Listen now (62 min) | This week I welcome my friend the economist Robert Cherry back onto The Glenn Show. Bob has been studying race, labor, and inequality—among many other topics—for decades now. His new book, The State of the Black Family: Sixty Years of Tragedies and Failures—and New Initiatives Offering Hope
One repetitive theme I see in the book is to attack the Left almost as if the Right is nonexistent. To be fair Dr.Cherry does say that Conservatives are rigid in that they want to see changes in personal behavior before they are willing to see tax dollars go to programs to address the problem.
When it comes to the Left, Dr. Cherry has no problem naming specific individuals. Michelle Obama, who championed including more fruits and vegetables is called out because she did not vigorously support former NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on sugary drinks that accounted for 10% of welfare recipient food budgets.
Bryan Stevenson is singled out because in his objection to mass incarceration, Stevenson failed to mention that Black politicians supported the 1994 crime bill. The implication is that no Black person on the Left criticized the Black politicians who supported the crime bill.
Former Black prosecutor James Forman Jr. who opposes mass incarceration names Black politicians who supported the crime bill in his 2018 book “Locking Up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America”
Excerpt from the Amazon review
Forman shows us that the first substantial cohort of black mayors, judges, and police chiefs took office amid a surge in crime and drug addiction. Many prominent black officials, including Washington, D.C. mayor Marion Barry and federal prosecutor Eric Holder, feared that the gains of the civil rights movement were being undermined by lawlessness―and thus embraced tough-on-crime measures, including longer sentences and aggressive police tactics. In the face of skyrocketing murder rates and the proliferation of open-air drug markets, they believed they had no choice. But the policies they adopted would have devastating consequences for residents of poor black neighborhoods.
I can’t really say that the book has provided anything new. While a few niceties are tossed in, Dr Cherry sees the Left as his major target. I will keep trying to plod through.
Edit to add also from the Amazon review
"Locking Up Our Own is an engaging, insightful, and provocative reexamination of over-incarceration in the black community. James Forman Jr. carefully exposes the complexities of crime, criminal justice, and race. What he illuminates should not be ignored." ―Bryan Stevenson, author of Just Mercy and founder of the Equal Justice Initiative
I didn't read the book. Apparently I was wrong then. Cherry is no less an abusive shit than Goldblatt or Finkelstein or Amy Wax although Cherry kept it under wraps in the interview here.
These are fundamentally miserable individuals who have a pathological need of someone to hate. If all the woke vanished they would necessarily turn their misery inward against themselves. Look no further than Donald Trump for evidence of that reality. They hate him but they cannot touch him because they are him and he is them. He is just much better at being them than they are.
I’m still in the early stages of the book. Perhaps my impression will change when he goes deeper into solutions. My antennae go up when I repeatedly read about the Left this and the Left that. Conservatives are making a concerted effort to program our children into a state oriented education. They want a Uni-mind that only allows their point of view.
So far, I have not seen Dr Cherry offer anything that differs from what has been argued before. The fact that he cherry-picks people like Michelle Obama and Bryan Stevenson as problems with the “Left” is concerning and ignores the multiple voices on the Left who criticize others on the Left. We will see if the argument gets better.
I agree on the point about the Uni-mind. Why are conservatives so fixated on forcing children to go through public schools? I love the liberal approach in that families should be allowed to choose which school best addresses their child's needs and education track.
Your argument probably works on Conservative sites. DeSantis is using Christopher Rufo to take over a college in Florida. The Conservative group Moms for Liberty is trying to dictate which books are allowed in schools. Your argument and weak attempt at humor fails. Conservatives do not want diverse opinions.
Not sure it's worth my time replying but here goes.
Who said I agreed with either of the two groups you mentioned, of which I personally know nothing about? It's possible I could agree with them, but that would be beside the point. School choice seems to be a viable and reasonable solution to this problem you have with these (bullying) groups you disagree with. It allows the family the opportunity to educate their children in an environment and within a curriculum that best suits their child's needs and values.
How is the current "Uni-mind" system any different than the "Uni-mind" system the conservative groups are advocating for? Different curriculum but same forced curriculum results. Why, under the present, one option fits all approach, is there no room for discussion and discourse about what curriculum is appropriate and most relevant to our children achievhing their highest potential? We should just accept what someone finds to be the most redeemable and righteous curriculum because they say we should and just accept that? You're not buying that from the conservative groups and I'm not buying that from you either.
