Isn’t it an innate human characteristic to belong to a group of one form or another? Humans have been organizing since the first village was formed. The fascination with 23 and me, ancestry.com, etc. are manifestations of this desire. I had very little knowledge of my ‘groups’ of blood. I could trace my familial tree back to my mother and my grandfather on my father’s side. As far as I was concerned, it’s irrelevant. However, one of my daughters has this urge to know and so she started using ancestry.com to sleuth it out. I was amazed at what she was able to find out. Kinda spooky actually. I never encouraged a tribal mindset, but there it was. Where did I come from, which helps to identify the I, which is but an illusion.
A good guest for the show would be Ian McGilchrist about the nature of the brain.
Who is this guy? I really mean it. He is great. I love the charts and data. ( I studied economics). What is interesting to me is the basis for the wide spread belief that racism is the cause of black relative academic performance. What is it and who does that narrative benefit?
Add “poor” in front of Black or White and we can better understand. My parents were working folks with little education. Whatever I attained was from “hard work” with Private School kids ( even people of color) always at the front of the line. Even with no body of work or talent. Obama ( the number one black leader) was the son of 2 college educated parents and raised by well off white parents. His blackness added affirmative action which he used. He doesn’t speak for Poor Black Folk other than to race grift. I proudly voted twice for Obama but he is no real leader of the black poor anymore than Sharpton thinks he is. Martin Luther King was that leader but probably someone like Kanye will end up as the Real favored Black Leader. Or BLM with “hate speech” and Gender polities. Glen needs a larger platform....
Think how much more of a leader Le Bron could have been with a different reaction to the Jerry Jones photo. He could have said that while segregation is bad thing, and was really bad in those days, it was 60 years ago, there's no proof that Jones was anything but a curious teenager, you are trying to make something out of nothing, isn't it time we all moved on from this kind of finger pointing and blame game, virtue signalling, etc. Opposite of Colin Kappernick and much more helpful to the community and himself.
I'm reminded of this passage in Baldwin's "Notes of a Native Son," written after the death of his stepfather and the Harlem Race Riots of 1943:
“It was necessary to hold on to the things that mattered. The dead man mattered, the new life mattered; blackness and whiteness did not matter; to believe that they did was to acquiesece in one’s own destruction. Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated and this was an immutable law.”
I am a Spanish American white writer living in France. Twelve years ago, I left the USA, actively removing myself from the violent realities of the USA that have plagued any national--let alone human--sense of identity since the beginning. I don't know what the reality of Black Solidarity is in America today; this piece shined some necessary light on it for me. But I do know that the reality of any [insert skin color] Solidarity Movement sounds terrifying to most other "liberals throughout the world, but this is also because the Black American experience is singular when it comes to parsing through the pros and cons of identity politics and finding a voice for the subaltern in a nation founded upon the conflation of innocence and ignorance. TLDR, the USA was founded on the principles of white skin versus all the other skins, and we aren't out of the woods yet, by a long shot. This is why I am still considered "white" to everyone that looks at me, but if I have to check a box on an official form, I am encouraged to check "hispanic" or "latino" because of my last name.
If the belief within the black community is that BLM is helpful and that racism/police remain major problems, that in itself suggests far bigger issues. Who did BLM help and how? Crime spiked in the aftermath of reactions to George Floyd and the fallout was far more harmful to black Americans than to anyone else. And that's not going to change as states like Illinois prepare to usher in the SAFE-T law and other jurisdictions turn suspects loose as soon as they are booked.
Clifton's commentary acknowledges "overt racism has mostly disappeared," but here we are, with racism as the ready made excuse for any outcome not to a black person's liking. There is no credible argument to be made that life today is no better than it was 50-100 years ago. No one was talking about diversity then. No one was lowering standards in order to increase black enrollment or black participation in certain professions. An American Bar Association committee wants to ban the LSAT, a move that mostly says "we don't think black student can measure up," which is a horrible indictment of these young folks. What happens when they're done with law school and face bar exams? Will those be banned, too, in the name of whatever this is? Lastly, the evidence re: police violence shows the exact opposite of the claims that led to rioting, but those figures are inconvenient, so they're ignored. Perhaps the more cogent argument is that "you're not a victim; stop acting like one," but that would deprive the various hustlers and grifters of power and a means of making a living.
It's almost impossible to not look at the findings of the Pew polls and NOT correlate them to voting patterns. That's quite the nice plantation Team Blue has built across urban America and into smaller states with large minority populations. School systems are failing black students, yet which side adamantly opposes choice? Crime is out of control, yet which side hand waves concern about it? The border impacts lower-skilled black men as much as anyone, yet which side is happy keeping it open?
At some point, reality compels a person to acknowledge that none of us can change the past and that today is far, far better than yesterday or the day before. Until that occurs, nothing positive will follow. When might that happen? When will people who tell me that slaves, their ancestors, built the country take pride in and ownership of what was built? As Glenn has noted repeatedly, the Western tradition is his, and black America's tradition, too, just as much as it is for me, the son of immigrants. The past cannot be a perpetual crutch, especially among people who had nothing to do with it, and eventually, racializing everything is going to spawn backlash.
You said: "Crime spiked in the aftermath of reactions to George Floyd and the fallout was far more harmful to black Americans than to anyone else." I think this last requires some clarification.
The "fallout" occurred in many geographical areas as well as in organizations far and wide in the USA and around the world. Only in a very restricted sense were black Americans "harmed" by the ensuing "racial reckoning" brought on by the Floyd affair. Certainly, police pullback and fearful politicians allowed certain criminal elements in black communities free-er (not free) reign to maraud and predate their largely black victims with little fear of apprehension or prosecution. The victims were left to deal with the unrest and vastly more dangerous environments as best they could. (Another example of the truism: no one is coming to help you—be prepared to defend yourself.)
That said, the "racial reckoning" shifted the locus of power from horrified whites driven by racial guilt to a too-willing black grievance class eager to increase their own power over and access to hitherto restricted centers of authority and high social status. The DEI "industry" was born and has been growing like an aggressive cancerous tumor ever since. Statements coming from every school district, corporate board, and cultural organization in the country and beyond declaring solidarity with a stricken "black community" and a mission to right the wrongs of history were like snowflakes in a blizzard. And when "free" gifts are offered, there will always be takers.
I'd argue that the power shift in American race relations post-Floyd is one of, if not the most significant developments since the civil rights revolution of the 1960s. It is now axiomatic (and the law in some states) that black "representation" be increased at all levels in American society with population proportionality the default goal, regardless of the qualifications or efficacy of the individuals tapped to fill such newly available positions. The post-Floyd landscape certainly has its share of innocent black victims among the carnage. However, I'd wager there are more (and more socially important) winners than losers among American blacks and many more white and other non-black losers now and in the future, than can be counted, should they even matter enough to be enumerated (they don't and won't).
Yes. Policing has really been damaged throughout the Western world and crime has spiked everywhere, and people of all races are effected. The goal of communism is to destroy the West. So of course they use race or sex or sexual orientation or whatever else they can to do destroy all Western institutions and they have had a lot of success.
Well, the Pew research results were certainly eye opening.
And to anyone on the left it was like manna from heaven. Black people will not require any internal leadership, just continue following the Democratic Party.
According to Lyndon Johnson, you have another 42 years to go.
And if the democrats start shaking that reparations cup, they can look forward to another 100 years of.....sevrice.
Institutions are important and the most important, immediate and impactful is the institution of the family: Mother, Father and their biological children. Only 60% of white kids are raised by their birth parents. This is terrible. Only 30% of black kids are raised by their birth parents. This is beyond words. Without this institution being dramatically strengthened, everything else is minutia.
Most White Americans are an amalgam of different nationalities or ethnicities. I myself have English, Scottish, Scots-Irish, Welsh and Dutch and even a bit of African and Native thrown in. To say I identify as a specific nationality is of little consequence because I am a mix of so many. I could argue that my Irish ancestors were mistreated by my British ancestors, and also that my Native and African ancestors were mistreated by my White ancestors, but to what purpose? The fact that so many White people have such a mixture does not really support a huge shared "White" identity in America other than Americanism.
Now we have Black Americans who were descendants of slaves, and Jim Crow policies who may say
"Well, we have a shared history of slavery and oppression from the White community." But again, what purpose does that serve in light of multiple Constitutional amendments and laws prohibiting the use of race, ethnicity or religion to discriminate, other than divisiveness?
The best one could hope for is a joining of those of various racial and ethnic heritages to regard ourselves as Americans struggling for most of the same things. Someone can wear green on St Paddie's day, celebrate Robbie Burns' Day, wear a Dashiki, celebrate Dewali or Ramadan, or Dia de los Muertos, but still be essentially American.
I still remember the following quote from Greg Tate circa 1991:
"Perhaps the supreme irony of black American existence is how broadly black people debate the question of cultural identity among themselves while getting branded as a cultural monolith by those who would deny us the complexity and complexion of a community, let alone a nation. If Afro Americans have never settled for the racist reductions imposed upon them -- from chattel slaves to cinematic stereotype to sociological myth -- it's because the black collective conscious not only knew better but also knew more than enough ethnic diversity to subsume those fictions.
-- Greg Tate"
Once again we are stuck in neutral when we make efforts to deal with black diversity. That's because of a determined refusal to disambiguate race from culture from citizenship when it is more convenient to make something of a 'racial' statement. American politics remains entirely too racial, and this becomes abundantly clear when black Republicans clash with black Democrats, or on those occasions when we deal with those damned Baptists or those damned West Coast rappers. Black America remains cripplingly dependent on myths of racial unity. Consequently black elites who can nationally or internationally code switch with ease are always tempted to take advantage of those myths. I struggle myself sometimes. But what I don't do is feel compelled to second guess whatever it is that self-identified blackfolk do as blacks.
The irony thus is that I know, like Greg Tate knew, that all black Americans are perfectly free to do whatever they want, as blacks. Nobody ever stops blackfolks from being exactly the kind of black they want to be. Its the moment one black person steps over the line to tell what another black person ought to do where all the trouble starts. That doubles down on the irony because it implies a kind of ownership of blackness. So who owns blackness? This is the core of today's debate. Who is authentic, and given that, what are they owed?
I can't tell you how tired I get of the sort of statistical representations of black populations no other people seem to suffer. But I must admit these Pew numbers catch my eye. Put me in the 'not so [self-] important' category of black identification. It is rightly what we should expect two mountaintops past MLK's. What statistical representation can you put on a love of bebop? What bar chart best describes a second-line funeral? We abandon our inheritance of cultural edification when we submit to the racial boxes. Race always has and always will define a manner of control. You cannot truly desire freedom and also truly desire racial categories.
Ultimately this is about fear. The fear of "If I am not black, then what am I?" Remember Akeela? Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. There's that special black American fear that maybe I've held my own self back. The special fear that one cannot stand to hear somebody who is not black tell us truthfully so.
Another *great* one, Sir! Below all In My (somewhat) Humble Opinion. Your quotes preceded by ">".
> "There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you."
True that.
> "You cannot truly desire freedom and also truly desire racial categories."
Truer that.
> "So who owns blackness? This is the core of today's debate. Who is authentic, and given that, what are they owed?"
First question: You do, M Bowen. People like You. Liberal/Conservative. Not sure if that's useful or not. But no debate needed.
Second question: You guys/gals are owed respect. Respect for elders. (In spirit, if not in age.) I dunno young people are familiar with term, but that may be too broad a brush.
> "Ultimately this is about fear."
IMO, truest yet. But I dunno:
> "The fear of 'If I am not black, then what am I?'"
Got me thinking. Fear all people have, AFAIK, is "If I'm not alive, then what am I?" ICBW, 'course.
First of all, I wanna say TYTY, M Clifton! Another *great* article.
Here's the problem I have: I agree with a lot more than 95% of what You wrote, Sir. However You wrote these two sentences:
"Black America isn't at a point where most of us have faith in 'white' institutions and leaders, so we have to strengthen their black counterparts if the goal is to put Black America on a better path."
"We're not prepared to thrive in a world where overt racism has mostly disappeared."
I wish there was a Way to "say" this without appearing racist. Why are You all *not* prepared to thrive? IMO, because You all have been conned into thinking that You shouldn't have faith in "white" institutions. You've been mislead. You've believed some blatant falsehoods.
Because is there any question about the FACT that it was *largely* "white" institutions which eliminated overt racism?
I won't make an absolute claim that America has outdistanced all other countries when it comes to eliminating racism and sexism. (I'm sure there's a Pew study which could answer that question, but I'm not overly fond of Pew. And I don't believe it can accurately be measured, but that's just me.) I would, instead, just ask what other countries did a better job leading the Way in these areas in the past 40 to 60 years? There are probably some, but not all that many.
And I would ask if the current Woke Black Culture-leaders are increasing or decreasing racial comity?
I could go on with some harder, IMO, home truths. But I'll leave it at that for now. TY again for writing the article, Sir.
Thanks for your comment. I always find your perspectives interesting.
There's an ongoing debate about why Black America isn't thriving. Professor Loury did a paper (Why Does Racial Inequality Persist?: Culture, Causation, and Responsibility) for the Manhattan Institute in 2019 that does a good job of outlining the opposing perspectives. I recommend it:
TY again for the referral, Sir Clifton. And I gotta say, it was an *armful.* I'm still thinking about the overall scheme of the article, but here are a few minor points that may interest a few. Quotes preceded by “>”.
> “There would be no races in the steady state of any dynamic social system unless, on a daily basis and with regard to their most intimate affairs, people paid assiduous attention to the boundaries separating themselves from racially distinct others. Over time, race would cease to exist unless people chose to act in a manner so as biologically to reproduce the variety of phenotypic expression that constitutes the substance of racial distinction.”
Per below link, Whites intermarry at about the same percentage as Black women (10 – 12%). Black men intermarry twice the rate of Black women. In total, Blacks intermarriage rate is 18% and Whites 11%. I’m not at all sure that the percentages tell the whole story. Given the *number* of people by race.
But mebbe more to the point is that, according to this article I read a year or more ago, I think the point was that in 40 years there’s gonna be so much interracial marriage that a lotta this is gonna be a moot point. (lotta “points” ;-) “The Myth of a Majority-Minority America.” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/myth-majority-minority-america/619190/
But I think the most important point in the whole article, that wasn’t involved in the text much, is the following:
‘> “The perspective I am promoting about social capital does not require special, race-targeted social policy. Most policy initiatives aimed at improving the lives of our most disadvantaged citizens should not, and need not, be formulated in explicitly racial terms or understood as a remedy for racial injuries. We have to find what works for disadvantaged people in America, period.”
I’d hafta read it again, but I believe that most-a the places where it said “Black” or “African American” it would-a been *just* as appropriate to say “poor people.”
For example this applies to all races:
‘> “To the extent that African-American youngsters do not have the experiences, are not exposed to the influences, and do not benefit from the resources that foster and facilitate their human development, they fail to achieve their full human potential.”
This ignores the bigger problem that virtually *nobody* in our society comes even *close* to reaching their *full* potential. Unless You think spending hours on social media or binge-watching Netflix counts.
‘> “"First, all human development is socially situated and mediated."
