upgrade one's skills in order to compete for high value work. The academic achievement gap leaves lots of young black people vulnerable. This points to the importance of the development narrative.
I don't know what kinds of targeted "investments" you have in mind, but they'll amount to another income redistribution/entitlement program unless folks have the skills needed to compete for high value work. You can't give people skills. They have to be willing to do the work required to develop and maintain them. That the message folks need to hear.
Hi Clifton, let me respond to your last comment and summarize our overall dialogue here with a metaphor. With the Super Bowl coming up, let's use football, but college football.
We're both rooting for the same football team to win (better lives for Americans, especially black-identified Americans). We started with a conversation about how to recruit more 4 and 5 star players to the team (deracialize people). Greg made a case for a particular approach. You and Greg had a back and forth about this.
Eventually, you revealed that you're all for better recruitment (deracializing people) but not until after the team has increased its winning record (increased the wealth of black-identified Americans, which I'll call "black wealth"). Only after getting more wins (increasing wealth) can the team even think about recruiting better players (deracialization).
I disagree with you on this but agreed to switch the conversation from recruitment strategy (deracialization) to improving the team's winning record (increasing "black wealth").
With me so far?
We both agree we need a well-coached team with players that can perform (clear messages that have an impact).
Your approach to helping the team win is to focus on the defense (persuading a particular group of people—I'm still not clear on who you are targeting other than young black-identified Americans— that there's a huge disparity and it's urgent to act). You have a message for the defense. I say: great, let's have that message, keep it clear and powerful., and deliver it to the defense.
But I'm also saying: hey, Clifton, to win, we need to put points on the board. We need a stronger offense. (We need America's business, government and civic leaders to make better decisions that affect "black wealth": budgets and public policies, who to hire/fire/promote, what skills training to offer, any anything else that affects wealth).
I have an opinion about how to improve the offense: pass more often. For years, we've had a strategy of running the ball on every down, and it's kept us from moving the ball downfield (all we do is push a narrative that black-identified Americans are a liability, that nothing has really gotten any better). This, in turn, keeps us from putting points on the board (creating public policy, budget decisions, and approaches to business and civic life that increase "black wealth").
So I'm proposing a new strategy for the offense (new message for America's leaders). Let's pass the ball more often (view black-identified Americans as an asset whose value has increased, e.g. progress made since the 1950s, and who have something special to offer given the heroic nature of the black-American experience amidst adversity).
I think this new strategy of passing the ball (helping America's leaders see black-identified Americans as assets) will put more points on the board (improve the decisions of leaders in every sector—in particular by investing in something that matters to you and Glenn, the skills and development of black-identified Americans.)
Still with me?
Great.
Your response to my new strategy of passing the ball seems to amount to this:
1. Here's how to improve the defense
2. "Amiel, if we pass the ball more, then this will cause us to run the ball more (if we make decisions based on an asset approach, then this will cause us to make decisions based on a liability/redistribution/entitlement approach)".
As you might imagine, I'm scratching my head at this point. The whole purpose of passing the ball more is to run less. The whole purpose of shifting to an asset narrative is to get away from the liability narrative that has led to the policies and approaches you criticize.
Are you willing to focus on the offense, and how about a bit more passing?
Sorry. You lost me almost immediately. What I'm gathering from your analogy is that you're tacitly endorsing the bias narrative. That's my takeaway from this excerpt:
"But I'm also saying: hey, Clifton, to win, we need to put points on the board. We need a stronger offense. (We need America's business, government and civic leaders to make better decisions that affect "black wealth": budgets and public policies, who to hire/fire/promote, what skills training to offer, any anything else that affects wealth). "
The future rests with young people. They have agency. They have to put in the work required to develop and maintain the skills needed to compete for high value work in a knowledge-based economy. Arguments against the bias narrative and for the the development narrative need to be made with them directly.
p.s. Clifton, before we wrap up this exchange, I'd love to hear how you went from me stating a desire to influence America's leaders around decisions that affect wealth to you thinking I endorse the bias narrative. That's an enormous leap of logic and assumption. What is your basis for it?
Clifton, metaphors are hard, and mine is complex and needs refinement. But to respond: no, I do not endorse the bias narrative. Alas, you have it precisely backwards. This is about investing in people developing their skills and capacities, none of which depends on an assumption of bias.