In the 1970s I had a friend from the inner city who was very smart and so was put in a magnet school. The neighborhood bully did not like that and started harassing her for acting "white". Eventually he attacked her resulting in her getting a broken arm and a cracked rib. She was in the hospital for a week and then a week later attended her assailant's hearing. The charges against him were dismissed for time served since he was only 17. She was adamant and almost received a contempt of court charge.
The next time the bully ran into her on the threat by saying "I am not done with you yet." She was so terrified that she hid in her house and would only go if she was surrounded by a posse of her friends. I asked her how long this lasted. She said she was lucky because it only lasted two weeks because the neighborhood bully had attacked others and one of those ended up murdering him.
I have wondered whether the bully would still be alive if he had been imprisoned for a few years.
Gun violence researcher here. Focused deterrence is great, but right now there’s literally no disincentive to commit gun violence in major American cities because arrest rates are so low. You can read more about gun violence in over 1000 American cities at my (free!) Substack here.
Proclivity: what one is naturally inclined towards
If you can grant some validity to the rough equation above, it's easy to understand why the programs to improve the state of urban black folks have mostly failed, and possibly made things worse. I think what happened starting in the 1960s is that our society made it "OK" to have low expectations, which lead to poor choices, that handcuffed any (positive) proclivity that a young black man might have.
Could it be that the black men with traits of irresponsibility , violence, not providing for the family are producing more offspring than the responsible black men with the genes\traits that settle down and successfully function in society…..could trends of black women mate selection ( out of wedlock and sequential parters). Actually be causing more and more boys with negative traits that then grow up to be men who do the same things? And over generations it becomes intractable…….however unfair mate choice matters a lot. .we need to teach our girls that….however, we’ve taught them the opposite ( blank slate) we have to stop lying about everything
Cherry is correct. Incrementalism is the answer, as it is in most things. Virtually all breakthroughs result from incremental improvements to existing ideas. It's not sexy but it works.
If nothing else Cherry is not an abusive shit like your previous 2 guests Goldblatt and Finkelstein. That is a step in the right direction.
As to The State Of The Black Family I would leave it to the stakeholders to judge the validity of Cherry's research. And as usual it doesn't appear that there are any here. Which again (and again) begs the question Glenn Loury ... Are you unaware by whom the message you are sending is being received? I suspect not.
This episode left me scratching my head a bit. I teach at a community college in California, and our offerings are roughly split between transfer prep and career technical education (CTE). Prof. Cherry made it sound as though CTE either doesn’t exist at the community college level or if it does, it’s catered toward students who still plan on transferring to a four-year college. Perhaps things are done differently in New York, but I want to say that here in California virtually everything Cherry said we “needed”, such as stackable certificates, we already have. The CTE program at my school is huge, and the vast majority of students in those programs will take classes here to get training and then go directly into the workforce, NOT transfer to a four-year university. Our CTE faculty and staff use workforce data pertaining to the job market in our area to justify which programs we offer.
I enjoyed the show, liked Dr. Cherry, and am very interested in all the topics he and Dr. Loury discussed. I have found in my work that people who are highly motivated to change their behavior do so incrementally most of the time. That is how change happens in human beings with respect to managing their own lives, changing entrenched habits, and improving self-evaluations.
I am not highly familiar with scholarly work on multigenerational poverty, but what I understand is that there is considerable inertia to cultures of that kind. Creating change in habits, or more so, motivation to improve habits, is more difficult than it is in more affluent communities. Belief that change is possible, that one's own efforts will cause it, and that the outcomes of the changes will be worth the effort is not necessarily present
I think that Dr. Cherry's approach to the social problems of poor black neighborhoods makes a lot of sense. I agree that when motivation may be in short supply it could be helpful to build up a scaffold of small successes.
One question I always have about such proposals is, "How many times have approaches like Dr. Cherry's already been tried, and what was the outcome?" I think it is dysfunctional to try one program after another unless we track the results and use them to refine our approach to social needs and problems. It is also very expensive, and not worth the investment if young black men aren't doing better vocationally and financially as a result. The description of his book suggests that Dr. Cherry reviewed the history of previous social initiatives designed to assist black families, and I will look forward to reading it.