IMO, "All" should be replaced by "the best." In my experience, anyway.
And thanks for the reference to Prof. Loury's "Inequality" paper. It's one of my personal favorites! I read it when it came out back in 2019....saved it....highlighted the heck out of it...and use it regularly as a source of both insight & wisdom. (Commodities, as you know, in short supply these days!)
Appreciate your efforts to bring some additional clarity (and data!) to the conversation!
But I would press further and ask the more fundamental question: what on earth is a 'White' institution?
I know of none, myself....do you? Does Clifton?
Certainly we can point to Black institutions....the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), the NSBE, the NABSE, the SOBA, the BCA, etc... all founded upon George Wallace's ancient & poisonous conviction that Black and White were separate & distinct.... that the work of Black congressmen, Black Engineers, Black Teachers, Black Architects, and Black Coaches somehow was and should be different from the work of their non-Black compatriots.
But I absolutely reject that thinking; I'm sure you do too. Does everyone?
If we would look with horror upon a Congressional White Caucus, a Society of White Engineers or White Coaches, or a White Teachers Union acting to further White interests....if we would condemn them all as Racist....why wouldn't we...why shouldn't we... react the same way to that other skin-color-alphabet soup? Indeed, we should.
And then move to the next question: who the heck is a White Leader anyway?
Isn't implicit in leadership (if it's to be effective) the fact that one leads men AND women, Blacks and Whites, the Short and the the Tall, the Fat and the Skinny, etc etc. etc.? Isn't leadership, by its very nature, the blending together of disparate perspectives to form a coherent & unifying vision for all people now moving in the same direction? ("For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother!")
George Wallace once proclaimed, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" He believed that such segregation (separate but equal) was "best for both races," writing that "they each prefer their own pattern of society, their own churches and their own schools." Are there not echoes of that same racist perversion when we hear, increasingly, the call for teachers & doctors & coaches & congressmen that 'look like us'....when we hear people speak of 'Black Institutions' and 'Black Leaders', etc? And would we not be horrified if the media began to describe Biden, or Clinton, or Zuckerberg, or Pelosi as "White Leaders" advancing a White Agenda???
This hateful, and entirely destructive racist nonsense must end. And that ending begins with the whole hearted acknowledgement that I am not my skin color ... and that skin color is not destiny.
I think you may be missing the forest for the trees. Let's delve into your "hateful and entirely destructive racist nonsense" and talk more about skin color (i.e. race) and destiny.
In order for race not to matter, there can be no innate differences in significant capabilities between people of different races IN THE AGGREGATE (ITA). But if such differences DO exist, the nature of those differences are more or less important to understand. Let's posit what we consider an "insignificant" difference: skin color is the prime example. Beyond its (ab)use as a ready racial identifier—more or less as individuals of many races share skin tone—such a difference is trivial and thus fits into your "destructive racist nonsense" category. Fine.
What about say physical build? West Africans, ITA, are endowed with prodigious sprinting capabilities. This trait gives them advantages over other racial groups not so advantaged in areas where sprinting is highly valued. Think of running backs and other athletic specialties richly rewarded in American professional football, basketball, and many other sports. Similarly East Africans have a propensity for long-distance running due to oxygenation capabilities and muscle fiber makeup, both genetically determined. Think Kenyan marathoners.
What about brain function as relates to cognitive ability? Oof! Now we're in deep doo-doo and there's no easy way out. IQ is extremely important and hugely rewarded in developed societies around the world. Blacks (Africans, African Americans, South Americans, and aboriginal peoples, etc.), ITA, possess significantly lower IQs than European whites, East Asians, and Ashkenazi Jews. This puts blacks, ITA, at a HUGE disadvantage compared to the groups just mentioned in areas where high cognitive ability is valued and rewarded. If we were all subsistence farmers or serfs working on feudal estates, not that big a problem. But in a worldwide meritocratic competition for brainpower with trillions of dollars and the fate of nations hanging in the balance, smarts matter A LOT.
Now LBJ once claimed it was unfair to expect someone just recently unchained to be able to compete in a footrace with others never so disadvantaged (the rationale behind affirmative action and its consequent racial preferences). Let's think about that. During slavery and segregation, interracial differences mattered little—the races were (forcibly) separated and no footraces were scheduled. After the Civil Rights revolution, barriers between the races came down, and the races were allowed to mix. But not only that. The races were FORCED to give up their hitherto separate social, economic, and educational spheres. It became illegal to operate in the USA on a racially exclusionary (or preferential) basis, with some very limited exceptions. Watch out what you wish for...
Now given the black disadvantage in cognitive ability compared to whites and Asians (all ITA), how "fair" is it that blacks are now forced to compete directly with groups vastly more advantaged in securing positions of power, influence, wealth, and social standing? How would you feel if your group was "free" (unchained) to compete with other groups more richly endowed with just those traits valued by the society hosting the competition? And how would you react to the reams of data, produced day-in day-out going back decades, documenting your group's inability to rise above its innate disadvantage relative to others (once again, all ITA)? This is the situation in today's USA and hurling invective ("hateful and entirely destructive racist nonsense") will not change a thing. The question is: what will?
Always mistakes. The idea I started with is that there are multiple *kinds* of intelligence. IQ measures a certain kind-a intelligence that, in these times, is highly remunerative. That could change. Especially 10 or 15 years out when AI pseudo-intelligence exceeds IQ.
The other point I would make is that, to my knowledge (which isn't perfect), there is one common-denominator amongst people who reach the highest levels of attainment that is often overlooked. And that's humility which can lead to awe and joy.
And money isn't always the best measure of attainment, right?
Almost forgot to mention that there is often an *inverse* relationship between IQ and life-skills, right?
This one big tree causes You to miss the forest, the soil it grows from, and the planet it rests on:
"In order for race not to matter, there can be no innate differences in significant capabilities between people of different races IN THE AGGREGATE (ITA)."
What will change it? Change in attitudes. Trajectory? Accelerating curve over last 50-60 years shows promise. No guarantees. We're going backwards at present.
I'm loath to engage you in discussion, but I am interested in your statement: "We're going backwards at present." Please explain what you mean and the evidence on which your observation rests. Also, how exactly does a "change in attitude" change genetic expression in racial groups? Thank you.
Racial relations are, AFAIK, *more* tense now than they were, say, ten years ago. This may not be obvious, especially to Blacks, but we entered the era of Black Supremacy, mebbe, five years ago. I thought an article titled "Blacks Can Be Racists, Too" might be interesting. But it turned out to be about Blacks acting like White racists. One item in the listicle said Blacks should never say anything negative about a Black-owned business. That explained why White people, necessarily, could *only* say positive things about Black people, right? Do Blacks ever get criticized for *Anything* these days. Well, there's Kanye, but that's about it. And he's got his defenders.
I'm not the first person to point out that these DEI trainings are having a negative effect on race relations. How could they not. And others have pointed out that, with the excesses that are going on, there's a good possibility of a strong *backlash.*
People can work to bring people together. People can work to be great *dividers.* That was Trump's big problem but he is, by no means, alone in that.
Now right up until I mentioned Trump, You probably agreed.
What Your not gonna agree with is that genes don't make the man. Granted, You got two armed camps facing each other. Just like is going on with "racial justice." You got the people that say that, basically, genes determine pretty much everything important. Then You got a large number of stupes who believe the "Blank State" idiocy. That it's *society* which causes people to break laws and kill people.
What the *science* points to, time and time again, is that nature and nurture play a role. No set percentage of which is which. To the extent that they attempt to measure it. Which really can't be very exact with the current state-of-the-art.
The number I "heard" was that intelligence was determined 40% by genetics. That's as likely to be correct as any other guess.
To say that education doesn't play a role in a person's IQ, just doesn't pass the smell test with me. But progressives? They should read the research of somebody who, I think, has the last name of Page Harden. She's a progressive herself. Whoever, she found 1300 different genes that effected intelligence. No single one being important. But analyzing the 1300 can turn up a number, IIRC. Can't find the link now, but pretty sure I saved it.
No matter.
People, mostly, believe what they *wanna* believe.
But when You wanna believe Blacks are, as individuals rather than ITA, just as good as anybody else, in small and large Ways, in similar and different Ways, You can. Anytime. Me? No matter. Doesn't matter if anyone even reads this. Time spent. Break over.
I asked about your "going backwards" comment. You evidently based it on the level of racial tension you perceive. Fine.
As to changes in people's attitudes trumping (is that OK to say?) genetics and the aggregate statistics that define different racial groups, color me (is that OK to say?) skeptical. Imagine that each individual was treated strictly on their own merits. Racial statistical aggregates tell us the result will be a disproportionate representation (relative to population %) of blacks in fields requiring higher levels of IQ (fewer) and in conditions of personal and social pathology (more).
Kathryn Paige Harden is a bit late to the party. Google "boost IQ and scholastic" and you'll be directed to Arthur R. Jensen's seminal 1969 article (124 pages including references): "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" Yep, that's not a misprint: 1969. It's all in there and has been for over 50 years and counting (and has been suppressed and hidden behind academic/journalistic paywalls for just as long). Happy reading!
I wouldn't disagree, at least not to any great degree.
But we need to be absolutely clear as to what the issue is.
Skin color, per se, is meaningless. It's a color...as I said, a demographic marker.
But abilities, aptitudes, achievements, talents....those things are not colors. Rather they are the 'personal resources' (for lack of a better term) we individuals each possess... some of which are indeed genetic. They are the qualities which are themselves leveraged and honed over time with effort investments made by each one of us with greater or lesser degrees of success.
Aggregate performance measures are meaningless, save in the abstract, as a point of interest.
If faced with the question, do I or do I not hire you (as a for instance) your group demographic memberships don't and shouldn't matter in the least. What matters is what, yourself, have done and have demonstrated yourself capable of doing regardless of what your demographic category has empirically presented. West Africans, to your point, as an aggregate may be great sprinters...but if you happen to be a fat West African who's out of breath walking to the mailbox, I'm not hiring you as a sprinting messenger, despite your category bona fides.
That is the stuff which matters; the tonal range displayed by your skin doesn't in the least.
In the end I think we're saying the same thing, albeit from different angles. The superficial is superficial and should be treated as such (one of the many superficialities is skin color). The significant, on the other hand... what people do and don't do; what they're capable of doing....that's MASSIVELY IMPORTANT, and that's where we separate wheat from chaff.
The confusion arises when we begin to think that life itself should be fair....that no one should be more or less talented or have more or fewer abilities or aptitudes than anyone else (Welcome to Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron"!) That world does not exist and will not exist. When I stand on the track, next to Bolt, I'm under no illusion that I would ever -- even at my absolute best - ever ever ever beat him in race. Is that fair? Sure it is, fair in the sense we both have a chance to stand at the 100m. starting line and run when the gun goes off. 9 seconds later he wins....15 seconds later (and I may be generous!) I cross the line. The race is fair; it's measured fairly; no one cheated; and the best man won. I congratulate him and move on.
I'd be a fool to argue that he was unfairly advantaged.
As to how I (or anyone) should react to reams of data demonstrating my demographic group, on average, does "X"...and X is less than Y.... why should I care? Skin color is not destiny; I am not my group. And if can, in fact, do Y...that's all that anyone should care about.
You did not address the negative consequences I pointed out once genetically disadvantaged American blacks (ITA) were placed in direct meritocratic competition with genetically advantaged whites, Asian, and Jews (ITA) and told the footrace was now fair with everyone treated equally. Instead you ignored the benefits accruing to both racial groups and American society in general during the period when black businesses, schools, and professional associations were present and successful in actual (vs. today's virtual) black communities across the country, and positions of high social status were routinely attained by individual blacks (vs. today's tokens, DEI hires, and race hustlers).
Additionally, I don't believe you've carefully examined Mr. Roscoe's positions in relation to "closing gaps" (equalizing aggregate black and white performance across any number of metrics). The underlying assumption on which Mr. Roscoe's (and, I suspect, your) prescription (and proscription) rests is one that presupposes both racial group possess substantially equal aggregate capabilities. In other words, group differences in achievement are due to factors other than the native abilities possessed by each group. That, in my opinion, is not a tenable position given the mountainous data produced over many decades due to the intense focus on racial disparities in the USA.
Black leaders and their millions of followers in the USA are telling you point blank that they will NEVER let go of their racial identity, one they consider core to their individual and social existence. Your utopian ideal of everyone everywhere taking only individual characteristics and accomplishments into consideration is therefore doomed—it'll never happen. What do you propose to do about THAT, other than throw your hands up in the air and hurl invective at both whites and blacks who see value in their racial identity and refuse to turn their backs on their families, friends, and history?
Thanks for your comments. There's ample evidence that the skills gap was closing until the late 1980's. Derek Neal at the University of Chicago did a study about this back in 2006. You can access it using this National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) link:
All data sources indicate that black-white skill gaps diminished over most of the 20th century, but black-white skill gaps as measured by test scores among youth and educational attainment among young adults have remained constant or increased in absolute value since the late 1980s. I examine the potential importance of discrimination against skilled black workers, changes in black family structures, changes in black household incomes, black-white differences in parenting norms, and education policy as factors that may contribute to the recent stability of black-white skill gaps. Absent changes in public policy or the economy that facilitate investment in black children, best case scenarios suggest that even approximate black-white skill parity is not possible before 2050, and equally plausible scenarios imply that the black-white skill gap will remain quite significant throughout the 21st century.
Charles Murray documented that the skills gap was closing until the late 1980's in his most recent book, "Facing Reality." There's a graphic on page 34 that suggests the gap would have essentially closed by 2015 if the trends had continued past the late 1980's. You can see an updated version of this graph on page 37 of the notes to the book that you can download by using this link:
Murray acknowledged Neal's work on page 32 of the notes.
Many of us think the gaps can be closed, but the narrative behind the root causes of these gaps has to change first because how you approach the problem is different if you think "bias" is the issue instead of "development." Professor Loury explores these competing narratives in his Manhattan Institute paper about the persistence of racial inequality. Use this link to access it:
Fascinating material. Appreciate the link to Neal's work.
So let us try to separate the forest from the trees.
And let us begin with the misnomer, 'skills gap'.
If I beat you in a race, over and over again, would your coach be talking about your 'skills gap'? That when it came time to see who was faster in the 100m.... would he suggest that your skills, per se, were deficient? Would your serial losses, both severe and consistent, be attributed to a running mechanics issue? That your sprint 'know-how' was not as highly developed as mine? That you need to improve your knee lift, your stride length, the angle at which you hold your arms, etc? And that the only thing that separates our finishes was your honing of these proficiencies?
In fact, yes, there may be something to that analysis (I'm reminded of that scene in Chariots of Fire)....but... that's not really the issue, is it? That's not what we've witnessed for generations...and that's not what's driving the increasingly insane elimination of standards. The issue is not 'skills' that need to be sharpened (because we have the entire Education-Industrial Complex eager to do that sharpening) ; it's flat out performance (especially since that performance for decades had been improving...until that improvement ceased)
The first thing, the very first thing, that any coach would immediately question looking at 60 years plus of poor finishes is EFFORT, effort as measured by practice and the amount of hard work the two runners are investing to improve. When race after race is decided not by 'tenths of seconds' at the tape but entire standard deviations...the problem is not skills, it's sweat, dedication, intensity, and work. The problem is attitude and the desire to translate that attitude into effort.