I endorse what I'll call the leadership narrative—that improving people's lives depends on good leadership making sounds decisions and driven by compelling narratives so that young people get support and challenge to develop skills and take on high value work in a knowledge-based economy. That's who I'm trying to reach.
Who, may I ask, is the target audience for your message about racial wealth disparity? It sounds like young people. (I call this the football team's strategy for defense). If that is your target, how do you expect to reach them if not through mature adults whose time, energy and decisions, in turn, are influenced by leadership (the team's offense strategy)?
"Who compares the wealth of single parent white households with that of black married couple households? Is this meaningless "apples to oranges" comparison supposed to be good news or something that's useful if we want to close the wealth gap?"
Ian Rowe in his book, Agency" that's who. His point, as is mine, is that the factors determining disparate statistical results MUST INCLUDE VARIABLES ASIDE FROM RACE!!
It is not true that the half of Black America 32 or younger have "only experienced stagnation," Clifton. Human beings are not stick figures in statistical measures based on the fallacious idea of race. I believe in clarity and precision in language too. So why not say SOME young people identified as black have experienced stagnation?
Have the children of the 340,000 black-identified millionaires only experienced stagnation?
I don't mean to imply that children of wealthy parents don't have problems, goodness no. But, for goodness sake, why can't you grok that from a business and investment perspective, there must be assets of some kind, tangible to intangible, to draw upon to raise angel or venture capital?
Your narrative of lack and limitation, I daresay, lends itself more to the bias narrative than the development narrative. The bias narrative is focused on how historical discrimination and so-called systemic racism is the reason we see disparities. The bias narrative is more focused on external obstacles over internal communal and cultural resources, whether expressed by individuals or the group. The development narrative points to the need for Afro-Americans to develop the skills, habits, and mindsets that will allow us to improve ourselves internally, within the group, to ameliorate the disparities and problems that still beset us.
By painting an exclusive picture of lack and limitation, you provide fuel for those who center on the bias narrative. They will point to the same statistics you do, but will look at external causes as the basis. My perspective, which transcends the bias narrative while including the reality that we as a group, and as a society, have far to go, paints a picture of our actual historical and cultural achievements as a people, and supports thereby a development narrative. One develops based on foundations. Our achievements is one such foundation.
Although personal, individual accounts aren't "statistically significant," they still can serve as representative anecdotes with larger implications. Take my daughter, for instance, now 27 years old. She is in the cohort of 32-and under that comprises 50% of the group. She grew up in an environment of working to middle-class people; within the family, it was primarily Afro-American in ethnic and cultural terms, at school, it was a diverse mixture of students from various ethnic and cultural backgrounds on Staten Island.
Her mother and I divorced when she was very young; her mother and I both remarried, so according to "statistical measures," she grew up in a "broken home." NO. She had a birth mother and a stepmother, a biological father and a stepfather--we all loved and love her and supported her growth and development. As a pre-teen, she stayed with me on weekends, and I would take her to Barnes & Nobles regularly for her to be around books and literature. She was surrounded by books and music and art at home too. She studied at the Harlem School of the Arts when I lived in Harlem.
How did she fare? Well, she was deeply disappointed when she wasn't accepted to any of the NYC specialized schools. But God works in mysterious ways. My former wife, her mom, and I agreed that she should come live with me and my wife in New Rochelle, NY, and attend the very good public high school there, rather than the lackluster high school she was zoned for in Staten Island.
She blossomed academically and otherwise, coming into her own as a young lady. And when she applied to college, she did so via early admission at Dartmouth . . . and was accepted! She continued to blossom there, majoring in computer science. In her junior year, she was selected as one of the top ten college women of the year by Vogue magazine, and was also one of three Afro-American young ladies honored by Michelle Obama on the Black Girls Rock television program.
After graduation, for several years she worked as a computer engineer in Silicon Valley. Two years ago, she applied for graduate school. She was accepted, and is currently in her last semester in a joint MBA-Engineering program at MIT.
Does my daughter's story not matter because it's relatively rare, indeed exceptional for a young person of ANY background? Cannot her story of Afro-American success despite the odds inspire others? This is an example why stories of actual success and achievement are crucial: they can inspire others who can themselves see what's possible, and can build their own aspirations for growth and development.
Here's a quote from my mentor Albert Murray on why such asset-framing is essential:
“Sometimes Americans are disposed to fair play and sometimes they are not. But they almost always invest their time, money, and enthusiasm in assets with promise, not liabilities. Even those who become involved in salvage operations have been sold on inherent potential.”