I haven’t read the book. Hopefully, he points out programs already working to improve the situation. I work with an organization that focuses on children in high risk situations (poor parenting skills and poor school performance). In an amazingly short period of time, children improve math and reading scores dramatically. Dr. Cherry seemed more focused on blaming Liberals than pointing out programs that worked.
We saw schools built after enslavement, followed by colleges. Marva Collins was considered a wizard. Children are eager to learn. The question is what societal pressures are being put in place to discourage learning. What I see from Conservatives is rejoicing over the failure of public schools in Black neighborhoods. Putting Betty DeVos as head of the Department of Education did not send a signal that Conservatives were being serious when it came to educating Black children.
Grandparents are playing a larger role in raising children. A different set of programs will be needed to help them address life in a digital world. The children are starved for affirmation. Once they feel valued, they can excel.
I was wondering how much of your success is related to the personal relationships you form with the kids. I am very interested in hearing more about what you are doing, and what specific interventions you think may be helpful to the kids.
In my therapy practice I see situations in which grandparents are providing most of the care and structure for kids whose parents are addicted or not willing/able to take on parental responsibilities. I think the kids still suffer from neglect and rejection from the parents, but they benefit from the stability, love and wisdom of the grandparent (s). There is research showing that when kids have at least one caring adult in their lives, within or outside of the family, their future health, mental health, and education outcomes improve.
I am not a therapist. I am a sponsor and board member. The real work is done by fee program director, teachers, and volunteers from a group, AmeriCorps.
The program won national and international awards. The results of instilling a sense of worth is amazing.
From where I sit, people keep trying to reinvent the wheel. There were successful schools prior to integration. Ask elders about Dunbar High schools in multiple cities and you will hear about how they created scholars. When integration came, great teachers were moved to white schools or fired. Black principals lost jobs.
Now we have DeVos, Rufo, Governors DeSantis and Abbott trying to destroy the education of Black children. We don’t expect Democrats or Republicans to fully address public education, but the Republican contempt for Black students is palpable. Instead of addressing problems, Republicans and Conservatives divert to nonsense like fringe groups suggesting math is racist. Conservatives are never going to be allies when it comes to education.
The segment with Dr. Cherry suggests he is going to repeat practices done in the past in the Black community. He is going to pretend that he has found something new and magical that”owns the Libs”. Black students have been failed by the powers that be, Liberal and Conservatives. Dr. Cherry saves his barbs for the “Left”.
I am interested in finding solutions to problems. Teaching kids to read shouldn't be an insurmountable obstacle.
What I have seen locally is that when problems are politicized there can be a huge wave of support followed some time later by a discard of a program, whether it worked or not.
I am really glad to hear about the success of the program you work with. It must be incredibly rewarding for you to see children blossoming! Thank you for sharing some good news about what people can do when they put their hearts in their work.
I agree! Both the liberals and conservatives have failed Black folks. At the end of the day, Black people need to solve their own problems or become a permanent underclass. The [buffer class] is exponentially growing and increasingly distracting from seriously addressing the benign neglect of Black folks. Black mass prison incarceration creates lucrative benefits for whites and other minorities.
The author makes strong points. I haven’t read the book, so I cannot determine if he ever actually talked to people in the Black community or is doing data analysis a.one. He may have talked to Black Conservatives like Robert Woodson or members of his organization. One possible flaw that may exist is that he lays the blame on the Left. He feels the Left refuses to address problems originating within the Black community. The problem with this framework is that in the Black community are familiar who Leftist Afrocentric organizations that openly criticize the Black community.
These Leftist organizations note that Black children are being raised by grandparents because some Black parents are either unmarried or are dealing with personal issues. The Black Leftists note importance of marriage. They are rational enough to realize that Black women outnumber Black men in the community by 3-6 to one. Leftists stress the need for placing children on a schedule and not varying unless there is an unusual event.
The problem is that the author comes down from on high to discussion solutions that are already being applied across the nation. The effect is that this comes across as Ice Cube taking about his plan for Black America. Ice Cube could not tell you what went before and whether it worked. I look forward to reading the book. I am pessimistic that things will change. The author focuses on the failures of the Left. He slides the fact that Republicans would not fund what he proposes as an afterthought. I’m sure the book will provide aid and comfort to Conservatives. Because neither side of the aisle is serious, the problem will remain with us.