There is a massive difference between these two understandings.
Skills gaps are relatively easy to bridge. 'Sam Mussabini' can coach 'Harold Abrahams' to 'run on hot bricks' and find another 2 yards when he races Liddell...because Abrahams desperately wants to win and is willing to work to accomplish that goal. But we're not talking about 2 measly yards which separate Gold Medal finishes from Silver or Bronze. We’re talking about not qualifying to be on the same track.
Neal concludes his analysis by saying that although....“It is not clear why the process of black-white (performance) convergence appeared to stop around 1990”...it would certainly seem that those black-white performance differences we witness later in life seem to be directly related to differences in “early childhood experiences”. He then moves on to review possible ‘childhood intervention programs’. Why intervention? Because ‘early childhood experience’ is ‘in the home’ experience. ‘In the home’ is not an environment naturally subject to public policy. ‘In the home’ is private. It’s how children are being raised by their parents, outside public purview. It is where we, as a society, build the essential, personal foundation upon which our public education either succeeds or falls.
The reason Neal is discussing public policy intervention to improve ‘early childhood experience’ is because – at a very gross/macro level, child-rearing within the home is and has been failing, a failure that begins with an out-of-wedlock birthrate of +70%.
It's not ‘skills development’ which is deficient; it’s the prototypical Black Family...which is not so much a family as a single Mom, who either aborts her pregnancy (at a rate 3X higher than a normal population demographic would indicate) or brings to term a child who will be raised without a father, inside a culture which – per Neal – would seem to require early public intervention if the aggregate, ‘Fatherless Black Youth’ are to develop in such a way that public education succeeds and the performance gap narrows.
The question, of course: is that Home subject to, open to, public policy intervention in such a way that culture-wide dysfunction (as in the 70%+ out-of-wedlock birthrate) can be corrected?
I don’t know.
As a society we’ve been radically concerned for generations about the social costs of illegal drug use. And yet, despite all that concern, despite all the trillions of dollars spent on anti-drug programs and intervention programs, and ‘Just Say No’ (This is your brain on drugs...a mind is a terrible thing to waste!)...despite all that, death from opioid overdose is rampant.
Certainly there are any number of public policies which have been and can be pursued to address this drug-use issue...just as there are any number of public policies which have been and can be pursued to address the B/W Performance Gap (GPA Gap, SAT Gap, HS Graduation Gap, College Enrollment Gap, College Graduation Gap, Employment Gap, Earnings Gap, etc etc.). But until the individuals that these public policies are trying to rescue actually want to be rescued....until the alcoholic actually wants to stop drinking & be saved....all the well-meaning social engineering efforts in the world cannot put Humpty Dumpty together again.
At the very least, though, we can make a public choice to not enable those dysfunctional dependencies. And NOT eliminating or lowering performance standards in a horribly misguided effort to ‘fix’ outcome inequity would be massive step in that right direction.
Thank you for your well-considered writings, your engagement with reader comments, and your always excellent and to-the-point links, Mr. Roscoe. I look forward to more of your contributions.
I'm quite familiar, as you might guess, with the majority of Charles Murray's published works and public appearances over the last 5 decades. I highly recommend his "Real Education" for those, such as yourself, who fool themselves in thinking education reform can and will "close the gap." Murray is something of a hero to me, both for his courageous perseverance in the face of withering social and professional condemnation and isolation as well as the intellectual honesty evidenced in his relentless pursuit of the truth wherever it leads (see "conservative" Murray's "Coming Apart" bookended with "liberal" Robert Putnam's "Our Kids" as an example).
The two .pdfs were very interesting. My eyes glazed over reading Neal's formulas, but he explained them well.
I was hampered by Neal and Murray saying further research could, or needed to, be done. And I didn't catch the significance Murray was pointing to of the tests getting easier. But that confirmed what I assumed. It'd be ridiculous to try to compare test scores with the one's I took. And it would appear another example of younger folks getting accommodated. TY again.
"Black leaders and their millions of followers in the USA are telling you point blank that they will NEVER let go of their racial identity, one they consider core to their individual and social existence."
Invective, my friend, does not mean what you seem to think it means. I am not shouting, nor am I angry, nor am I hurling rude or hateful remarks at either Whites or Blacks. Rather I am saying, quite simply, that 'hateful, and destructive racist nonsense must end.' How you read that as invective is baffling since it is essentially calling for an end to racist invective.
As for your continued assertions of the importance of aggregate performance averages, again, as I said, "Aggregate performance measures are meaningless, save in the abstract, as a point of interest." There is no reason to address meaningless group averages when what matters is individual performance. We don't hire aggregates, we hire individuals.
As for what will never happen.... I dunno. I think it can. I know, in fact, it does every day at the micro-level upon which all decisions are ultimately made: who is hired, who wins a race, who qualified for med school, who graduated at the top of the class, who becomes the rocket scientist, who the cardiologist, who the truck driver, etc. We make these decisions; we recognize these successes on an individual level always.
Let us return to Loury and the point he made in his 2019 essay in Inequality. He said: "The struggle for equal rights for black people, from abolition through the civil rights movement, has always been thought of as a “freedom struggle.” But with freedom, rightly understood, comes responsibility. It is past time for all of us to start performing without a net. Rather than lamenting the lack of black billionaires, an outcome ascribed to some invisible force called “racism,” one can admit that you will never become a billionaire unless you build a billion-dollar business—which begins by starting a business. One will never win a Nobel Prize in physics unless one learns calculus at the age of 12. What black parents are insisting that their 12-year-old kids learn calculus—those few kids capable of doing so? White people are not responsible for the fact that black people are, or are not, doing this." He's absolutely right. And he's as right about the Black people who are or are not choosing to behave responsibly as he is about the White people.
You want to build a successful life then go build one. And don't tell me (or yourself) that you can't do it because the aggregate measures for your population demographic say it's improbable. Aggregates don't study calculus; individuals do.
And if some choose to remain irresponsible....to not take accountability for their own life choices....to look at a disparate outcomes and cry racism when no racist discrimination is present..... to keep waiting, hand outstretched for someone who has earned dollars to give them dollars because Black....well then they will live with those consequences....and their lives will be, inevitably, short, nasty, and brutish.
Ultimately I guess I don't really care about "equalizing aggregate performance metrics". I think it's a fool's errand... made more foolish by a multi-generational history that tells us that pouring trillions of dollars into 'assistance programs' does nothing other than send those aggregate measures in the wrong direction.
Aggregate performance metrics will equalize when aggregates, acting as individuals, make equalizing choices about how they wish to live. As much as we might want all the aggregate alcoholics to stop drinking, until they, as individuals, CHOOSE to actually stop, there's not a whole lot we can do to 'fix' the aggregate drunks.
Your views are now clearly at odds with those of Mr. Clifton Roscoe and the vast majority of "race men" who focus on disproportionate representation of blacks, IN THE AGGREGATE (ITA), in both desirable positions (too few Nobel Prize winners) and socially destructive ones (too many criminals, school dropouts, and single mothers). The very concept of an "achievement gap" both acknowledges and implicitly demands action to equalize aggregate metrics by forcing proportional representation.
When the great equalizer, education, is shown to fail utterly in its mission to "close the "gap," other more slippery methods are used. These include lowering admission and examination standards and lessening academic rigor so black high school and university graduation rates show improvement. Alas, those lowered standards apply to everyone, so the children of high-achieving racial groups and cultures must seek effective education elsewhere, an increasingly difficult task. Meanwhile, newly-minted black "college graduates" in meaningless majors from such diploma mills are then placed as tokens in professional positions where few demands for real work output are placed on them. And everyone is happy. Individuals gain monetary success and social status (for producing no real value), proportional representation goes up, Mr. Roscoe and you see "progress," and a new round of official obfuscation and social censorship ensues lest the emperors new clothes be revealed for what they truly are.
You simply cannot have it both ways. Either individuals are tested against assessment standards and those passing move on to positions of real authority and efficacy while those who fail are denied sinecures and must find other, less prominent and remunerative paths to follow. This will result in disproportionate representation of blacks (ITA) in desirable professional, business, and scientific pursuits. While this may suit you just fine, it is NOT acceptable to Mr. Roscoe, Glenn Loury, American liberals, and the United States government.
I agree with much of what you wrote, but I would caution you not to paint with too broad a brush. I know one of the founders of NSBE (National Society of Black Engineers). Their overarching goal is to encourage more blacks to enter STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) fields. I may not agree with all of their positions, but I don't see any downsides to encouraging more blacks to pursue STEM careers.
I wish we lived in a color blind society, but the Pew analyses I quoted suggest that we're not there yet. Perceptions are often reality when it comes to how people view institutions. Consider the Georgia GOP. Their leadership page includes 35 photos.
All the leaders presented except one (Fitz Johnson, District 3 Public Service Commissioner) appear to be white. Only four of the photos show women.
Keep in mind that blacks account for 33% of Georgia's population and women account for 51% of Georgia's population according to the latest figures from the U.S. Census Bureau:
I'm not hung up on this because policies are more important that the pigmentation of party leaders, but a lot of people will take a look at the leadership of the Georgia GOP and conclude that it's a "white" organization.
Sometimes hard to follow who's exactly replying to what....but let me jump in here (maybe in sequence, maybe out of sequence)
The too-broad-a-brush is always a concern. Equally, the too-granular can be equally concerning and equally misleading. And sometimes, quite honestly, that broad brush is used to make a particular point, recognizing that there are always a host of exceptions to any gross generalization, however it is used.
Your point about NSBE & the encouragement of Blacks to enter STEM is a good one. But you say you don't see any downsides to such encouragement. I do. And I see them the same way we would see a downside to parents encouraging Little Joey in his efforts but not his sister, Sue. We imagine the Dad saying, 'Heck, I'm just encouraging Joey to work hard and do his best because that helps to build his future." And he's right; that encouragement does. But what does the lack of encouragement do to Sue?
The NSBE works to encourage Blacks in STEM. But wouldn't a higher & 'truer' goal be to encourage ANYONE to pursue STEM? Would we be equally pleased to discover a NSWE targeting only White students? Would we say we see no downsides? [Imagine the reaction to a school announcement which says the National Society of White Engineers is meeting tomorrow with any White students who might be interested in STEM! NBC Nightly News would be broadcasting right outside the front door....interviewing the activists who are -- quite rightly -- picketing and protesting.]
Clearly, to your point, we don't seem to live in a color blind society. But as Justice Roberts might say, the best way to start living 'color-blindly' is to stop behaving as though color matters. The fact that the Georgia GOP's leaders are mostly White Males actually means nothing, truly. Unless we believe that you can tell a book by its cover. Neither does the fact that 94% of the Golden State Warrior players are Black (when 13% of the population is Black) indicate that the Warriors are a racist organization. That 93% of all pre-school teachers are women actually tells us nothing about whether the PreSchool Prep process is sexist (I'm guessing most probably not).
True, a lot of people who really should know better may take a look at a picture and draw an erroneous conclusion about what the people pictured are thinking and doing, but the solution is not to recolor (or re-sex!) the picture, it's to educate those who draw erroneous conclusions. The truth is, and I know you already know this...and that I'm preaching to the choir... you really can't tell a book by its cover. (I'm sure we've both read a ton of excellent books that had horribly lousy covers!)
In the end, yes, I do recognize that groups like the NSBE are doing good work, so it's hard to argue with good results. But we truly do need to recognize that there is an implicit and increasingly dangerous message in any color-centric approach to anything... and that message is, always, that skin color somehow matters.
It doesn't.
In any moral or ethical sense, the color of one's skin, the size of one's feet, the curl of one's hair -- it's all completely meaningless when it comes to the quality & integrity of one's work. It's what we do that counts, not how we look.
Thanks for your reply. I agree with many of your points, but the under-representation of minorities in STEM fields has a historical context that's hard to ignore, especially for those who believe various forms of racism and bias are on the rise.
Let's start with some basic numbers. Here's an excerpt from a National Science Foundation/National Science Board report that was published last year:
Hispanic or Latino and Black or African American workers are underrepresented in STEM, with the greater discrepancy being among those with a bachelor’s degree or higher than those without a bachelor’s degree. Hispanic or Latino workers make up 18% of the U.S. workforce but represent 14% of STEM workers. Similarly, Black or African American workers make up 12% of the U.S. working population but represent only 9% of STEM workers. In the STEM workforce with a bachelor’s degree or higher, Hispanic or Latino workers represent 8% of the workforce, and Black or African American workers represent 7%. However, at 19% of the STW, Hispanic or Latino workers are more than their proportion of the working population. Black or African American workers are underrepresented at 10% in the STW.
The proportion of Black or African American and Hispanic or Latino workers increased in both the STEM workforce with at least a bachelor’s degree and the STW between 2010 and 2019. In STEM, the number of Black or African Americans with a bachelor’s degree or higher increased 67%, and those in the STW increased 24%. Similarly, Hispanic or Latino STEM workers grew 99% for those with a bachelor’s degree or higher and 44% for those in the STW. Participation increased for these groups at a higher rate than White STEM workers with a bachelor’s degree or higher and those in the STW. This resulted in an increase in the proportion of Black or African American workers in STEM with and without a bachelor’s degree by approximately 1 percentage point in each and an increase in the proportion of Hispanic or Latino workers by 2 percentage points among those with a bachelor’s degree or higher and 4 percentage points among those without a bachelor’s degree (Figure LBR-24).
STW = Skilled Technical Workforce
The proportion of blacks in STEM professions was much lower when NSBE was founded in 1974, only 10 years after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It made sense for a group of black engineering students at Purdue University to encourage other blacks to pursue careers in engineering. The demographics of today's STEM workforce with a college degree suggests that this effort still makes sense.
America needs all the STEM workers it can get, so I don't see the downsides of NSBE unless you think NSBE's efforts discourage others from pursuing STEM careers. I don't think that's the case, but I'm open to a counter-argument.
It should also be noted that another Pew analysis says that only 20% of blacks think scientists are "very welcoming" to black people and only 23% of blacks think engineers are "very welcoming" to black people. Pew's analysis, but contrast, says that 36% of blacks think scientists are "not too/not at all welcoming" to black people. They also say that 33% of blacks think engineers are "not too/not at all welcoming" to black people:
Many will think these perceptions are wrong, but Pew's numbers speak for themselves. NSBE's efforts help counter a narrative that discourages blacks from pursuing STEM careers.
Having made these points, I agree with you that there's too much emphasis on race in America. I wish race relations were better and that we were closer to being a color-blind society. That's one of the reasons I do these posts.
Clifton, thanks so much for you comprehensive reply! Hard to argue those points.
But some quibbles, perhaps, (better expressed over a beer I might add!).
STEM badly needs good people. No question. But STEM, as it should be, is and must remain a self-selecting set of highly demanding careers. A lot of hurdles need to be successfully cleared before one arrives as a top-notch STEM graduate (a fully-fledged scientist), not least of which is a demonstrated & consistently achieved aptitude for Quant. I'm sure we both know many who have washed out either because of a breaking point (as in 'I don't want to do this anymore') or a simple failure point (Advanced Stat or 2nd year Organic is several steps beyond most people's comfort level).