You ask about my deracialized version of blackness. Simple: it acknowledges that we are a people, an ethnic group, with a powerful culture, who have made strides in spite of almost insurmountable odds, and have contributed greatly to America's culture and conception of freedom. I don't use the term "blackness" per se because it is too akin to a persistent belief in race and racialization. We are a people, nonetheless, as I've said, with an ethnic and cultural identity. It is not necessary to hold onto the idea of race, the practice of racialization, and the mindset of a racial worldview, to have a personal and ethno-cultural group identity.
I'm just trying to get more people to realize and accept that reality, but racecraft keeps getting in the way. But there are a growing group of persons, for instance, Amiel Handelsman, who see the light at the end of the tunnel, and rather than making excuses for why the time isn't right to deracialize, shows the courage to do so NOW.
Greg,
With all due respect, your arguments don't hold up under scrutiny. I gave Amiel concrete examples of the lack of absolute (inflation-adjusted) and relative economic progress made by Black America over the past 20-30 years. Feel free to refute this with data from credible sources if you can.
Black people who are 32 or younger, which is half of Black America, have come of age during a period of minimal black economic progress. There's no way around this. You can find a handful of black people who are doing well, but the macro-level numbers don't lie.
Half of Black America has come of age during a period when academic progress in relative and absolute terms has been almost nonexistent. Derek Neal's paper shows that the black-white skills convergence stalled out in the late 1980's. His work demonstrates relative stagnation. The most recent NAEP scores show absolute stagnation since test scores are now lower than they've been in decades:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/test-scores-show-historic-covid-040223022.html
Here's an excerpt:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The COVID-19 pandemic caused historic learning setbacks for America’s children, sparing no state or region as it erased decades of academic progress and widened racial disparities, according to results of a national test that provide the sharpest look yet at the scale of the crisis.
Across the country, math scores saw their largest decreases ever. Reading scores dropped to 1992 levels. Nearly four in 10 eighth graders failed to grasp basic math concepts. Not a single state saw a notable improvement in their average test scores, with some simply treading water at best.
Those are the findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress — known as the “nation’s report card” — which tested hundreds of thousands of fourth and eighth graders across the country this year. It was the first time the test had been given since 2019, and it’s seen as the first nationally representative study of the pandemic’s impact on learning.
“It is a serious wakeup call for us all,” Peggy Carr, commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, a branch of the Education Department, said in an interview. “In NAEP, when we experience a 1- or 2-point decline, we’re talking about it as a significant impact on a student’s achievement. In math, we experienced an 8-point decline — historic for this assessment.”
Researchers usually think of a 10-point gain or drop as equivalent to roughly a year of learning.
The declines were most noticeable for groups that were under-performing before the pandemic began.
We'll have to respectfully disagree if you think wordplay and other ways of avoiding the "brutal facts" will lead to progress. I've watched people do this for years. The results speak for themselves.
Clifton,
The larger context of the lack of progress by Black America over the past 20-30 years is the lack of progress of the working class and the middle class in the U.S. period in the post-industrial period. As you point to in a comment below to Amiel, a belief in the American Dream itself has greatly decreased.
I'm in full agreement with the development narrative over the bias narrative. No argument there. I also agree that the future is with the young, and that to successfully face the future, they must gain better skills to be competitive. One reason my daughter is successful is her application of a range of soft and hard skills in university and corporate settings.
Where we apparently don't align is in the value of telling the stories of those of us who have gained the skills, and overcome the obstacles. Such examples and stories exemplify more than some formula for success; they demonstrate in pragmatic and pro-social ways how individuals have been able to achieve despite the odds. Our young people should know about these stories to bolster their aspiration and sense of possibility.
Since you're a data guy, can you please quantify the number of people--an estimate would be fine--that comprise the "handful" of black people who are doing well? Thanks for continuing our exchange.
Greg
Greg,
The Gini Index, a measure of income inequality, is higher for blacks than it is for any other racial group in America. Here's a definition of the Gini Index from the U.S. Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/income-inequality/about/metrics/gini-index.html
The Gini Index is a summary measure of income inequality. The Gini coefficient incorporates the detailed shares data into a single statistic, which summarizes the dispersion of income across the entire income distribution. The Gini coefficient ranges from 0, indicating perfect equality (where everyone receives an equal share), to 1, perfect inequality (where only one recipient or group of recipients receives all the income). The Gini is based on the difference between the Lorenz curve (the observed cumulative income distribution) and the notion of a perfectly equal income distribution.