The only hope may be the Black Leftists who are actually doing the work. Robert Woodson was able to join forces with Vernon Jordan, Ron Conyers, Barbara Jordan, Ron Brown and others, the proposed programs to directly fund community groups met strong opposition and failed. Both some Black Leftists and some Black Conservatives can work together. This can only happen if the failures of both sides are recognized. Involvement of the Black community will be of utmost importance. A new organization may be required. Conservatives are not trusted.
"Sons of Rich Black Families Fare No Better Than Sons of Working-Class Whites"
The archived article I link to below is from NYTimes from 2018. To me, it looks like it seems to say that the lack of father'/other male figures in the lives of young and adolescent black males is the cause of deep disarray. Which was the essence of that 60s Daniel Patrick Moynahan report for which he was made practically persona non grata.
But do you sense that the writers are reluctant to foreground that explanation which is why it appears fairly late in the article and seems strained? It's almost as if the writers, knowing its audience, want to report the truth but are reluctant to do so because that admission hacks into the grain of so many progressive beliefs. Thoughts?
That was interesting! I’m sure this wasn’t supposed to be the takeaway… but they point out that black and white girls fare about the same as each other (actually the line for black girls is a little higher) but the white girls’ line is virtually identical to the black boys’ line. They totally glossed over that… usually people argue women “choose” lower paid jobs. I wonder if the same argument can be made in this case? I personally studied engineering, and the argument was that girls advanced/earned less because they weren’t willing to move to Saudi Arabia or rural Maine or wherever… I wonder if the same arguments would hold true here as well?
I didn’t feel like they glossed over fatherhood as much as you did. What I got was boys do better in areas where dual parenthood is the norm, whether or not their fathers are there. In a way this makes a lot of sense. Living in a world where there are no good role models puts you at a major disadvantage. I grew up in a one parent household, and I learned a lot by watching my friends’ family dynamics.
The most shocking thing was the increase in incarceration even with wealthy parents. It’s really hard to look at isolated data and get much from it. Either there is in fact terrible systemic racism, complex cultural dynamics, or something else people aren’t talking about yet. Super interesting though.
Probably the best distillation of leftist views of the black family I have ever heard. It all makes sense now! Vocational training and incrementalism seem the way forward but good luck with that in blue-controlled cities.
Quit kidding yourself, this is as good as it gets. After 60 years and 20 to 22 trillion dollars spent. This is what we have produced. This is as good as it gets.
What we have not tried is same-sex schools especially important for the "underclass " as earlier onset of puberty is positively correlated with gradual loss of academic curiosity. This compared with longer latency period correlates with persistence of academic interest in boys and girls. It is demonstrated by long history of same-sex preparatory schools favored by the rich.
Also, John is exactly right that phonics produces better readers who may actually enjoy reading, ditto squelching "new math" for traditional drilling, rote methods to establish firm foundation.
Very interesting! I kept wondering what happened to the role of the US military in helping poor kids get educated/job ready. I know joining the military is basically signing up for indenture, but the armed forces seem pretty good at figuring out an individual’s skill set and developing lots of transferable skills, including discipline and effective communication. It seems like that would be a better path than prison, which Robert Cherry seemed to see the job training benefits of. It makes me feel so sad that as a society, prison is the best we can do for our young men. I hope that isn’t actually true.
Too many young men aren’t fit even for the military by the time they are of age. Discipline and integrity need to be trained much earlier. But, yes it is a great option for many young people. I wouldn’t characterize it as being indentured; it is an opportunity to serve.
I was just acknowledging that joining the military means giving up (temporarily) a lot of freedom. You don’t choose what you do, where you live, how you dress, if you take vaccines, etc. in the grand scheme of things, this loss of liberty seems to help young men grow up. My father and one of my cousins paid for college with ROTC and made their current comfort possible. On the other hand, a cousin’s husband was assigned to the burn pits in the Middle East and that didn’t work out so well for him.
One repetitive theme I see in the book is to attack the Left almost as if the Right is nonexistent. To be fair Dr.Cherry does say that Conservatives are rigid in that they want to see changes in personal behavior before they are willing to see tax dollars go to programs to address the problem.
When it comes to the Left, Dr. Cherry has no problem naming specific individuals. Michelle Obama, who championed including more fruits and vegetables is called out because she did not vigorously support former NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on sugary drinks that accounted for 10% of welfare recipient food budgets.