Demographic imbalance at these higher levels tends to be misleading. The numbers are too small and the hurdles too steep to read race or sex-based discrimination into the final tallies. Unfortunately those truths tend not to persuade those who insist on equating disparate outcomes with discriminatory treatment. I'd recommend Heather MacDonald's excellent summary of this situation here: https://www.city-journal.org/the-corruption-of-medicine .
As for the question of 'targeted encouragement' (as in special STEM-boosting sessions for Women or BIPOC's )....yes, I would argue that such focus does indeed tend to discourage those not equally targeted. Again, I'd say 'Encourage everyone!'
Personally I don't care if my surgeon is Black, White, Green, Female, Male, Short, Tall, whatever...I just want them to be OUTSTANDING. To invite a 'preferred' crowd to the party is to not invite and not include the Other, whoever that Other might be. Hard to avoid the feeling of being under-valued and ignored if all the fawning and coaching and mentoring and scholarships are nominally restricted to people who don't look like 'me'!
Would you see a downside to a National Society of White Engineers targeting & encouraging White students because, after all, 'we need all the STEM workers we can get'? I suspect you would (I suspect all of us would...because, in fact, it's racially discriminatory).
But your points about 'feeling welcome' are fascinating. We'd have to ask how much of that 'feeling' is a function of an actual, real, tangible 'unwelcoming' and how much is simply the very common feeling that every 'rookie' has when entering the 'old-timer's' clubhouse. I've had that feeling; I'm sure you've had it also. That's not racism or sexism, that's just the normal sense that -- as a rookie -- your perspectives and non-experience are not particularly valued.
I had a conversation years ago with an individual who had just begun teaching at the HS level. She told me that she faced a ton of resistance & hostility from the students....because, or so she thought, she was female. I explained, as you might imagine, that everyone faces exactly the same thing when they begin. It's not a function of gender or color; it's a function of being a newbie and the inevitable of being 'tested' in any new environment. The worst crash & burn I ever witnessed was a skinny White guy with a high voice who left the school halfway through the semester. He, too, would have said he was not 'welcomed'. But his failure had nothing to do with bias and everything to do with the fact that he couldn't handle the normal rough & tumble of teaching.
Sometimes an 'unwelcoming' is truly a function of bias & discrimination....but sometimes (I'd say most of the time) it's more a function of a hard life in a big, cold, and most typically uncaring world.
The truth is, when all you have is a hammer, all you tend to see are nails. And if 63% of all Black adults believe 'racism' is "an extremely big problem" despite an utter lack of evidence of any racist policy , procedure, law, or institutional system....then it's going to be easy to see so-called 'unwelcoming' as yet another racist nail. I've had cardiologists tell me that hiring and retaining newly minted med school grads is increasingly impossible because they all want the corner office, and no weekend on-call duty (otherwise they feel 'unwelcomed!).
I agree with BDavi's post above: "Equally, the too-granular can be equally concerning and equally misleading." I think that's what we have here, M Clifton, to an extent. And what this ignores is how thinking "math is racist," and logic and book-learning is "acting white" feeds into the problems.
What I'm particularly interested in, at this moment in time, is that You wrote, "especially for those who believe various forms of racism and bias are on the rise."
My own preference is some examples, that than Pew studies, which are suspect.
This isn't a poll, but consider the large number of black people who purchased cryptocurrencies in recent years. One of the key motivations was a distrust of established financial institutions. Here's a link to an analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City:
Denominators always intrigue me in all data analyses (my main job is data analytics based consulting). In your examples, I wish we could know the *reason* behind the % that say scientists are "welcoming/not welcoming". If only we could know whether it was "because of what you've assumed going into interactions/were told this was the case" or "because of blatant examples you couldn't ignore". I know...so subjective and hard for even the individual to honestly discern.
But this would change the approach to the solution.
You would solve presuppositions by not telling so many black individuals that this is the truth of the world. You would solve the issue of blatant examples by educating the STEM world on how to not continue in this way. Two very different approaches.
Similarly, of the lower representation of non-white groups in STEM, I would love to somehow know "% that were 1. interested and 2. attempted to enter STEM and 3. were not able to do so" (for each ethnicity). Forget the actual % compared to US population...that may confuse the narrowing of the analytics funnel. I would consider it a promising sign if that conversion rate was currently on par with for white or asian populations. Then our focus could appropriately shift on either exposing INTEREST in STEM and then later on we could see why they weren't SUCCEEDING in obtaining careers in STEM. By jumping to the missing population of step 3 as proof, we may continue to be disappointed and continue to hang in neutral.
TL;DR - we may be missing a middle portion of the analytics funnel to know where it's dropping off between population>interest>application>accomplishment and that may be key for where to put resources. Perhaps NSBE is focusing on the issue in this way...but the highlighted stats seem to not suggest that.
Out of curiosity, what is the proportion of Oriental Asian and Near East Asians in STEM workforce, Hispanics? Is there an NSBOA? NSBNE? or just NSBA? NSBH? Is there anything to the idea that Asians are more hostile to blacks? Any stats pro or con? or are they just lumped in with "whites"? I have no issue with an NSBE or any group encouraging more people pursuing STEM education and careers.
The report I referenced includes this excerpt about Asians in STEM:
According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2020a) 2019 ACS, Asians and Whites represent a greater share of STEM (9% and 65%, respectively) compared to all Asians and all Whites in the U.S. workforce (6% and 61%, respectively) (Figure LBR-23). However, the representation of Asians in STEM is primarily driven by their representation among STEM workers with a bachelor’s degree or higher (16%), whereas Asians are underrepresented among STEM workers without a bachelor’s degree, or the STW (4%). In contrast, Whites represent a greater share of STEM workers with at least a bachelor’s degree (66%) and of the STW (65%).
The full report (The STEM Labor Force of Today: Scientists, Engineers, and Skilled Technical Workers) is long and includes lots of information. I didn't see the level of detail you're seeking, but there may be other sources with that information.
There is a Society of Asian Scientists and Engineers (SASE). I don't know anything about them, but here's a link to their web site:
Always mistakes. I'll just add one note: Yeah, a lotta people *would* say it's a "white" organization. Can someone explain who is *benefitted* by having this feeling? Who's the beneficiary of breaking things down by race this way? I'm not seeing who benefits, but *somebody* obviously is. Just can't figure out who, myself.
Weeeel, I got time to poke my head in here one last time. I read the results of the Pew study to say something different. I read the results to say that Blacks believe a lotta hogwash. As I "said," or at least implied, I think Black people have been sold a bill-a goods. To put it bluntly. They've been sold a vision of society that isn't just inaccurate, but which serves to drastically limit possibilities that exist.
The percentage of Blacks who believe drastic overhaul is necessary. *Somebody* should inform these folks that the best approach when seeking change is to start from what is actually *possible.* This whole idea that institutions need to be "dismantled?" There's another Pew study to show who much faith we've lost in our institutions. And You're lookin at the results of that loss. Replace them? With *what?*
And the bar graph of the money got from decreasing funding of the police should be spent? Is that still a live trope out there? *Decrease* funding? Only Pew would ask that question in these times.
You've got 18% of Blacks who believe reparations "are likely." And what percentage think reparations are desirable? Considerably higher, no doubt. I'm sorry, but this is what's *wrong* with America. KenDiAngeloism. Yeah, right. The way to improve the problem of discrimination is to just aim it at the *right people.* How does that even pass as intelligent conversation. "What's bad for me is *good* for You" is one-a the oldest stories in the book, right? Hint: It never ends well...
I'll stop there. Loong day. Mebbe tomorrow.
And, ooooops. I believe in my haste I forgot to say thank You for Your replies, Sir Clifton. ("My bad." ;-)
TY for reply. Yeah, I reject that notion of the need for racial caucuses and societies. TY for bringing that up. No, i sort-a doubt that many others do, or have even given it sufficient thought.
However, the leadership You're describing, M BDavi? Is that still around these days? Seriously, tho, a lotta what I see about leadership these days is how to best appease the vocal minorities. The majority? The normies? I dunno they get much shrift.
But i applaud the last paragraph. From what I can tell, that's not necessarily the popular opinion around this crowd. But ICBW (I Could Be Wrong). Frequently am.
I'm just failing to see why Blacks can't agree skin color is not destiny and is, in actual fact, immaterial to the majority of Americans if given half a chance. And the Blacks saying, at the same time, I appreciate some-a the good aspects of what's-called Black culture or traditions, and I wanna keep them.
Somehow it's thought that these two are mutually exclusive. I don't get it. But I'm not in a racial minority. I'm definitely a minority in other respects, tho. But that's a personal problem.
From reading Wesley Yang's "The Soul of Yellow Folk," there's *always* gonna be this trade-off minorities face. How much to accept the majority culture, and whether Your own culture needs to be sacrificed in the process. *All* minorities. I recall this story of a successful, young black woman over on JFBT. She was real excited about all her success. But there was one line that stood out for me, which is she regretted she'd lost some-a her "blackness."
That's sad. But if You want the success, I'm afraid, part-a that necessitates accommodating the culture of the majority population. If an "African American" wants to be more African than American, it's just gonna be harder. I suppose that sounds racist. Because that *is* unfair. But life *isn't* fair, and it's something that minorities around the world face, AFAIK (As Far As I Know). ICBW, of course.
In the end, though, aren't we all -- in one sense or another -- aren't we all our own minority of one?
As trite as it sounds it's undoubtedly true....all of us: strangers in a strange land.
My skin color may be a majority skin color but that is not ME. My western European ancestry has shaped my face, my body, and created a whole slew of genetic tendencies...but that also is not who I am. My height, my weight, the sound of my voice, my likes and dislikes, those things I'm drawn to, those things which repel me, my education, the books I read and don't read, the movies I like, the conversations I enjoy:
gather them all together, shake them up, roll them out and you find ME. And I may be the only one standing there when all is said and done (just as you may be the only standing when a similar shake/rattle/& roll happened with y ou)
So none of us should be surprised to learn that our idiosyncratic selves are at least somewhat 'out of synch' with what passes for 'majority' culture. We all 'have to sacrifice' pieces and part of ourselves (the most minority culture of all) to move smoothly through our 'majority' public spaces.
But I don't know that it's exactly sad that our deepest & most personal selves are not usually welcome in that Public Space. As a matter of fact, most of us actually believe 'constraint' is a good thing in those shared environments. It's why we all discourage our work partners from warming-up Tuna Casserole in the office microwave!
I like that: "shake them up, roll them out..." That fills up most-a the day, with pleasure most-a the time.
Yeah, we're all minority of one. No one that *I* know of escapes trade-offs.
I only got a little into Professor Sowell's views on the vision of constraints. What I fear (when I bother to fear anything, which is pretty much never)... Well, those who believe in the vision of NO constraints don't really have a realistic view of things. AFAIK.
I will join the prior praise for Mr. Roscoe’s writing here. Very well done. I was struck when he wrote that until the K-12 achievement gap closes, other measures related to success will not close relative to other racial groups (I am paraphrasing here). I agree with his argument. Thank you Mr. Roscoe for that essay, and keep writing!
And if that K-12 "achievement gap" is rooted in a cognitive ability gap which is significantly (if not overwhelmingly) genetic in origin? What then? Mr. Roscoe's axiom still applies. Do yours?
Respectfully, I think you might be misapprehending my opinions about any achievement gaps and remedies therefore. You stated, “generally, people who term...”. I try not to be a “general” thinker, but I acknowledge that as a human being I am fallible and ignorant about many things, even those that interest me.
Wonderful! So, given your open mind and curiosity about the world around you, I suggest you look deeper into the "gap" and make up your own mind regarding its source and thus what, if anything, can or should be done about it. Good luck on your journey—enlightenment awaits.
Generally, people who term black-white educational disparities an "achievement gap" tend to believe reform of educational content and methods (more effective "preparation") will lessen if not eliminate the approx. 1 standard deviation difference in standardized test results. They've been on that project for the better part of a century with zero impact on "the gap." One would think they'd re-examine their basic assumptions given this track record of dismal failure, but it never seems to happen. Those axioms.
Black solidarity is no different than white solidarity. Its a vice. Abandoning racial solidarity is moral progress for any individual. When will more racial minorities begin to accept that racial tribalism for their own race is no less shameful than the racial tribalism of white people? "White Nationalists" are rightly viewed with a contempt by most people; it shouldnt be any different for "Black Nationalists" or "Latino Nationalists" or any other racial / ethnic nationalists. Our tribal loyalties should transcend and eschew race. Its superficial, ignorant characteristic to have solidarity around.
There are 20 people drowning and only 10 people can be saved, and 10 people are black and 10 people are white, and a person can also know anything they like about those peoples' characters and personalities, their professions, their families-- and none of them are "equal"; and if they factor in race to make their selection on who to save, that would be a demerit In the same scenario of 20 people drowning and they are one of the people drowning, their "racial solidarity", should be a mark against them being one of those who should be saved.
I agree. I'm surprised that I had to read so many comments before your observations were made by someone! At least, you spared me from typing that. However, I shall add --> if Glenn affirms that the attribute of racial identity has a positive influence for him (and I suspect, others), THEN HOW does Glenn think white folk should affirm positive attributes for their group? How can Glenn endorse soft black nationalism while, I presume, eschewing white nationalism or white pride?
Similar issue for pride in your "team." What do we think of those who lose?
Achievement gap(s)? And what, really, does that mean? If the "races" are equal, then why did all the $$ that was poured into the KCIty school system fail? Not total answer, but IMO, cultural values.
"Even if we desire a world in which race isn’t important, we don’t live in that world yet."
Why don't we?
Who or what or why or where or how is 'race STILL being made important' in this, our particular world...that we would otherwise choose (maybe??) to change?
Our laws are not race-centric; our organizations do not hire, fire, or promote on the basis of race (and let us ignore, yet again, affirmative action). There are no venues which admit or refuse admittance because of skin color. No schools which gauge entry by melanin. No institutions which determine policy per skin tone. No banks whose loans decisions are made by race. No neighborhoods in which home sales are a function of dark or light. These things aren't happening and haven't happened for generations.
And if, in some stagnant backwater, we do indeed discover such racist practices, our media highlights them; America deplores them; and the Justice System eliminates them. This truth has been demonstrated over and over again for decades (even to ridiculous extremes).
So what is it, exactly, and who is it, exactly who keeps insisting that 'race is important' ...so important, in fact, that their insistence actively prevents us from achieving the 'post-racial' world we supposedly desire?
The answer is .... Black Adults. That's who's insisting. (As Pogo might say, 'We have met the enemy and he is us!')
95% of all Black adults say race is important to how they see themselves." 54% say it is EXTREMELY important. Skin color, in other words, is critical to a sense of self if that 'self' is Black. None of the other colors really seem to care.
So what's this mean?
If...we truly desire a world in which skin color is unimportant....WHY do we keep behaving as though skin color is critically important? If the institutions, organizations, policies and practices of the world are explicitly set to ignore race, why does one Race continue to insist that race must be emphasized, even as they say they prefer a world in which it isn't?