Here are Gini Index numbers for families by race as of 2021 according to the US Census Bureau:
All races - .462
White alone - .452
White alone, not Hispanic - .443
Black alone - .483
Asian alone - .455
Hispanic (any race) - .456
Use this link, then download Table F-4 if you want to do a deep dive:
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-income-inequality.html
Here are the family income cutoffs (upper limit) for blacks by quintile as of 2021 according to the US Census Bureau:
Bottom - $25,000
Second - $47,000
Third - $75,035
Fourth - $123,782
Top 5% - $230,016
The ratio for the cutoffs for the top 5% and the bottom 20% is 9.2 (230,016/25,000)
Here are the comparable numbers for white families:
Bottom - $43,000
Second - $74,602
Third - $113,001
Fourth - $177,700
Top 5% - $325,165
The ratio between the cutoffs for the top 5% and the bottom 20% is 7.6 (325,165/43,000)
Here are the numbers for all families (All races):
Bottom - $40,000
Second - $70,506
Third - $109,354
Fourth - $174,001
Top 5% - $319,769
The ratio between the cutoff for the top 5% and the bottom 20% is 8.0 (319,769/40,000)
These numbers show the same pattern as the Gini Index numbers by race. There are wider gaps between those at the bottom of the black distribution compared to those in the upper tiers than for white families and all families. Use the same link above and download Table F-1 for individual racial groups if you want to do a deep dive.
Just as there are two America's economically, there are two Black America's. It's easy for people who've "made it" to lose sight of this. Pew Research did an analysis of income inequality withing Black America last March as part of a report titled, "The Growing Diversity of Black America:"
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/03/25/the-growing-diversity-of-black-america/
Here's an excerpt:
Income inequality within the Black population remains one of the widest within a major racial or ethnic group. In 2019, Black-headed households with income in the 90th percentile among the population of Black households earned 14 times that of Black households with income in the 10th percentile. The 90th percentile of households in the overall 2019 population, by contrast, earned 12 times that of households with incomes in the 10th percentile.
Pew's calculations are based on different numbers, but they show the same pattern. Their analysis also confirmed the income stagnation issue I highlighted earlier. Here's another excerpt:
Since 2000, the U.S. Black population has not seen significant increases in median household income. The median income for households headed by a Black person was $44,000 in 2019 (before the COVID-19 pandemic-induced recession). But household income of Black households varies. Roughly three-in-ten Black households (29%) made less than $25,000 in 2019, while a quarter earned between $25,000 and $49,999 – which means that more than half (54%) of Black households made less than $50,000 in 2019. About one-in-six Black households (17%) made $50,000 but below $75,000, 10% earned at least $75,000 but less than $100,000, and 18% earned $100,000 or more in 2019.
People within the lower tiers of the wage distribution saw higher gains than most since the beginning of the pandemic according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta's Wage Growth Tracker, but wages haven't kept up with inflation. Middle and working class families have struggled to make ends meet as a result.
Use this link to access the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta's Wage Growth Tracker:
https://www.atlantafed.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker
Use this link to access a CNBC article about the shrinking middle class and the struggles of middle income families during a period of high inflation:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/18/amid-inflation-more-middle-class-americans-struggle-to-make-ends-meet.html
I simply wanted your estimate of the number of Black Americans you thought were doing well, out of approximately 44 million. Of course doing well is a relative term. I didn't want to wade through a lot of data, just your own estimate, since you have the stats at the ready.
Speaking of the Gini index, do you think that there is a correlation between income inequality and violent crime? Some researchers connect the two. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/338347. If this correlation is accurate, might that have anything to do with the violent crime rates in certain urban locales?
Perhaps some who have made it lose sight of the differential class and economic structures among black-identified folks. Not me. Not only is there a range of different economic levels within my own family, that's also the case for many others in our tribe. I've lived in housing projects, and struggled financially for many, many years. I worked my ass off to get where I'm at now. I sacrificed to provide for my family, and gave a foundation upon which my daughter could rise farther faster than her parents did. I'm not one to forget where I've come from. In fact, that knowledge is a basis for my lived, pragmatic understanding of what it takes, and what's possible.