Bryan Stevenson is singled out because in his objection to mass incarceration, Stevenson failed to mention that Black politicians supported the 1994 crime bill. The implication is that no Black person on the Left criticized the Black politicians who supported the crime bill.
Former Black prosecutor James Forman Jr. who opposes mass incarceration names Black politicians who supported the crime bill in his 2018 book “Locking Up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America”
Excerpt from the Amazon review
Forman shows us that the first substantial cohort of black mayors, judges, and police chiefs took office amid a surge in crime and drug addiction. Many prominent black officials, including Washington, D.C. mayor Marion Barry and federal prosecutor Eric Holder, feared that the gains of the civil rights movement were being undermined by lawlessness―and thus embraced tough-on-crime measures, including longer sentences and aggressive police tactics. In the face of skyrocketing murder rates and the proliferation of open-air drug markets, they believed they had no choice. But the policies they adopted would have devastating consequences for residents of poor black neighborhoods.
I can’t really say that the book has provided anything new. While a few niceties are tossed in, Dr Cherry sees the Left as his major target. I will keep trying to plod through.
Edit to add also from the Amazon review
"Locking Up Our Own is an engaging, insightful, and provocative reexamination of over-incarceration in the black community. James Forman Jr. carefully exposes the complexities of crime, criminal justice, and race. What he illuminates should not be ignored." ―Bryan Stevenson, author of Just Mercy and founder of the Equal Justice Initiative
I didn't read the book. Apparently I was wrong then. Cherry is no less an abusive shit than Goldblatt or Finkelstein or Amy Wax although Cherry kept it under wraps in the interview here.
These are fundamentally miserable individuals who have a pathological need of someone to hate. If all the woke vanished they would necessarily turn their misery inward against themselves. Look no further than Donald Trump for evidence of that reality. They hate him but they cannot touch him because they are him and he is them. He is just much better at being them than they are.
I’m still in the early stages of the book. Perhaps my impression will change when he goes deeper into solutions. My antennae go up when I repeatedly read about the Left this and the Left that. Conservatives are making a concerted effort to program our children into a state oriented education. They want a Uni-mind that only allows their point of view.
So far, I have not seen Dr Cherry offer anything that differs from what has been argued before. The fact that he cherry-picks people like Michelle Obama and Bryan Stevenson as problems with the “Left” is concerning and ignores the multiple voices on the Left who criticize others on the Left. We will see if the argument gets better.
I agree on the point about the Uni-mind. Why are conservatives so fixated on forcing children to go through public schools? I love the liberal approach in that families should be allowed to choose which school best addresses their child's needs and education track.
Your argument probably works on Conservative sites. DeSantis is using Christopher Rufo to take over a college in Florida. The Conservative group Moms for Liberty is trying to dictate which books are allowed in schools. Your argument and weak attempt at humor fails. Conservatives do not want diverse opinions.
Not sure it's worth my time replying but here goes.
Who said I agreed with either of the two groups you mentioned, of which I personally know nothing about? It's possible I could agree with them, but that would be beside the point. School choice seems to be a viable and reasonable solution to this problem you have with these (bullying) groups you disagree with. It allows the family the opportunity to educate their children in an environment and within a curriculum that best suits their child's needs and values.
How is the current "Uni-mind" system any different than the "Uni-mind" system the conservative groups are advocating for? Different curriculum but same forced curriculum results. Why, under the present, one option fits all approach, is there no room for discussion and discourse about what curriculum is appropriate and most relevant to our children achievhing their highest potential? We should just accept what someone finds to be the most redeemable and righteous curriculum because they say we should and just accept that? You're not buying that from the conservative groups and I'm not buying that from you either.
You seem stuck on a double standard here.
You said Conservatives supported forced attendance at public schools. Conservatives are well known for supporting charter schools.
Liberals are not known for supporting school choice.
I interpreted your post as snark, thus the response.
Edited corrected
forced attendance rather than force attendance
In the 1970s I had a friend from the inner city who was very smart and so was put in a magnet school. The neighborhood bully did not like that and started harassing her for acting "white". Eventually he attacked her resulting in her getting a broken arm and a cracked rib. She was in the hospital for a week and then a week later attended her assailant's hearing. The charges against him were dismissed for time served since he was only 17. She was adamant and almost received a contempt of court charge.