At a fundamental level, skin color is simply a demographic marker -- no more, no less. Some of us are tall, some short. Some of us are fat; some thin. We are old; we are young; we have big feet & small feet, long hair and short, curly & straight...red hair, dark hair, blonde hair, no hair. We are Black, White, Tan, Brown, Sepia, etc.. These are all just simply demographic tags which have absolutely nothing to do with who we actually are as human beings. They have nothing to do with what we can achieve or whether or not we can build a good & decent life for ourselves and our families. Nothing, that is, unless we listen to that demonic voice whispering in our ear: "COLOR is what & who I am!"
The data from the Pew Survey is sad.
We are told that there is "little hope among Black adults that changes to racial inequality are likely". But what are those desired 'changes' for which there's little hope?
It's just outcome rebalancing. It's not behavior changing; it's not working harder; it's not better study habits, better graduation rates, better learning, better job performance, etc. It's not saying no to teenage sex and accidental pregnancies and astronomical, out-of-wedlock birthrates & single-parent households filled with lost children No...it's none of those things. Rather it's White People giving Black People dollars because Black. It's White People giving Black People dollars because of the incredibly perverse belief that White Babies in Newborn Nurseries are born holding a past-due bill to the Black Newborn who lies next to them.
This is insane. The White child is not born in debt; the Black child is not born with an account receivable.
Half of all Black adults surveyed tell us that they believe the World needs to be REBUILT ENTIRELY in order for them to be 'treated fairly'. They say that Reality itself must shift in order for them to be as successful as White People.
Should we stop measuring 100m. dash winners across a 100m distance with the same start and finish lines? Should we eliminate standard Board Scores because test results from Standard Tests yield racial imbalances? (Wait, we've already done that) Should we substitute an essay on 'me' for a GPA? Should we just draft people for Medical School and eliminate performance hurdles because it's more important to see MORE BIPOC Cardiologists than to graduate good ones who can pass tests? Again this is insane. (especially insane if it's my heart they're operating on!)
If 63% of Black Adults say racism is an 'extremely big problem'....shouldn't someone ask, "What Racism??" Shouldn't we able to see the racist law, the racist policy, the racist procedure, the racist behavior that actually proves this assertion and provides strong evidence for this belief? Absent that proof, outcome imbalance is simply outcome imbalance, and proves nothing. How many times must that be said? If you beat me 10/10 times in that 100m. dash, I'm betting it's because you're faster....not because the race is fixed.
If I find myself convinced that the World must change in order for me to be successful....if I come to believe that everyone else is wrong and I'm the only one who's right....then maybe it's me and not the world who needs to wake-up? Maybe it's me and not the world who needs to change? And maybe that change needs to begin by recognizing who I am as a human being has nothing to do with how I look and everything to do with what I do.
What is true on the individual level is not (necessarily) so on the level of the aggregate. Therein lies the problem. A black or white or any other person of any race or ethnicity can be pretty much anything. Black, white, and other racial/ethnic groups, in statistical aggregate, are each singularly and significantly different. Choices are: treat every person as a unique individual; treat individuals as representative of their racial/ethnic group; or ignore individuals entirely and deal with matters of race/ethnicity only at the group level. Pick your poison, people.
And as an individual would we not (each one of us) always prefer to be seen as uniquely ourselves and not some stereotypical vessel filled with tribal category preconceptions held by others?
If I am the fastest runner on the field, I'm fastest -- it doesn't matter if my 'Category' is, in the aggregate, statistically the slowest. If I'm the smartest in the room, again, it doesn't matter if my 'Category' has average SAT's in the lowest quartile. Regardless, I'm still the fastest & smartest and who cares what my demographic category is or is not.
What is disturbing in the Pew Survey is the fact that 95% of Black Adults say a shared demographic marker is important to how they see themselves. I can't imagine anything more sadly pathetic, actually. Demographics are simply demographics. Why on earth would I want to tie my self-perception to something over which I have absolutely Zero Control. Like saying how I see myself is 'extremely dependent' upon how the Bears do when they play Green Bay. (a sad situation indeed!)
In the end I think we come back to your point about the distinction between the aggregate and the individual. And since none of us has ever met an 'aggregate' or hired an aggregate, or dated an aggregate or married or lived next to one...I'd say we should deal always and exclusively with individuals....who are and should be recognized NOT as representatives of the aggregate but as just simply themselves
Race is an artificial construct based on superficial characteristics and intended solely to divide people and elevate one group at the expense of another. It would make as much sense to divide people by handedness or by those whose second toe is longer than their big toe. Blacks, by accepting this division, continue to secure their group position at the bottom of the pack because they continue to accept the misdiagnosis of their problem as being external to themselves. I got the sense that all four of the discussion participants understand this and accept it, at least in the abstract. Not being willing to give up the group security blanket can only prolong the agony of disfunction which has nothing to do with any external characteristic.
Until a black man can rise to his feet and declare “I am a man!” and demand that every other person accept that identity, he cannot achieve his potential as an individual human.
The alternative is to continue to accept the destructive idea that externals are fate.
I am very grateful for the forum Prof Loury and his colleagues have provided in which to press this discussion. Glenn is clear in his contention that his meaningful identity is in his culture, it defines him in how he thinks about himself and his place in the world; if I can cautiously put words in his mouth. It seems confusing then to state that Blackness remains an important part of his identity. He is transparent about his struggle with that and I commend him for his honesty on the matter. Until we recognize ourselves as individuals of the same kind, we seriously limit our ability to function, let alone thrive in this world. “As a man thinks, so is he.”
Maybe I’m missing something but I actually understand Kmele’s post-race argument as a sound one. Think about it. The problem seems to be that the more a group identifies as A Group, the more susceptible they are to seeing overarching societal factors as the problem. Certainly there must be some degree of truth to that. But isn’t a lot of what’s going on here more about perception management a la the leftist media? For example, the narrative that black men are being murdered by racist white cops every two seconds, when we know the number is roughly 15-20 a year, in a nation of 340 million. Does this contribute to the perception of structural racism? Does this back up a group victim narrative? This can be for any group, say white working class in Trump country, too. Etc. Wouldn’t it be more ideal to ditch your racial group Association and think of yourself as a free individual with agency and worth? Couldn’t you then take concrete steps to succeed? The education and cultural parts seem most problematic to me here. Like the article said: We’re living in a time when real serious racial havoc is actually over. Systemically, legally, culturally we’re just much, much less racist as a nation than say 50 years ago. What remains is the battle over perception, narrative, belief, facts.
Isn’t it an innate human characteristic to belong to a group of one form or another? Humans have been organizing since the first village was formed. The fascination with 23 and me, ancestry.com, etc. are manifestations of this desire. I had very little knowledge of my ‘groups’ of blood. I could trace my familial tree back to my mother and my grandfather on my father’s side. As far as I was concerned, it’s irrelevant. However, one of my daughters has this urge to know and so she started using ancestry.com to sleuth it out. I was amazed at what she was able to find out. Kinda spooky actually. I never encouraged a tribal mindset, but there it was. Where did I come from, which helps to identify the I, which is but an illusion.
A good guest for the show would be Ian McGilchrist about the nature of the brain.
Glenn,
Who is this guy? I really mean it. He is great. I love the charts and data. ( I studied economics). What is interesting to me is the basis for the wide spread belief that racism is the cause of black relative academic performance. What is it and who does that narrative benefit?
Add “poor” in front of Black or White and we can better understand. My parents were working folks with little education. Whatever I attained was from “hard work” with Private School kids ( even people of color) always at the front of the line. Even with no body of work or talent. Obama ( the number one black leader) was the son of 2 college educated parents and raised by well off white parents. His blackness added affirmative action which he used. He doesn’t speak for Poor Black Folk other than to race grift. I proudly voted twice for Obama but he is no real leader of the black poor anymore than Sharpton thinks he is. Martin Luther King was that leader but probably someone like Kanye will end up as the Real favored Black Leader. Or BLM with “hate speech” and Gender polities. Glen needs a larger platform....
Think how much more of a leader Le Bron could have been with a different reaction to the Jerry Jones photo. He could have said that while segregation is bad thing, and was really bad in those days, it was 60 years ago, there's no proof that Jones was anything but a curious teenager, you are trying to make something out of nothing, isn't it time we all moved on from this kind of finger pointing and blame game, virtue signalling, etc. Opposite of Colin Kappernick and much more helpful to the community and himself.
I'm reminded of this passage in Baldwin's "Notes of a Native Son," written after the death of his stepfather and the Harlem Race Riots of 1943:
“It was necessary to hold on to the things that mattered. The dead man mattered, the new life mattered; blackness and whiteness did not matter; to believe that they did was to acquiesece in one’s own destruction. Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated and this was an immutable law.”
I am a Spanish American white writer living in France. Twelve years ago, I left the USA, actively removing myself from the violent realities of the USA that have plagued any national--let alone human--sense of identity since the beginning. I don't know what the reality of Black Solidarity is in America today; this piece shined some necessary light on it for me. But I do know that the reality of any [insert skin color] Solidarity Movement sounds terrifying to most other "liberals throughout the world, but this is also because the Black American experience is singular when it comes to parsing through the pros and cons of identity politics and finding a voice for the subaltern in a nation founded upon the conflation of innocence and ignorance. TLDR, the USA was founded on the principles of white skin versus all the other skins, and we aren't out of the woods yet, by a long shot. This is why I am still considered "white" to everyone that looks at me, but if I have to check a box on an official form, I am encouraged to check "hispanic" or "latino" because of my last name.
Good riddance. Enjoy France - nice place as far as Euro decadence goes.
Thanks.
If the belief within the black community is that BLM is helpful and that racism/police remain major problems, that in itself suggests far bigger issues. Who did BLM help and how? Crime spiked in the aftermath of reactions to George Floyd and the fallout was far more harmful to black Americans than to anyone else. And that's not going to change as states like Illinois prepare to usher in the SAFE-T law and other jurisdictions turn suspects loose as soon as they are booked.
Clifton's commentary acknowledges "overt racism has mostly disappeared," but here we are, with racism as the ready made excuse for any outcome not to a black person's liking. There is no credible argument to be made that life today is no better than it was 50-100 years ago. No one was talking about diversity then. No one was lowering standards in order to increase black enrollment or black participation in certain professions. An American Bar Association committee wants to ban the LSAT, a move that mostly says "we don't think black student can measure up," which is a horrible indictment of these young folks. What happens when they're done with law school and face bar exams? Will those be banned, too, in the name of whatever this is? Lastly, the evidence re: police violence shows the exact opposite of the claims that led to rioting, but those figures are inconvenient, so they're ignored. Perhaps the more cogent argument is that "you're not a victim; stop acting like one," but that would deprive the various hustlers and grifters of power and a means of making a living.
It's almost impossible to not look at the findings of the Pew polls and NOT correlate them to voting patterns. That's quite the nice plantation Team Blue has built across urban America and into smaller states with large minority populations. School systems are failing black students, yet which side adamantly opposes choice? Crime is out of control, yet which side hand waves concern about it? The border impacts lower-skilled black men as much as anyone, yet which side is happy keeping it open?
At some point, reality compels a person to acknowledge that none of us can change the past and that today is far, far better than yesterday or the day before. Until that occurs, nothing positive will follow. When might that happen? When will people who tell me that slaves, their ancestors, built the country take pride in and ownership of what was built? As Glenn has noted repeatedly, the Western tradition is his, and black America's tradition, too, just as much as it is for me, the son of immigrants. The past cannot be a perpetual crutch, especially among people who had nothing to do with it, and eventually, racializing everything is going to spawn backlash.
Hear! Hear! Excellent points made all around.
You said: "Crime spiked in the aftermath of reactions to George Floyd and the fallout was far more harmful to black Americans than to anyone else." I think this last requires some clarification.
The "fallout" occurred in many geographical areas as well as in organizations far and wide in the USA and around the world. Only in a very restricted sense were black Americans "harmed" by the ensuing "racial reckoning" brought on by the Floyd affair. Certainly, police pullback and fearful politicians allowed certain criminal elements in black communities free-er (not free) reign to maraud and predate their largely black victims with little fear of apprehension or prosecution. The victims were left to deal with the unrest and vastly more dangerous environments as best they could. (Another example of the truism: no one is coming to help you—be prepared to defend yourself.)
That said, the "racial reckoning" shifted the locus of power from horrified whites driven by racial guilt to a too-willing black grievance class eager to increase their own power over and access to hitherto restricted centers of authority and high social status. The DEI "industry" was born and has been growing like an aggressive cancerous tumor ever since. Statements coming from every school district, corporate board, and cultural organization in the country and beyond declaring solidarity with a stricken "black community" and a mission to right the wrongs of history were like snowflakes in a blizzard. And when "free" gifts are offered, there will always be takers.
I'd argue that the power shift in American race relations post-Floyd is one of, if not the most significant developments since the civil rights revolution of the 1960s. It is now axiomatic (and the law in some states) that black "representation" be increased at all levels in American society with population proportionality the default goal, regardless of the qualifications or efficacy of the individuals tapped to fill such newly available positions. The post-Floyd landscape certainly has its share of innocent black victims among the carnage. However, I'd wager there are more (and more socially important) winners than losers among American blacks and many more white and other non-black losers now and in the future, than can be counted, should they even matter enough to be enumerated (they don't and won't).
Yes. Policing has really been damaged throughout the Western world and crime has spiked everywhere, and people of all races are effected. The goal of communism is to destroy the West. So of course they use race or sex or sexual orientation or whatever else they can to do destroy all Western institutions and they have had a lot of success.
Well, the Pew research results were certainly eye opening.
And to anyone on the left it was like manna from heaven. Black people will not require any internal leadership, just continue following the Democratic Party.
According to Lyndon Johnson, you have another 42 years to go.
And if the democrats start shaking that reparations cup, they can look forward to another 100 years of.....sevrice.
Institutions are important and the most important, immediate and impactful is the institution of the family: Mother, Father and their biological children. Only 60% of white kids are raised by their birth parents. This is terrible. Only 30% of black kids are raised by their birth parents. This is beyond words. Without this institution being dramatically strengthened, everything else is minutia.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/growing-up-with-mom-and-dad-new-data-confirm-the-tide-is-turning
Most White Americans are an amalgam of different nationalities or ethnicities. I myself have English, Scottish, Scots-Irish, Welsh and Dutch and even a bit of African and Native thrown in. To say I identify as a specific nationality is of little consequence because I am a mix of so many. I could argue that my Irish ancestors were mistreated by my British ancestors, and also that my Native and African ancestors were mistreated by my White ancestors, but to what purpose? The fact that so many White people have such a mixture does not really support a huge shared "White" identity in America other than Americanism.
Now we have Black Americans who were descendants of slaves, and Jim Crow policies who may say
"Well, we have a shared history of slavery and oppression from the White community." But again, what purpose does that serve in light of multiple Constitutional amendments and laws prohibiting the use of race, ethnicity or religion to discriminate, other than divisiveness?