Perhaps you're right that by telling young Black Americans how far behind they are relative to other groups will be motivator. Some could be motivated, but far too many, I suspect, will become despondent and lean into the very bias narrative you decry, as an excuse that allows them not to admit that failure or success is their responsibility.
Intra-racial data can point to the gaps and the problems. (It also reifies racial classification, but apparently you don't see that as a problem.) But actual stories of real life people who have overcome, who have actually "developed," is a far better motivator for most people. As much data as you use to paint your incessant picture of the "brutal facts," I bet that you yourself were able to do well in life because you had human beings who set examples for you. When you were 12, 15, 18, 21, were there people actually motivating you by pointing out to you how far behind your racial group is? if you have children, did you lay out the stats on our "lack" as a people to motivate your children?
Yes, self-motivation and self-responsibility is key. But, ultimately, none of us do it alone. Stories of real life people who overcome is key for those young people you ostensibly desire to influence. How many of our people in the 19th century were inspired by the stories of Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and so on, into the 21st century?
When Jack Johnson and Joe Louis triumphed in the ring, was that not evidence that we could rise to the very top of that sport? When Jackie Robinson and Willie Mays triumphed in baseball, was that not proof that when given a chance we could perform as well or even better than others in the game? Does not the fact that Stephon Alexander teaches theoretical physics at Ivy League institutions and is an author and speaker in documentaries, etc., show that we can compete at that level? Does not Glenn Loury's example as a renowned economist and public intellectual demonstrate what's possible? Does not the fact that Barack Obama rose to the presidency, and Dick Parsons, Ken Chenault, and Ursula Burns ascended to the heights of corporate American mean anything?
I think so. They represent what's possible. Studying their lives and example won't by itself change the wealth and other gaps, but for some young people looking for examples of possibility to inspire them, it could give them a boost and example. That's nothing to sneer at.
Admitting how far we have to go and how far behind we are does not mean that we can't or shouldn't acknowledge and affirm those who have overcome. At the turn of the last century, they called it an ideology of "racial uplift." There's wisdom in that ancestral tradition. I'll maintain my faith in and fidelity to that ancestral tradition, yet I call it "cultural uplift." With that, I bid you adieu, Clifton Roscoe.
Different people have different ideas about what it means to live well. That's why I provided the distribution. Pew Research defines the boundaries of the income needed to be in the middle class as $47,189 on the low end and $141,568 at the top end. About 60% of black households are middle class or better if you accept that definition. That said, most families who live in cities would struggle to make it on $47,189.
You could also look at other economic indicators such as wealth and a household's ability to pay their bills each month. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau says that 25% of black households had zero or negative net worths as of 2020. About 39% had net worths of $50,000 or higher. Use this link if you want to do a deep dive:
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2020/demo/wealth/wealth-asset-ownership.html
An analysis from the Consumer Financial Protection Board says that over 50% of black households were having trouble paying all of their bills as of February of last year. Use this link if you want to do a deep dive:
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/insights-from-making-ends-meet-survey-2022/
You could also look at how many members of a household have stable employment situations and stable incomes. You could also look at credit scores, credit history, and credit worthiness. The possibilities are endless.
I've looked at many of these metrics, but I haven't tried to estimate what percentage of black households are in good shape financially and are living well. That said, my guess is that the number is between 30 and 50 percent.
Here are quick responses to some of you other questions:
1. There's a robust debate about whether income inequality leads to crime. People like Rafael Mangual at the Manhattan Institute don't think there's much of a connection. Others disagree. The carjackings perpetrated by teens in cities all over the country seem to be mostly rooted in culture. There's no rhyme or reason to their actions. The stolen vehicles are usually found abandoned and trashed within a few days, but not chopped up for parts. Shootings and homicides often stem from interpersonal conflicts. That's the word from police chiefs around the country.
2. We have very different ideas about what motivates people. I won't knock "cultural uplift" or other feel good approaches, but motivation that based upon emotion is rarely sustained. That's especially true when you're trying to effect change at scale. Jim Collins talked about the need for organizations to "confront the brutal facts" in Good to Great. Here's a similar quote from General James "Mad Dog" Mattis:
https://www.businessinsider.in/defense/19-unforgettable-quotes-from-retiring-general-james-mad-dog-mattis/slidelist/21424613.cms
"You cannot allow any of your people to avoid the brutal facts. If they start living in a dream world, it’s going to be bad."