The next time the bully ran into her on the threat by saying "I am not done with you yet." She was so terrified that she hid in her house and would only go if she was surrounded by a posse of her friends. I asked her how long this lasted. She said she was lucky because it only lasted two weeks because the neighborhood bully had attacked others and one of those ended up murdering him.
I have wondered whether the bully would still be alive if he had been imprisoned for a few years.
Gun violence researcher here. Focused deterrence is great, but right now there’s literally no disincentive to commit gun violence in major American cities because arrest rates are so low. You can read more about gun violence in over 1000 American cities at my (free!) Substack here.
https://open.substack.com/pub/1000citiesproject/p/mass-shootings-in-the-us-with-and?r=d65gn&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
(Ex + Ch + Pr) x IQ = Level of social success
Expectations: family, cultural, personal
Choices: personal, parents
Proclivity: what one is naturally inclined towards
If you can grant some validity to the rough equation above, it's easy to understand why the programs to improve the state of urban black folks have mostly failed, and possibly made things worse. I think what happened starting in the 1960s is that our society made it "OK" to have low expectations, which lead to poor choices, that handcuffed any (positive) proclivity that a young black man might have.
Could it be that the black men with traits of irresponsibility , violence, not providing for the family are producing more offspring than the responsible black men with the genes\traits that settle down and successfully function in society…..could trends of black women mate selection ( out of wedlock and sequential parters). Actually be causing more and more boys with negative traits that then grow up to be men who do the same things? And over generations it becomes intractable…….however unfair mate choice matters a lot. .we need to teach our girls that….however, we’ve taught them the opposite ( blank slate) we have to stop lying about everything
Cherry is correct. Incrementalism is the answer, as it is in most things. Virtually all breakthroughs result from incremental improvements to existing ideas. It's not sexy but it works.
Randall Kennedy gets it wrong in my view, but his NYT essay is a nuanced argument worth debating.
If nothing else Cherry is not an abusive shit like your previous 2 guests Goldblatt and Finkelstein. That is a step in the right direction.
As to The State Of The Black Family I would leave it to the stakeholders to judge the validity of Cherry's research. And as usual it doesn't appear that there are any here. Which again (and again) begs the question Glenn Loury ... Are you unaware by whom the message you are sending is being received? I suspect not.
I'm getting Glenn's messages loud and clear...
You are aren't you. You like when black folks absolve your racism don't you.
It's even more satisfying when they adopt it as their own and spread the good word to others hither, thither, and yon...
This episode left me scratching my head a bit. I teach at a community college in California, and our offerings are roughly split between transfer prep and career technical education (CTE). Prof. Cherry made it sound as though CTE either doesn’t exist at the community college level or if it does, it’s catered toward students who still plan on transferring to a four-year college. Perhaps things are done differently in New York, but I want to say that here in California virtually everything Cherry said we “needed”, such as stackable certificates, we already have. The CTE program at my school is huge, and the vast majority of students in those programs will take classes here to get training and then go directly into the workforce, NOT transfer to a four-year university. Our CTE faculty and staff use workforce data pertaining to the job market in our area to justify which programs we offer.
I enjoyed the show, liked Dr. Cherry, and am very interested in all the topics he and Dr. Loury discussed. I have found in my work that people who are highly motivated to change their behavior do so incrementally most of the time. That is how change happens in human beings with respect to managing their own lives, changing entrenched habits, and improving self-evaluations.
I am not highly familiar with scholarly work on multigenerational poverty, but what I understand is that there is considerable inertia to cultures of that kind. Creating change in habits, or more so, motivation to improve habits, is more difficult than it is in more affluent communities. Belief that change is possible, that one's own efforts will cause it, and that the outcomes of the changes will be worth the effort is not necessarily present
I think that Dr. Cherry's approach to the social problems of poor black neighborhoods makes a lot of sense. I agree that when motivation may be in short supply it could be helpful to build up a scaffold of small successes.
One question I always have about such proposals is, "How many times have approaches like Dr. Cherry's already been tried, and what was the outcome?" I think it is dysfunctional to try one program after another unless we track the results and use them to refine our approach to social needs and problems. It is also very expensive, and not worth the investment if young black men aren't doing better vocationally and financially as a result. The description of his book suggests that Dr. Cherry reviewed the history of previous social initiatives designed to assist black families, and I will look forward to reading it.