The best one could hope for is a joining of those of various racial and ethnic heritages to regard ourselves as Americans struggling for most of the same things. Someone can wear green on St Paddie's day, celebrate Robbie Burns' Day, wear a Dashiki, celebrate Dewali or Ramadan, or Dia de los Muertos, but still be essentially American.
I still remember the following quote from Greg Tate circa 1991:
"Perhaps the supreme irony of black American existence is how broadly black people debate the question of cultural identity among themselves while getting branded as a cultural monolith by those who would deny us the complexity and complexion of a community, let alone a nation. If Afro Americans have never settled for the racist reductions imposed upon them -- from chattel slaves to cinematic stereotype to sociological myth -- it's because the black collective conscious not only knew better but also knew more than enough ethnic diversity to subsume those fictions.
-- Greg Tate"
Once again we are stuck in neutral when we make efforts to deal with black diversity. That's because of a determined refusal to disambiguate race from culture from citizenship when it is more convenient to make something of a 'racial' statement. American politics remains entirely too racial, and this becomes abundantly clear when black Republicans clash with black Democrats, or on those occasions when we deal with those damned Baptists or those damned West Coast rappers. Black America remains cripplingly dependent on myths of racial unity. Consequently black elites who can nationally or internationally code switch with ease are always tempted to take advantage of those myths. I struggle myself sometimes. But what I don't do is feel compelled to second guess whatever it is that self-identified blackfolk do as blacks.
The irony thus is that I know, like Greg Tate knew, that all black Americans are perfectly free to do whatever they want, as blacks. Nobody ever stops blackfolks from being exactly the kind of black they want to be. Its the moment one black person steps over the line to tell what another black person ought to do where all the trouble starts. That doubles down on the irony because it implies a kind of ownership of blackness. So who owns blackness? This is the core of today's debate. Who is authentic, and given that, what are they owed?
I can't tell you how tired I get of the sort of statistical representations of black populations no other people seem to suffer. But I must admit these Pew numbers catch my eye. Put me in the 'not so [self-] important' category of black identification. It is rightly what we should expect two mountaintops past MLK's. What statistical representation can you put on a love of bebop? What bar chart best describes a second-line funeral? We abandon our inheritance of cultural edification when we submit to the racial boxes. Race always has and always will define a manner of control. You cannot truly desire freedom and also truly desire racial categories.
Ultimately this is about fear. The fear of "If I am not black, then what am I?" Remember Akeela? Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. There's that special black American fear that maybe I've held my own self back. The special fear that one cannot stand to hear somebody who is not black tell us truthfully so.
Another *great* one, Sir! Below all In My (somewhat) Humble Opinion. Your quotes preceded by ">".
> "There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you."
True that.
> "You cannot truly desire freedom and also truly desire racial categories."
Truer that.
> "So who owns blackness? This is the core of today's debate. Who is authentic, and given that, what are they owed?"
First question: You do, M Bowen. People like You. Liberal/Conservative. Not sure if that's useful or not. But no debate needed.
Second question: You guys/gals are owed respect. Respect for elders. (In spirit, if not in age.) I dunno young people are familiar with term, but that may be too broad a brush.
> "Ultimately this is about fear."
IMO, truest yet. But I dunno:
> "The fear of 'If I am not black, then what am I?'"
Got me thinking. Fear all people have, AFAIK, is "If I'm not alive, then what am I?" ICBW, 'course.
First of all, I wanna say TYTY, M Clifton! Another *great* article.
Here's the problem I have: I agree with a lot more than 95% of what You wrote, Sir. However You wrote these two sentences:
"Black America isn't at a point where most of us have faith in 'white' institutions and leaders, so we have to strengthen their black counterparts if the goal is to put Black America on a better path."
"We're not prepared to thrive in a world where overt racism has mostly disappeared."
I wish there was a Way to "say" this without appearing racist. Why are You all *not* prepared to thrive? IMO, because You all have been conned into thinking that You shouldn't have faith in "white" institutions. You've been mislead. You've believed some blatant falsehoods.
Because is there any question about the FACT that it was *largely* "white" institutions which eliminated overt racism?
I won't make an absolute claim that America has outdistanced all other countries when it comes to eliminating racism and sexism. (I'm sure there's a Pew study which could answer that question, but I'm not overly fond of Pew. And I don't believe it can accurately be measured, but that's just me.) I would, instead, just ask what other countries did a better job leading the Way in these areas in the past 40 to 60 years? There are probably some, but not all that many.
And I would ask if the current Woke Black Culture-leaders are increasing or decreasing racial comity?
I could go on with some harder, IMO, home truths. But I'll leave it at that for now. TY again for writing the article, Sir.
Thanks for your comment. I always find your perspectives interesting.
There's an ongoing debate about why Black America isn't thriving. Professor Loury did a paper (Why Does Racial Inequality Persist?: Culture, Causation, and Responsibility) for the Manhattan Institute in 2019 that does a good job of outlining the opposing perspectives. I recommend it:
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/why-does-racial-inequality-persist
TY again for the referral, Sir Clifton. And I gotta say, it was an *armful.* I'm still thinking about the overall scheme of the article, but here are a few minor points that may interest a few. Quotes preceded by “>”.
> “There would be no races in the steady state of any dynamic social system unless, on a daily basis and with regard to their most intimate affairs, people paid assiduous attention to the boundaries separating themselves from racially distinct others. Over time, race would cease to exist unless people chose to act in a manner so as biologically to reproduce the variety of phenotypic expression that constitutes the substance of racial distinction.”
Per below link, Whites intermarry at about the same percentage as Black women (10 – 12%). Black men intermarry twice the rate of Black women. In total, Blacks intermarriage rate is 18% and Whites 11%. I’m not at all sure that the percentages tell the whole story. Given the *number* of people by race.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/05/18/1-trends-and-patterns-in-intermarriage/
But mebbe more to the point is that, according to this article I read a year or more ago, I think the point was that in 40 years there’s gonna be so much interracial marriage that a lotta this is gonna be a moot point. (lotta “points” ;-) “The Myth of a Majority-Minority America.” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/myth-majority-minority-america/619190/
But I think the most important point in the whole article, that wasn’t involved in the text much, is the following:
‘> “The perspective I am promoting about social capital does not require special, race-targeted social policy. Most policy initiatives aimed at improving the lives of our most disadvantaged citizens should not, and need not, be formulated in explicitly racial terms or understood as a remedy for racial injuries. We have to find what works for disadvantaged people in America, period.”
I’d hafta read it again, but I believe that most-a the places where it said “Black” or “African American” it would-a been *just* as appropriate to say “poor people.”
For example this applies to all races:
‘> “To the extent that African-American youngsters do not have the experiences, are not exposed to the influences, and do not benefit from the resources that foster and facilitate their human development, they fail to achieve their full human potential.”
This ignores the bigger problem that virtually *nobody* in our society comes even *close* to reaching their *full* potential. Unless You think spending hours on social media or binge-watching Netflix counts.
‘> “"First, all human development is socially situated and mediated."
IMO, "All" should be replaced by "the best." In my experience, anyway.
TY again. May have more, or mebbe not.
TY for the reference. I'll read it tomorrow as my day is about done. I deleted what I was gonna "say." May come back to it tomorrow. (Mebbe not. ;-)
Thank-you!
And thanks for the reference to Prof. Loury's "Inequality" paper. It's one of my personal favorites! I read it when it came out back in 2019....saved it....highlighted the heck out of it...and use it regularly as a source of both insight & wisdom. (Commodities, as you know, in short supply these days!)
Appreciate your efforts to bring some additional clarity (and data!) to the conversation!
Agreed.
But I would press further and ask the more fundamental question: what on earth is a 'White' institution?
I know of none, myself....do you? Does Clifton?
Certainly we can point to Black institutions....the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), the NSBE, the NABSE, the SOBA, the BCA, etc... all founded upon George Wallace's ancient & poisonous conviction that Black and White were separate & distinct.... that the work of Black congressmen, Black Engineers, Black Teachers, Black Architects, and Black Coaches somehow was and should be different from the work of their non-Black compatriots.
But I absolutely reject that thinking; I'm sure you do too. Does everyone?
If we would look with horror upon a Congressional White Caucus, a Society of White Engineers or White Coaches, or a White Teachers Union acting to further White interests....if we would condemn them all as Racist....why wouldn't we...why shouldn't we... react the same way to that other skin-color-alphabet soup? Indeed, we should.
And then move to the next question: who the heck is a White Leader anyway?
Isn't implicit in leadership (if it's to be effective) the fact that one leads men AND women, Blacks and Whites, the Short and the the Tall, the Fat and the Skinny, etc etc. etc.? Isn't leadership, by its very nature, the blending together of disparate perspectives to form a coherent & unifying vision for all people now moving in the same direction? ("For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother!")
George Wallace once proclaimed, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" He believed that such segregation (separate but equal) was "best for both races," writing that "they each prefer their own pattern of society, their own churches and their own schools." Are there not echoes of that same racist perversion when we hear, increasingly, the call for teachers & doctors & coaches & congressmen that 'look like us'....when we hear people speak of 'Black Institutions' and 'Black Leaders', etc? And would we not be horrified if the media began to describe Biden, or Clinton, or Zuckerberg, or Pelosi as "White Leaders" advancing a White Agenda???
This hateful, and entirely destructive racist nonsense must end. And that ending begins with the whole hearted acknowledgement that I am not my skin color ... and that skin color is not destiny.
I think you may be missing the forest for the trees. Let's delve into your "hateful and entirely destructive racist nonsense" and talk more about skin color (i.e. race) and destiny.
In order for race not to matter, there can be no innate differences in significant capabilities between people of different races IN THE AGGREGATE (ITA). But if such differences DO exist, the nature of those differences are more or less important to understand. Let's posit what we consider an "insignificant" difference: skin color is the prime example. Beyond its (ab)use as a ready racial identifier—more or less as individuals of many races share skin tone—such a difference is trivial and thus fits into your "destructive racist nonsense" category. Fine.
What about say physical build? West Africans, ITA, are endowed with prodigious sprinting capabilities. This trait gives them advantages over other racial groups not so advantaged in areas where sprinting is highly valued. Think of running backs and other athletic specialties richly rewarded in American professional football, basketball, and many other sports. Similarly East Africans have a propensity for long-distance running due to oxygenation capabilities and muscle fiber makeup, both genetically determined. Think Kenyan marathoners.
What about brain function as relates to cognitive ability? Oof! Now we're in deep doo-doo and there's no easy way out. IQ is extremely important and hugely rewarded in developed societies around the world. Blacks (Africans, African Americans, South Americans, and aboriginal peoples, etc.), ITA, possess significantly lower IQs than European whites, East Asians, and Ashkenazi Jews. This puts blacks, ITA, at a HUGE disadvantage compared to the groups just mentioned in areas where high cognitive ability is valued and rewarded. If we were all subsistence farmers or serfs working on feudal estates, not that big a problem. But in a worldwide meritocratic competition for brainpower with trillions of dollars and the fate of nations hanging in the balance, smarts matter A LOT.
Now LBJ once claimed it was unfair to expect someone just recently unchained to be able to compete in a footrace with others never so disadvantaged (the rationale behind affirmative action and its consequent racial preferences). Let's think about that. During slavery and segregation, interracial differences mattered little—the races were (forcibly) separated and no footraces were scheduled. After the Civil Rights revolution, barriers between the races came down, and the races were allowed to mix. But not only that. The races were FORCED to give up their hitherto separate social, economic, and educational spheres. It became illegal to operate in the USA on a racially exclusionary (or preferential) basis, with some very limited exceptions. Watch out what you wish for...
Now given the black disadvantage in cognitive ability compared to whites and Asians (all ITA), how "fair" is it that blacks are now forced to compete directly with groups vastly more advantaged in securing positions of power, influence, wealth, and social standing? How would you feel if your group was "free" (unchained) to compete with other groups more richly endowed with just those traits valued by the society hosting the competition? And how would you react to the reams of data, produced day-in day-out going back decades, documenting your group's inability to rise above its innate disadvantage relative to others (once again, all ITA)? This is the situation in today's USA and hurling invective ("hateful and entirely destructive racist nonsense") will not change a thing. The question is: what will?
Always mistakes. The idea I started with is that there are multiple *kinds* of intelligence. IQ measures a certain kind-a intelligence that, in these times, is highly remunerative. That could change. Especially 10 or 15 years out when AI pseudo-intelligence exceeds IQ.
The other point I would make is that, to my knowledge (which isn't perfect), there is one common-denominator amongst people who reach the highest levels of attainment that is often overlooked. And that's humility which can lead to awe and joy.
And money isn't always the best measure of attainment, right?
Almost forgot to mention that there is often an *inverse* relationship between IQ and life-skills, right?
This one big tree causes You to miss the forest, the soil it grows from, and the planet it rests on:
"In order for race not to matter, there can be no innate differences in significant capabilities between people of different races IN THE AGGREGATE (ITA)."
What will change it? Change in attitudes. Trajectory? Accelerating curve over last 50-60 years shows promise. No guarantees. We're going backwards at present.
I'm loath to engage you in discussion, but I am interested in your statement: "We're going backwards at present." Please explain what you mean and the evidence on which your observation rests. Also, how exactly does a "change in attitude" change genetic expression in racial groups? Thank you.
Ah! Just in time. (May be paywalled, dunno.)
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-convinced-that-genetics-matters
Suit Yourself. Loath on. Learn if You wanna.
Racial relations are, AFAIK, *more* tense now than they were, say, ten years ago. This may not be obvious, especially to Blacks, but we entered the era of Black Supremacy, mebbe, five years ago. I thought an article titled "Blacks Can Be Racists, Too" might be interesting. But it turned out to be about Blacks acting like White racists. One item in the listicle said Blacks should never say anything negative about a Black-owned business. That explained why White people, necessarily, could *only* say positive things about Black people, right? Do Blacks ever get criticized for *Anything* these days. Well, there's Kanye, but that's about it. And he's got his defenders.
I'm not the first person to point out that these DEI trainings are having a negative effect on race relations. How could they not. And others have pointed out that, with the excesses that are going on, there's a good possibility of a strong *backlash.*
People can work to bring people together. People can work to be great *dividers.* That was Trump's big problem but he is, by no means, alone in that.
Now right up until I mentioned Trump, You probably agreed.
What Your not gonna agree with is that genes don't make the man. Granted, You got two armed camps facing each other. Just like is going on with "racial justice." You got the people that say that, basically, genes determine pretty much everything important. Then You got a large number of stupes who believe the "Blank State" idiocy. That it's *society* which causes people to break laws and kill people.
What the *science* points to, time and time again, is that nature and nurture play a role. No set percentage of which is which. To the extent that they attempt to measure it. Which really can't be very exact with the current state-of-the-art.
The number I "heard" was that intelligence was determined 40% by genetics. That's as likely to be correct as any other guess.
To say that education doesn't play a role in a person's IQ, just doesn't pass the smell test with me. But progressives? They should read the research of somebody who, I think, has the last name of Page Harden. She's a progressive herself. Whoever, she found 1300 different genes that effected intelligence. No single one being important. But analyzing the 1300 can turn up a number, IIRC. Can't find the link now, but pretty sure I saved it.