I've seen people avoid the brutal facts for many years. The results are almost never good. People I knew who said they were inspired by the ascension of Obama to the White House, for example, quickly fell back into their old ways. That "hopey-changey, thingy" that Sarah Palin joked about didn't have legs.
The vibe at the Million Man March was amazing (I was working in DC at the time and spent a few minutes in the crowd), but one would be hard pressed to find large, sustained impacts.
Emotions come and go. To paraphrase young people, most folks have to be willing to "get on the grind." They have to be willing to do hard things for long periods of time if they want to achieve better than average results.. We do young people a disservice if we pretend otherwise. Sly and the Family Stone said it best, "The nicer the nice, the higher the price."
I mentored Catholic middle school students from a tough part of Chicago many years ago. We had frank discussions about what was required in order for them to be successful. We talked about making good decisions, the importance of developing plans to achieve their life's ambitions, etiquette, grooming, looking and acting like they belonged when they were in new surroundings, etc. I didn't sugar coat anything for them. One of the kids told me how much she appreciated the fact that I "gave it to them straight." The other kids nodded in agreement. Their confidence grew as we had more conversations and they had opportunities to see the ideas I shared with them work in the real world. The nun who accompanied me when I visited them or took them on field trips mentioned more than one how much they had changed since our initial session.
I won't try to change your mind. To use another Sly and the Family Stone quote, "Different strokes for different folks."
Thanks for answering my queries, Clifton. It's good to hear that you worked to help young people via a "straight, no-chaser" approach. You were a real-life example of someone who had achieved success, and were pointing them to how to get better themselves. You embodied, in word and deed, the kind of example necessary for them to see what's possible. Such an example is the main point of my listing of achievers from our tribe in my last message. Yes, the words of advice and counsel was imperative. But you being who you were and are, taking the time and energy to give back, is a fundamental component of why those young people were willing to listen and follow the good advice in the first place.
I have taught and coached many youth over the course of my life. I spent two years as Academic Coordinator of a program, held during school hours and afterschool, at a middle school in Brooklyn in the late 90s. I did substitute teaching work in various schools in Harlem in the early 2000s. My view of young people, and the public school system, isn't built on just reading about it; I saw for myself the deep problems and predicaments. More on education below.
The issues we're discussing, on one level, involve matters of differing perspectives, and on another, different solution sets. Yet we do share much in common, even though our vigorous exchanges might make it appear otherwise.
Take your example of "brutal facts." The related context of Jim Collins' use of the term in Good to Great is his discussion of "The Stockdale Paradox." As you likely know, Admiral James Stockdale was a prisoner of war from 1965 to 1973, and was tortured close to two dozen times in Vietnam. How did he survive? In part, it was because he faced the brutal reality of his circumstances.
Our people have long acquaintance with facing brutal reality, as you know. That's one foundation of the blues as an art form, folk psychology, and philosophy of life.
But Stockdale also had an unwavering faith that he would eventually be free again. "I never doubted not only that I would get out, but also that I would prevail in the end and turn the experience into the defining event of my life, which, in retrospect, I would not trade," said Stockdale.
My focus on vision and possibility isn't an avoidance strategy. Nor is it a denial. That's why I agree with this quote from Stockdale: "You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end--which you can never afford to lose--with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be."
Good to great leaders will face the brutal facts AND maintain faith that we as a people (both our tribe and America overall) can and will prevail.
My own way of putting this aligns the thought of Viktor Frankl (Man's Search for Meaning") and my (and Glenn's) late friend, Stanley Crouch. Frankl and Stanley both used the phrase "tragic optimism."
That's a synonym for the blues in my account: https://www.tuneintoleadership.com/blog/the-blues-and-tragic-optimism
So I'm no starry-eyed optimist with my head in the sand. But as with Stockdale, who helped build the morale of his fellow prisoners to better withstand the suffering, and keep the faith, I try to point the way to what's still possible.
My on-the-ground experience in the public school system, as well as the continuing dismal results of students, before and especially after Covid, tells me that the system needs an overhaul. It's based on a 19th century industrial model, and millions of young people swim in a sea of mediocrity as a result.
https://www.thefp.com/p/why-65-percent-of-fourth-graders
The fact that percentage-wise, more Black Americans suffer in this system, when compared with other groups, is secondary to the fact that too many young people of all backgrounds have no choice but to go through this moribund education system, period.