I haven’t read the book. Hopefully, he points out programs already working to improve the situation. I work with an organization that focuses on children in high risk situations (poor parenting skills and poor school performance). In an amazingly short period of time, children improve math and reading scores dramatically. Dr. Cherry seemed more focused on blaming Liberals than pointing out programs that worked.
We saw schools built after enslavement, followed by colleges. Marva Collins was considered a wizard. Children are eager to learn. The question is what societal pressures are being put in place to discourage learning. What I see from Conservatives is rejoicing over the failure of public schools in Black neighborhoods. Putting Betty DeVos as head of the Department of Education did not send a signal that Conservatives were being serious when it came to educating Black children.
"In an amazingly short period of time, children improve math and reading scores dramatically"
This is good to hear!
"The question is what societal pressures are being put in place to discourage learning."
Yes! It is obscene that our society is accepting increasing levels of illiteracy.
Grandparents are playing a larger role in raising children. A different set of programs will be needed to help them address life in a digital world. The children are starved for affirmation. Once they feel valued, they can excel.
I was wondering how much of your success is related to the personal relationships you form with the kids. I am very interested in hearing more about what you are doing, and what specific interventions you think may be helpful to the kids.
In my therapy practice I see situations in which grandparents are providing most of the care and structure for kids whose parents are addicted or not willing/able to take on parental responsibilities. I think the kids still suffer from neglect and rejection from the parents, but they benefit from the stability, love and wisdom of the grandparent (s). There is research showing that when kids have at least one caring adult in their lives, within or outside of the family, their future health, mental health, and education outcomes improve.
I am not a therapist. I am a sponsor and board member. The real work is done by fee program director, teachers, and volunteers from a group, AmeriCorps.
The program won national and international awards. The results of instilling a sense of worth is amazing.
From where I sit, people keep trying to reinvent the wheel. There were successful schools prior to integration. Ask elders about Dunbar High schools in multiple cities and you will hear about how they created scholars. When integration came, great teachers were moved to white schools or fired. Black principals lost jobs.
Now we have DeVos, Rufo, Governors DeSantis and Abbott trying to destroy the education of Black children. We don’t expect Democrats or Republicans to fully address public education, but the Republican contempt for Black students is palpable. Instead of addressing problems, Republicans and Conservatives divert to nonsense like fringe groups suggesting math is racist. Conservatives are never going to be allies when it comes to education.
The segment with Dr. Cherry suggests he is going to repeat practices done in the past in the Black community. He is going to pretend that he has found something new and magical that”owns the Libs”. Black students have been failed by the powers that be, Liberal and Conservatives. Dr. Cherry saves his barbs for the “Left”.
I am interested in finding solutions to problems. Teaching kids to read shouldn't be an insurmountable obstacle.
What I have seen locally is that when problems are politicized there can be a huge wave of support followed some time later by a discard of a program, whether it worked or not.
I am really glad to hear about the success of the program you work with. It must be incredibly rewarding for you to see children blossoming! Thank you for sharing some good news about what people can do when they put their hearts in their work.
I agree! Both the liberals and conservatives have failed Black folks. At the end of the day, Black people need to solve their own problems or become a permanent underclass. The [buffer class] is exponentially growing and increasingly distracting from seriously addressing the benign neglect of Black folks. Black mass prison incarceration creates lucrative benefits for whites and other minorities.
The author makes strong points. I haven’t read the book, so I cannot determine if he ever actually talked to people in the Black community or is doing data analysis a.one. He may have talked to Black Conservatives like Robert Woodson or members of his organization. One possible flaw that may exist is that he lays the blame on the Left. He feels the Left refuses to address problems originating within the Black community. The problem with this framework is that in the Black community are familiar who Leftist Afrocentric organizations that openly criticize the Black community.
https://blackboysincrisis.com/contact-us/
Support group
https://www.gu.org/app/uploads/2020/07/AA-Toolkit-WEB-2.pdf
These Leftist organizations note that Black children are being raised by grandparents because some Black parents are either unmarried or are dealing with personal issues. The Black Leftists note importance of marriage. They are rational enough to realize that Black women outnumber Black men in the community by 3-6 to one. Leftists stress the need for placing children on a schedule and not varying unless there is an unusual event.
The problem is that the author comes down from on high to discussion solutions that are already being applied across the nation. The effect is that this comes across as Ice Cube taking about his plan for Black America. Ice Cube could not tell you what went before and whether it worked. I look forward to reading the book. I am pessimistic that things will change. The author focuses on the failures of the Left. He slides the fact that Republicans would not fund what he proposes as an afterthought. I’m sure the book will provide aid and comfort to Conservatives. Because neither side of the aisle is serious, the problem will remain with us.