No matter.
People, mostly, believe what they *wanna* believe.
But when You wanna believe Blacks are, as individuals rather than ITA, just as good as anybody else, in small and large Ways, in similar and different Ways, You can. Anytime. Me? No matter. Doesn't matter if anyone even reads this. Time spent. Break over.
I asked about your "going backwards" comment. You evidently based it on the level of racial tension you perceive. Fine.
As to changes in people's attitudes trumping (is that OK to say?) genetics and the aggregate statistics that define different racial groups, color me (is that OK to say?) skeptical. Imagine that each individual was treated strictly on their own merits. Racial statistical aggregates tell us the result will be a disproportionate representation (relative to population %) of blacks in fields requiring higher levels of IQ (fewer) and in conditions of personal and social pathology (more).
Kathryn Paige Harden is a bit late to the party. Google "boost IQ and scholastic" and you'll be directed to Arthur R. Jensen's seminal 1969 article (124 pages including references): "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" Yep, that's not a misprint: 1969. It's all in there and has been for over 50 years and counting (and has been suppressed and hidden behind academic/journalistic paywalls for just as long). Happy reading!
I wouldn't disagree, at least not to any great degree.
But we need to be absolutely clear as to what the issue is.
Skin color, per se, is meaningless. It's a color...as I said, a demographic marker.
But abilities, aptitudes, achievements, talents....those things are not colors. Rather they are the 'personal resources' (for lack of a better term) we individuals each possess... some of which are indeed genetic. They are the qualities which are themselves leveraged and honed over time with effort investments made by each one of us with greater or lesser degrees of success.
Aggregate performance measures are meaningless, save in the abstract, as a point of interest.
If faced with the question, do I or do I not hire you (as a for instance) your group demographic memberships don't and shouldn't matter in the least. What matters is what, yourself, have done and have demonstrated yourself capable of doing regardless of what your demographic category has empirically presented. West Africans, to your point, as an aggregate may be great sprinters...but if you happen to be a fat West African who's out of breath walking to the mailbox, I'm not hiring you as a sprinting messenger, despite your category bona fides.
That is the stuff which matters; the tonal range displayed by your skin doesn't in the least.
In the end I think we're saying the same thing, albeit from different angles. The superficial is superficial and should be treated as such (one of the many superficialities is skin color). The significant, on the other hand... what people do and don't do; what they're capable of doing....that's MASSIVELY IMPORTANT, and that's where we separate wheat from chaff.
The confusion arises when we begin to think that life itself should be fair....that no one should be more or less talented or have more or fewer abilities or aptitudes than anyone else (Welcome to Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron"!) That world does not exist and will not exist. When I stand on the track, next to Bolt, I'm under no illusion that I would ever -- even at my absolute best - ever ever ever beat him in race. Is that fair? Sure it is, fair in the sense we both have a chance to stand at the 100m. starting line and run when the gun goes off. 9 seconds later he wins....15 seconds later (and I may be generous!) I cross the line. The race is fair; it's measured fairly; no one cheated; and the best man won. I congratulate him and move on.
I'd be a fool to argue that he was unfairly advantaged.
As to how I (or anyone) should react to reams of data demonstrating my demographic group, on average, does "X"...and X is less than Y.... why should I care? Skin color is not destiny; I am not my group. And if can, in fact, do Y...that's all that anyone should care about.
[Edit: Ooops. Like I "said": Always mistakes. Replied under wrong comment.]
Another good one.
You did not address the negative consequences I pointed out once genetically disadvantaged American blacks (ITA) were placed in direct meritocratic competition with genetically advantaged whites, Asian, and Jews (ITA) and told the footrace was now fair with everyone treated equally. Instead you ignored the benefits accruing to both racial groups and American society in general during the period when black businesses, schools, and professional associations were present and successful in actual (vs. today's virtual) black communities across the country, and positions of high social status were routinely attained by individual blacks (vs. today's tokens, DEI hires, and race hustlers).
Additionally, I don't believe you've carefully examined Mr. Roscoe's positions in relation to "closing gaps" (equalizing aggregate black and white performance across any number of metrics). The underlying assumption on which Mr. Roscoe's (and, I suspect, your) prescription (and proscription) rests is one that presupposes both racial group possess substantially equal aggregate capabilities. In other words, group differences in achievement are due to factors other than the native abilities possessed by each group. That, in my opinion, is not a tenable position given the mountainous data produced over many decades due to the intense focus on racial disparities in the USA.
Black leaders and their millions of followers in the USA are telling you point blank that they will NEVER let go of their racial identity, one they consider core to their individual and social existence. Your utopian ideal of everyone everywhere taking only individual characteristics and accomplishments into consideration is therefore doomed—it'll never happen. What do you propose to do about THAT, other than throw your hands up in the air and hurl invective at both whites and blacks who see value in their racial identity and refuse to turn their backs on their families, friends, and history?
Thanks for your comments. There's ample evidence that the skills gap was closing until the late 1980's. Derek Neal at the University of Chicago did a study about this back in 2006. You can access it using this National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) link:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w11090
Here's the Abstract:
All data sources indicate that black-white skill gaps diminished over most of the 20th century, but black-white skill gaps as measured by test scores among youth and educational attainment among young adults have remained constant or increased in absolute value since the late 1980s. I examine the potential importance of discrimination against skilled black workers, changes in black family structures, changes in black household incomes, black-white differences in parenting norms, and education policy as factors that may contribute to the recent stability of black-white skill gaps. Absent changes in public policy or the economy that facilitate investment in black children, best case scenarios suggest that even approximate black-white skill parity is not possible before 2050, and equally plausible scenarios imply that the black-white skill gap will remain quite significant throughout the 21st century.
Charles Murray documented that the skills gap was closing until the late 1980's in his most recent book, "Facing Reality." There's a graphic on page 34 that suggests the gap would have essentially closed by 2015 if the trends had continued past the late 1980's. You can see an updated version of this graph on page 37 of the notes to the book that you can download by using this link:
https://www.encounterbooks.com/books/facing-reality/
Murray acknowledged Neal's work on page 32 of the notes.
Many of us think the gaps can be closed, but the narrative behind the root causes of these gaps has to change first because how you approach the problem is different if you think "bias" is the issue instead of "development." Professor Loury explores these competing narratives in his Manhattan Institute paper about the persistence of racial inequality. Use this link to access it:
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/why-does-racial-inequality-persist
Fascinating material. Appreciate the link to Neal's work.
So let us try to separate the forest from the trees.
And let us begin with the misnomer, 'skills gap'.
If I beat you in a race, over and over again, would your coach be talking about your 'skills gap'? That when it came time to see who was faster in the 100m.... would he suggest that your skills, per se, were deficient? Would your serial losses, both severe and consistent, be attributed to a running mechanics issue? That your sprint 'know-how' was not as highly developed as mine? That you need to improve your knee lift, your stride length, the angle at which you hold your arms, etc? And that the only thing that separates our finishes was your honing of these proficiencies?
In fact, yes, there may be something to that analysis (I'm reminded of that scene in Chariots of Fire)....but... that's not really the issue, is it? That's not what we've witnessed for generations...and that's not what's driving the increasingly insane elimination of standards. The issue is not 'skills' that need to be sharpened (because we have the entire Education-Industrial Complex eager to do that sharpening) ; it's flat out performance (especially since that performance for decades had been improving...until that improvement ceased)
The first thing, the very first thing, that any coach would immediately question looking at 60 years plus of poor finishes is EFFORT, effort as measured by practice and the amount of hard work the two runners are investing to improve. When race after race is decided not by 'tenths of seconds' at the tape but entire standard deviations...the problem is not skills, it's sweat, dedication, intensity, and work. The problem is attitude and the desire to translate that attitude into effort.
There is a massive difference between these two understandings.
Skills gaps are relatively easy to bridge. 'Sam Mussabini' can coach 'Harold Abrahams' to 'run on hot bricks' and find another 2 yards when he races Liddell...because Abrahams desperately wants to win and is willing to work to accomplish that goal. But we're not talking about 2 measly yards which separate Gold Medal finishes from Silver or Bronze. We’re talking about not qualifying to be on the same track.
Neal concludes his analysis by saying that although....“It is not clear why the process of black-white (performance) convergence appeared to stop around 1990”...it would certainly seem that those black-white performance differences we witness later in life seem to be directly related to differences in “early childhood experiences”. He then moves on to review possible ‘childhood intervention programs’. Why intervention? Because ‘early childhood experience’ is ‘in the home’ experience. ‘In the home’ is not an environment naturally subject to public policy. ‘In the home’ is private. It’s how children are being raised by their parents, outside public purview. It is where we, as a society, build the essential, personal foundation upon which our public education either succeeds or falls.
The reason Neal is discussing public policy intervention to improve ‘early childhood experience’ is because – at a very gross/macro level, child-rearing within the home is and has been failing, a failure that begins with an out-of-wedlock birthrate of +70%.
It's not ‘skills development’ which is deficient; it’s the prototypical Black Family...which is not so much a family as a single Mom, who either aborts her pregnancy (at a rate 3X higher than a normal population demographic would indicate) or brings to term a child who will be raised without a father, inside a culture which – per Neal – would seem to require early public intervention if the aggregate, ‘Fatherless Black Youth’ are to develop in such a way that public education succeeds and the performance gap narrows.
The question, of course: is that Home subject to, open to, public policy intervention in such a way that culture-wide dysfunction (as in the 70%+ out-of-wedlock birthrate) can be corrected?
I don’t know.
As a society we’ve been radically concerned for generations about the social costs of illegal drug use. And yet, despite all that concern, despite all the trillions of dollars spent on anti-drug programs and intervention programs, and ‘Just Say No’ (This is your brain on drugs...a mind is a terrible thing to waste!)...despite all that, death from opioid overdose is rampant.
Certainly there are any number of public policies which have been and can be pursued to address this drug-use issue...just as there are any number of public policies which have been and can be pursued to address the B/W Performance Gap (GPA Gap, SAT Gap, HS Graduation Gap, College Enrollment Gap, College Graduation Gap, Employment Gap, Earnings Gap, etc etc.). But until the individuals that these public policies are trying to rescue actually want to be rescued....until the alcoholic actually wants to stop drinking & be saved....all the well-meaning social engineering efforts in the world cannot put Humpty Dumpty together again.
At the very least, though, we can make a public choice to not enable those dysfunctional dependencies. And NOT eliminating or lowering performance standards in a horribly misguided effort to ‘fix’ outcome inequity would be massive step in that right direction.
Thank you for your well-considered writings, your engagement with reader comments, and your always excellent and to-the-point links, Mr. Roscoe. I look forward to more of your contributions.
I'm quite familiar, as you might guess, with the majority of Charles Murray's published works and public appearances over the last 5 decades. I highly recommend his "Real Education" for those, such as yourself, who fool themselves in thinking education reform can and will "close the gap." Murray is something of a hero to me, both for his courageous perseverance in the face of withering social and professional condemnation and isolation as well as the intellectual honesty evidenced in his relentless pursuit of the truth wherever it leads (see "conservative" Murray's "Coming Apart" bookended with "liberal" Robert Putnam's "Our Kids" as an example).
TY, Sir Clifton. TYTY a *lot.*
The two .pdfs were very interesting. My eyes glazed over reading Neal's formulas, but he explained them well.
I was hampered by Neal and Murray saying further research could, or needed to, be done. And I didn't catch the significance Murray was pointing to of the tests getting easier. But that confirmed what I assumed. It'd be ridiculous to try to compare test scores with the one's I took. And it would appear another example of younger folks getting accommodated. TY again.
"Black leaders and their millions of followers in the USA are telling you point blank that they will NEVER let go of their racial identity, one they consider core to their individual and social existence."
Whites, and apparently You, say the same. That's not necessarily gonna be the end result. Hard to say anything certain about the future. No crystal ball. But seems doubtful: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/myth-majority-minority-america/619190/
Those "who see value in their racial identity and refuse to turn their backs on their families, friends, and history?"
They may find that they can ADD friends without turning their BACK on existing families, friends and history. If they wanna.
Invective, my friend, does not mean what you seem to think it means. I am not shouting, nor am I angry, nor am I hurling rude or hateful remarks at either Whites or Blacks. Rather I am saying, quite simply, that 'hateful, and destructive racist nonsense must end.' How you read that as invective is baffling since it is essentially calling for an end to racist invective.
As for your continued assertions of the importance of aggregate performance averages, again, as I said, "Aggregate performance measures are meaningless, save in the abstract, as a point of interest." There is no reason to address meaningless group averages when what matters is individual performance. We don't hire aggregates, we hire individuals.
As for what will never happen.... I dunno. I think it can. I know, in fact, it does every day at the micro-level upon which all decisions are ultimately made: who is hired, who wins a race, who qualified for med school, who graduated at the top of the class, who becomes the rocket scientist, who the cardiologist, who the truck driver, etc. We make these decisions; we recognize these successes on an individual level always.
Let us return to Loury and the point he made in his 2019 essay in Inequality. He said: "The struggle for equal rights for black people, from abolition through the civil rights movement, has always been thought of as a “freedom struggle.” But with freedom, rightly understood, comes responsibility. It is past time for all of us to start performing without a net. Rather than lamenting the lack of black billionaires, an outcome ascribed to some invisible force called “racism,” one can admit that you will never become a billionaire unless you build a billion-dollar business—which begins by starting a business. One will never win a Nobel Prize in physics unless one learns calculus at the age of 12. What black parents are insisting that their 12-year-old kids learn calculus—those few kids capable of doing so? White people are not responsible for the fact that black people are, or are not, doing this." He's absolutely right. And he's as right about the Black people who are or are not choosing to behave responsibly as he is about the White people.
You want to build a successful life then go build one. And don't tell me (or yourself) that you can't do it because the aggregate measures for your population demographic say it's improbable. Aggregates don't study calculus; individuals do.
And if some choose to remain irresponsible....to not take accountability for their own life choices....to look at a disparate outcomes and cry racism when no racist discrimination is present..... to keep waiting, hand outstretched for someone who has earned dollars to give them dollars because Black....well then they will live with those consequences....and their lives will be, inevitably, short, nasty, and brutish.
Ultimately I guess I don't really care about "equalizing aggregate performance metrics". I think it's a fool's errand... made more foolish by a multi-generational history that tells us that pouring trillions of dollars into 'assistance programs' does nothing other than send those aggregate measures in the wrong direction.
Aggregate performance metrics will equalize when aggregates, acting as individuals, make equalizing choices about how they wish to live. As much as we might want all the aggregate alcoholics to stop drinking, until they, as individuals, CHOOSE to actually stop, there's not a whole lot we can do to 'fix' the aggregate drunks.
Good comment. Points taken with one to be made.
Your views are now clearly at odds with those of Mr. Clifton Roscoe and the vast majority of "race men" who focus on disproportionate representation of blacks, IN THE AGGREGATE (ITA), in both desirable positions (too few Nobel Prize winners) and socially destructive ones (too many criminals, school dropouts, and single mothers). The very concept of an "achievement gap" both acknowledges and implicitly demands action to equalize aggregate metrics by forcing proportional representation.