Yes, charter schools are an important avenue to bolster and support. I find it negligent to the point of criminality that teacher's unions fight against charter schools, which help the students most needing cultural uplift.
But charter schools aren't a panacea. They are part of the solution but not the whole enchilada.
We need to also teach for mastery over test scores. https://www.ted.com/talks/sal_khan_let_s_teach_for_mastery_not_test_scores
We should also consider the visionary ideas of reformers such as Seth Godin, author of "Stop Stealing Dreams: What Is School For?" and education philosophers like Zak Stein, author of "Education in a Time Between Worlds: Essays on the Future of Schools, Technology, and Society."
When one speaks of change at scale, there must by a vision for the future, then strategies and tactics to get there. It's not about fantasy and empty emotions. Sustained change takes will, courage, foresight, and resilience. Emotions of course play a role--movements aren't built on logic alone. But the inherent Cartesian mind-body duality in your dismissal of emotions is belied by the latest research in cognitive science, which connects emotions to rationality, and emphasizes the reality of cognition as embodied, embedded, enacted, and extended (4E cognition).
But that takes us too far afield.
You mention the Million Man March. While working in DC, you observed it, and its lackluster aftermath, in practical terms. That, no doubt, is an apt example of not only emotion over reason, but groupthink over individual agency. So many people I know got swept up in that moment, and even have fond memories of how good it felt to be there that day.
But I stated this then and maintain this to today: I wouldn't follow Farrakhan around the damn corner. He had the nerve to call on racialized black men to atone for their sins, when that so-and-so refused then to now to atone for his own antisemitism and mis-leadership.
But that too takes us far afield.
The point is this: we need the tragic dimension of life, and the brutal facts of reality, to gain what in the military is called "an estimate of the situation." And once we have that estimate, we also need leadership to forge forth anyway, as the best of our ancestors have done right here in this United States, generation after generation.
All the best to you, Clifton.
Hi Clifton,
After reading your latest comment to Greg, I'm still curious about your choice to compare today to 20-30 years ago. In particular: for which audiences do you think this time period works well? Are there, as I suggest, any audiences for whom this time period isn't best?
I get that for the audience of young black-identified Americans, you want to show how bad the problem is and believe that a clear message about the problem will move people to act. But it appears that you think this data works for EVERY audience. I see things differently. Here is an excerpt from what I wrote in my last comment above. I'd still enjoy your response:
"As for the data of 1950s versus today, that would be more valuable for the audience of anyone making decisions about where to invest public and private resources, e.g. public officials, foundations, corporate leaders, etc.—so they recognize the valuable asset they are investing in instead of continuing to see black-identified as liabilities on the balance sheet. I cannot tell you how many liberals, progressives, moderates and conservatives in my acquaintance speak about black-identified Americans (often with compassion, sometimes pity, sometimes apathy) as a problem to solve, as something to feel guilty about, etc (depending on the person), rather than as an asset to invest in. It's endemic."
Clifton, three questions:
1. Do you think the audience I list here is an important one?
2. If so, do you think it's important for them to see black-identified Americans as an asset?
3. If so, wouldn't using data comparing today to the 1950s be particularly valuable in showing this?
The futures of Black America and America as a whole lie with young people. America's prospects dim if our young people are not on pathways to success.
An analysis by Raj Chetty and a team of researchers at Stanford showed that the American Dream, the idea that each generation will do better economically than their parents, has faded badly over the years:
https://inequality.stanford.edu/news-events/center-news/fading-american-dream
People who were born in 1940 had a 90% chance of doing better than their parents. The odds were down to 50% for those born in 1980. What was almost a sure thing became a coin flip. The biggest declines were for those in the middle class.
Globalization, automation, and immigration have fundamentally changed our economy. Only those with marketable skills are likely to thrive in the future. Equally important, it is necessary to continually upgrade one's skills in order to compete for high value work. The academic achievement gap leaves lots of young black people vulnerable. This points to the importance of the development narrative.
I don't know what kinds of targeted "investments" you have in mind, but they'll amount to another income redistribution/entitlement program unless folks have the skills needed to compete for high value work. You can't give people skills. They have to be willing to do the work required to develop and maintain them. That the message folks need to hear.