The only hope may be the Black Leftists who are actually doing the work. Robert Woodson was able to join forces with Vernon Jordan, Ron Conyers, Barbara Jordan, Ron Brown and others, the proposed programs to directly fund community groups met strong opposition and failed. Both some Black Leftists and some Black Conservatives can work together. This can only happen if the failures of both sides are recognized. Involvement of the Black community will be of utmost importance. A new organization may be required. Conservatives are not trusted.
Robert Woodson failed
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/02/25/the-missed-opportunity-of-robert-woodson
"Sons of Rich Black Families Fare No Better Than Sons of Working-Class Whites"
The archived article I link to below is from NYTimes from 2018. To me, it looks like it seems to say that the lack of father'/other male figures in the lives of young and adolescent black males is the cause of deep disarray. Which was the essence of that 60s Daniel Patrick Moynahan report for which he was made practically persona non grata.
But do you sense that the writers are reluctant to foreground that explanation which is why it appears fairly late in the article and seems strained? It's almost as if the writers, knowing its audience, want to report the truth but are reluctant to do so because that admission hacks into the grain of so many progressive beliefs. Thoughts?
https://web.archive.org/web/20180319095004/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html
That was interesting! I’m sure this wasn’t supposed to be the takeaway… but they point out that black and white girls fare about the same as each other (actually the line for black girls is a little higher) but the white girls’ line is virtually identical to the black boys’ line. They totally glossed over that… usually people argue women “choose” lower paid jobs. I wonder if the same argument can be made in this case? I personally studied engineering, and the argument was that girls advanced/earned less because they weren’t willing to move to Saudi Arabia or rural Maine or wherever… I wonder if the same arguments would hold true here as well?
I didn’t feel like they glossed over fatherhood as much as you did. What I got was boys do better in areas where dual parenthood is the norm, whether or not their fathers are there. In a way this makes a lot of sense. Living in a world where there are no good role models puts you at a major disadvantage. I grew up in a one parent household, and I learned a lot by watching my friends’ family dynamics.
The most shocking thing was the increase in incarceration even with wealthy parents. It’s really hard to look at isolated data and get much from it. Either there is in fact terrible systemic racism, complex cultural dynamics, or something else people aren’t talking about yet. Super interesting though.
Strong moral parents provide children with the essential ideals and values that foster ego integrity and grit.
Probably the best distillation of leftist views of the black family I have ever heard. It all makes sense now! Vocational training and incrementalism seem the way forward but good luck with that in blue-controlled cities.
Quit kidding yourself, this is as good as it gets. After 60 years and 20 to 22 trillion dollars spent. This is what we have produced. This is as good as it gets.
What we have not tried is same-sex schools especially important for the "underclass " as earlier onset of puberty is positively correlated with gradual loss of academic curiosity. This compared with longer latency period correlates with persistence of academic interest in boys and girls. It is demonstrated by long history of same-sex preparatory schools favored by the rich.
Also, John is exactly right that phonics produces better readers who may actually enjoy reading, ditto squelching "new math" for traditional drilling, rote methods to establish firm foundation.
Very interesting! I kept wondering what happened to the role of the US military in helping poor kids get educated/job ready. I know joining the military is basically signing up for indenture, but the armed forces seem pretty good at figuring out an individual’s skill set and developing lots of transferable skills, including discipline and effective communication. It seems like that would be a better path than prison, which Robert Cherry seemed to see the job training benefits of. It makes me feel so sad that as a society, prison is the best we can do for our young men. I hope that isn’t actually true.
Too many young men aren’t fit even for the military by the time they are of age. Discipline and integrity need to be trained much earlier. But, yes it is a great option for many young people. I wouldn’t characterize it as being indentured; it is an opportunity to serve.
I was just acknowledging that joining the military means giving up (temporarily) a lot of freedom. You don’t choose what you do, where you live, how you dress, if you take vaccines, etc. in the grand scheme of things, this loss of liberty seems to help young men grow up. My father and one of my cousins paid for college with ROTC and made their current comfort possible. On the other hand, a cousin’s husband was assigned to the burn pits in the Middle East and that didn’t work out so well for him.