Hi Clifton, let me respond to your last comment and summarize our overall dialogue here with a metaphor. With the Super Bowl coming up, let's use football, but college football.
We're both rooting for the same football team to win (better lives for Americans, especially black-identified Americans). We started with a conversation about how to recruit more 4 and 5 star players to the team (deracialize people). Greg made a case for a particular approach. You and Greg had a back and forth about this.
Eventually, you revealed that you're all for better recruitment (deracializing people) but not until after the team has increased its winning record (increased the wealth of black-identified Americans, which I'll call "black wealth"). Only after getting more wins (increasing wealth) can the team even think about recruiting better players (deracialization).
I disagree with you on this but agreed to switch the conversation from recruitment strategy (deracialization) to improving the team's winning record (increasing "black wealth").
With me so far?
We both agree we need a well-coached team with players that can perform (clear messages that have an impact).
Your approach to helping the team win is to focus on the defense (persuading a particular group of people—I'm still not clear on who you are targeting other than young black-identified Americans— that there's a huge disparity and it's urgent to act). You have a message for the defense. I say: great, let's have that message, keep it clear and powerful., and deliver it to the defense.
But I'm also saying: hey, Clifton, to win, we need to put points on the board. We need a stronger offense. (We need America's business, government and civic leaders to make better decisions that affect "black wealth": budgets and public policies, who to hire/fire/promote, what skills training to offer, any anything else that affects wealth).
I have an opinion about how to improve the offense: pass more often. For years, we've had a strategy of running the ball on every down, and it's kept us from moving the ball downfield (all we do is push a narrative that black-identified Americans are a liability, that nothing has really gotten any better). This, in turn, keeps us from putting points on the board (creating public policy, budget decisions, and approaches to business and civic life that increase "black wealth").
So I'm proposing a new strategy for the offense (new message for America's leaders). Let's pass the ball more often (view black-identified Americans as an asset whose value has increased, e.g. progress made since the 1950s, and who have something special to offer given the heroic nature of the black-American experience amidst adversity).
I think this new strategy of passing the ball (helping America's leaders see black-identified Americans as assets) will put more points on the board (improve the decisions of leaders in every sector—in particular by investing in something that matters to you and Glenn, the skills and development of black-identified Americans.)
Still with me?
Great.
Your response to my new strategy of passing the ball seems to amount to this:
1. Here's how to improve the defense
2. "Amiel, if we pass the ball more, then this will cause us to run the ball more (if we make decisions based on an asset approach, then this will cause us to make decisions based on a liability/redistribution/entitlement approach)".
As you might imagine, I'm scratching my head at this point. The whole purpose of passing the ball more is to run less. The whole purpose of shifting to an asset narrative is to get away from the liability narrative that has led to the policies and approaches you criticize.
Are you willing to focus on the offense, and how about a bit more passing?
Sorry. You lost me almost immediately. What I'm gathering from your analogy is that you're tacitly endorsing the bias narrative. That's my takeaway from this excerpt:
"But I'm also saying: hey, Clifton, to win, we need to put points on the board. We need a stronger offense. (We need America's business, government and civic leaders to make better decisions that affect "black wealth": budgets and public policies, who to hire/fire/promote, what skills training to offer, any anything else that affects wealth). "
The future rests with young people. They have agency. They have to put in the work required to develop and maintain the skills needed to compete for high value work in a knowledge-based economy. Arguments against the bias narrative and for the the development narrative need to be made with them directly.
p.s. Clifton, before we wrap up this exchange, I'd love to hear how you went from me stating a desire to influence America's leaders around decisions that affect wealth to you thinking I endorse the bias narrative. That's an enormous leap of logic and assumption. What is your basis for it?
Clifton, metaphors are hard, and mine is complex and needs refinement. But to respond: no, I do not endorse the bias narrative. Alas, you have it precisely backwards. This is about investing in people developing their skills and capacities, none of which depends on an assumption of bias.
I endorse what I'll call the leadership narrative—that improving people's lives depends on good leadership making sounds decisions and driven by compelling narratives so that young people get support and challenge to develop skills and take on high value work in a knowledge-based economy. That's who I'm trying to reach.
Who, may I ask, is the target audience for your message about racial wealth disparity? It sounds like young people. (I call this the football team's strategy for defense). If that is your target, how do you expect to reach them if not through mature adults whose time, energy and decisions, in turn, are influenced by leadership (the team's offense strategy)?