When the great equalizer, education, is shown to fail utterly in its mission to "close the "gap," other more slippery methods are used. These include lowering admission and examination standards and lessening academic rigor so black high school and university graduation rates show improvement. Alas, those lowered standards apply to everyone, so the children of high-achieving racial groups and cultures must seek effective education elsewhere, an increasingly difficult task. Meanwhile, newly-minted black "college graduates" in meaningless majors from such diploma mills are then placed as tokens in professional positions where few demands for real work output are placed on them. And everyone is happy. Individuals gain monetary success and social status (for producing no real value), proportional representation goes up, Mr. Roscoe and you see "progress," and a new round of official obfuscation and social censorship ensues lest the emperors new clothes be revealed for what they truly are.
You simply cannot have it both ways. Either individuals are tested against assessment standards and those passing move on to positions of real authority and efficacy while those who fail are denied sinecures and must find other, less prominent and remunerative paths to follow. This will result in disproportionate representation of blacks (ITA) in desirable professional, business, and scientific pursuits. While this may suit you just fine, it is NOT acceptable to Mr. Roscoe, Glenn Loury, American liberals, and the United States government.
Thanks for the discussion.
Well done, M BDavi. Really!
Thanks for your comment.
I agree with much of what you wrote, but I would caution you not to paint with too broad a brush. I know one of the founders of NSBE (National Society of Black Engineers). Their overarching goal is to encourage more blacks to enter STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) fields. I may not agree with all of their positions, but I don't see any downsides to encouraging more blacks to pursue STEM careers.
I wish we lived in a color blind society, but the Pew analyses I quoted suggest that we're not there yet. Perceptions are often reality when it comes to how people view institutions. Consider the Georgia GOP. Their leadership page includes 35 photos.
https://gagop.org/leaders/
All the leaders presented except one (Fitz Johnson, District 3 Public Service Commissioner) appear to be white. Only four of the photos show women.
Keep in mind that blacks account for 33% of Georgia's population and women account for 51% of Georgia's population according to the latest figures from the U.S. Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/GA/PST045221
The contrast between the Georgia GOP's leadership and the leadership for Georgia Democrats is stark:
https://www.georgiademocrat.org/leadership/
I'm not hung up on this because policies are more important that the pigmentation of party leaders, but a lot of people will take a look at the leadership of the Georgia GOP and conclude that it's a "white" organization.
Sometimes hard to follow who's exactly replying to what....but let me jump in here (maybe in sequence, maybe out of sequence)
The too-broad-a-brush is always a concern. Equally, the too-granular can be equally concerning and equally misleading. And sometimes, quite honestly, that broad brush is used to make a particular point, recognizing that there are always a host of exceptions to any gross generalization, however it is used.
Your point about NSBE & the encouragement of Blacks to enter STEM is a good one. But you say you don't see any downsides to such encouragement. I do. And I see them the same way we would see a downside to parents encouraging Little Joey in his efforts but not his sister, Sue. We imagine the Dad saying, 'Heck, I'm just encouraging Joey to work hard and do his best because that helps to build his future." And he's right; that encouragement does. But what does the lack of encouragement do to Sue?
The NSBE works to encourage Blacks in STEM. But wouldn't a higher & 'truer' goal be to encourage ANYONE to pursue STEM? Would we be equally pleased to discover a NSWE targeting only White students? Would we say we see no downsides? [Imagine the reaction to a school announcement which says the National Society of White Engineers is meeting tomorrow with any White students who might be interested in STEM! NBC Nightly News would be broadcasting right outside the front door....interviewing the activists who are -- quite rightly -- picketing and protesting.]
Clearly, to your point, we don't seem to live in a color blind society. But as Justice Roberts might say, the best way to start living 'color-blindly' is to stop behaving as though color matters. The fact that the Georgia GOP's leaders are mostly White Males actually means nothing, truly. Unless we believe that you can tell a book by its cover. Neither does the fact that 94% of the Golden State Warrior players are Black (when 13% of the population is Black) indicate that the Warriors are a racist organization. That 93% of all pre-school teachers are women actually tells us nothing about whether the PreSchool Prep process is sexist (I'm guessing most probably not).
True, a lot of people who really should know better may take a look at a picture and draw an erroneous conclusion about what the people pictured are thinking and doing, but the solution is not to recolor (or re-sex!) the picture, it's to educate those who draw erroneous conclusions. The truth is, and I know you already know this...and that I'm preaching to the choir... you really can't tell a book by its cover. (I'm sure we've both read a ton of excellent books that had horribly lousy covers!)
In the end, yes, I do recognize that groups like the NSBE are doing good work, so it's hard to argue with good results. But we truly do need to recognize that there is an implicit and increasingly dangerous message in any color-centric approach to anything... and that message is, always, that skin color somehow matters.
It doesn't.
In any moral or ethical sense, the color of one's skin, the size of one's feet, the curl of one's hair -- it's all completely meaningless when it comes to the quality & integrity of one's work. It's what we do that counts, not how we look.
TY again.
Thanks for your reply. I agree with many of your points, but the under-representation of minorities in STEM fields has a historical context that's hard to ignore, especially for those who believe various forms of racism and bias are on the rise.
Let's start with some basic numbers. Here's an excerpt from a National Science Foundation/National Science Board report that was published last year:
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20212/participation-of-demographic-groups-in-stem
Hispanic or Latino and Black or African American workers are underrepresented in STEM, with the greater discrepancy being among those with a bachelor’s degree or higher than those without a bachelor’s degree. Hispanic or Latino workers make up 18% of the U.S. workforce but represent 14% of STEM workers. Similarly, Black or African American workers make up 12% of the U.S. working population but represent only 9% of STEM workers. In the STEM workforce with a bachelor’s degree or higher, Hispanic or Latino workers represent 8% of the workforce, and Black or African American workers represent 7%. However, at 19% of the STW, Hispanic or Latino workers are more than their proportion of the working population. Black or African American workers are underrepresented at 10% in the STW.
The proportion of Black or African American and Hispanic or Latino workers increased in both the STEM workforce with at least a bachelor’s degree and the STW between 2010 and 2019. In STEM, the number of Black or African Americans with a bachelor’s degree or higher increased 67%, and those in the STW increased 24%. Similarly, Hispanic or Latino STEM workers grew 99% for those with a bachelor’s degree or higher and 44% for those in the STW. Participation increased for these groups at a higher rate than White STEM workers with a bachelor’s degree or higher and those in the STW. This resulted in an increase in the proportion of Black or African American workers in STEM with and without a bachelor’s degree by approximately 1 percentage point in each and an increase in the proportion of Hispanic or Latino workers by 2 percentage points among those with a bachelor’s degree or higher and 4 percentage points among those without a bachelor’s degree (Figure LBR-24).
STW = Skilled Technical Workforce
The proportion of blacks in STEM professions was much lower when NSBE was founded in 1974, only 10 years after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It made sense for a group of black engineering students at Purdue University to encourage other blacks to pursue careers in engineering. The demographics of today's STEM workforce with a college degree suggests that this effort still makes sense.
America needs all the STEM workers it can get, so I don't see the downsides of NSBE unless you think NSBE's efforts discourage others from pursuing STEM careers. I don't think that's the case, but I'm open to a counter-argument.
It should also be noted that another Pew analysis says that only 20% of blacks think scientists are "very welcoming" to black people and only 23% of blacks think engineers are "very welcoming" to black people. Pew's analysis, but contrast, says that 36% of blacks think scientists are "not too/not at all welcoming" to black people. They also say that 33% of blacks think engineers are "not too/not at all welcoming" to black people:
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/04/07/black-americans-views-of-education-and-professional-opportunities-in-science-technology-engineering-and-math/
Many will think these perceptions are wrong, but Pew's numbers speak for themselves. NSBE's efforts help counter a narrative that discourages blacks from pursuing STEM careers.
Having made these points, I agree with you that there's too much emphasis on race in America. I wish race relations were better and that we were closer to being a color-blind society. That's one of the reasons I do these posts.
Clifton, thanks so much for you comprehensive reply! Hard to argue those points.
But some quibbles, perhaps, (better expressed over a beer I might add!).
STEM badly needs good people. No question. But STEM, as it should be, is and must remain a self-selecting set of highly demanding careers. A lot of hurdles need to be successfully cleared before one arrives as a top-notch STEM graduate (a fully-fledged scientist), not least of which is a demonstrated & consistently achieved aptitude for Quant. I'm sure we both know many who have washed out either because of a breaking point (as in 'I don't want to do this anymore') or a simple failure point (Advanced Stat or 2nd year Organic is several steps beyond most people's comfort level).
Demographic imbalance at these higher levels tends to be misleading. The numbers are too small and the hurdles too steep to read race or sex-based discrimination into the final tallies. Unfortunately those truths tend not to persuade those who insist on equating disparate outcomes with discriminatory treatment. I'd recommend Heather MacDonald's excellent summary of this situation here: https://www.city-journal.org/the-corruption-of-medicine .
As for the question of 'targeted encouragement' (as in special STEM-boosting sessions for Women or BIPOC's )....yes, I would argue that such focus does indeed tend to discourage those not equally targeted. Again, I'd say 'Encourage everyone!'
Personally I don't care if my surgeon is Black, White, Green, Female, Male, Short, Tall, whatever...I just want them to be OUTSTANDING. To invite a 'preferred' crowd to the party is to not invite and not include the Other, whoever that Other might be. Hard to avoid the feeling of being under-valued and ignored if all the fawning and coaching and mentoring and scholarships are nominally restricted to people who don't look like 'me'!
Would you see a downside to a National Society of White Engineers targeting & encouraging White students because, after all, 'we need all the STEM workers we can get'? I suspect you would (I suspect all of us would...because, in fact, it's racially discriminatory).
But your points about 'feeling welcome' are fascinating. We'd have to ask how much of that 'feeling' is a function of an actual, real, tangible 'unwelcoming' and how much is simply the very common feeling that every 'rookie' has when entering the 'old-timer's' clubhouse. I've had that feeling; I'm sure you've had it also. That's not racism or sexism, that's just the normal sense that -- as a rookie -- your perspectives and non-experience are not particularly valued.
I had a conversation years ago with an individual who had just begun teaching at the HS level. She told me that she faced a ton of resistance & hostility from the students....because, or so she thought, she was female. I explained, as you might imagine, that everyone faces exactly the same thing when they begin. It's not a function of gender or color; it's a function of being a newbie and the inevitable of being 'tested' in any new environment. The worst crash & burn I ever witnessed was a skinny White guy with a high voice who left the school halfway through the semester. He, too, would have said he was not 'welcomed'. But his failure had nothing to do with bias and everything to do with the fact that he couldn't handle the normal rough & tumble of teaching.
Sometimes an 'unwelcoming' is truly a function of bias & discrimination....but sometimes (I'd say most of the time) it's more a function of a hard life in a big, cold, and most typically uncaring world.
The truth is, when all you have is a hammer, all you tend to see are nails. And if 63% of all Black adults believe 'racism' is "an extremely big problem" despite an utter lack of evidence of any racist policy , procedure, law, or institutional system....then it's going to be easy to see so-called 'unwelcoming' as yet another racist nail. I've had cardiologists tell me that hiring and retaining newly minted med school grads is increasingly impossible because they all want the corner office, and no weekend on-call duty (otherwise they feel 'unwelcomed!).
Great example of this phenomenon in Tim Constantine's story about Michelle, back in 2020: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/29/is-michelle-obama-a-racist/ .... and how they both reacted to a line-cutter at the airport.
Thanks for all of your comments. I enjoyed our exchanges!
I agree with BDavi's post above: "Equally, the too-granular can be equally concerning and equally misleading." I think that's what we have here, M Clifton, to an extent. And what this ignores is how thinking "math is racist," and logic and book-learning is "acting white" feeds into the problems.
What I'm particularly interested in, at this moment in time, is that You wrote, "especially for those who believe various forms of racism and bias are on the rise."
My own preference is some examples, that than Pew studies, which are suspect.
This isn't a poll, but consider the large number of black people who purchased cryptocurrencies in recent years. One of the key motivations was a distrust of established financial institutions. Here's a link to an analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City:
https://www.kansascityfed.org/ten/2022-fall-ten-magazine/inside-the-rise-of-black-consumer-cryptocurrency-ownership/
Denominators always intrigue me in all data analyses (my main job is data analytics based consulting). In your examples, I wish we could know the *reason* behind the % that say scientists are "welcoming/not welcoming". If only we could know whether it was "because of what you've assumed going into interactions/were told this was the case" or "because of blatant examples you couldn't ignore". I know...so subjective and hard for even the individual to honestly discern.
But this would change the approach to the solution.
You would solve presuppositions by not telling so many black individuals that this is the truth of the world. You would solve the issue of blatant examples by educating the STEM world on how to not continue in this way. Two very different approaches.
Similarly, of the lower representation of non-white groups in STEM, I would love to somehow know "% that were 1. interested and 2. attempted to enter STEM and 3. were not able to do so" (for each ethnicity). Forget the actual % compared to US population...that may confuse the narrowing of the analytics funnel. I would consider it a promising sign if that conversion rate was currently on par with for white or asian populations. Then our focus could appropriately shift on either exposing INTEREST in STEM and then later on we could see why they weren't SUCCEEDING in obtaining careers in STEM. By jumping to the missing population of step 3 as proof, we may continue to be disappointed and continue to hang in neutral.
TL;DR - we may be missing a middle portion of the analytics funnel to know where it's dropping off between population>interest>application>accomplishment and that may be key for where to put resources. Perhaps NSBE is focusing on the issue in this way...but the highlighted stats seem to not suggest that.
Thanks for your comment. I've seen new research that attempts to address some of the important points you're making. Use this link to see an overview:
https://theconversation.com/disparities-in-advanced-math-and-science-skills-begin-by-kindergarten-191990
Out of curiosity, what is the proportion of Oriental Asian and Near East Asians in STEM workforce, Hispanics? Is there an NSBOA? NSBNE? or just NSBA? NSBH? Is there anything to the idea that Asians are more hostile to blacks? Any stats pro or con? or are they just lumped in with "whites"? I have no issue with an NSBE or any group encouraging more people pursuing STEM education and careers.
The report I referenced includes this excerpt about Asians in STEM:
According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2020a) 2019 ACS, Asians and Whites represent a greater share of STEM (9% and 65%, respectively) compared to all Asians and all Whites in the U.S. workforce (6% and 61%, respectively) (Figure LBR-23). However, the representation of Asians in STEM is primarily driven by their representation among STEM workers with a bachelor’s degree or higher (16%), whereas Asians are underrepresented among STEM workers without a bachelor’s degree, or the STW (4%). In contrast, Whites represent a greater share of STEM workers with at least a bachelor’s degree (66%) and of the STW (65%).
The full report (The STEM Labor Force of Today: Scientists, Engineers, and Skilled Technical Workers) is long and includes lots of information. I didn't see the level of detail you're seeking, but there may be other sources with that information.
There is a Society of Asian Scientists and Engineers (SASE). I don't know anything about them, but here's a link to their web site:
https://saseconnect.org/
Here's a link for their chapter at Texas A&M University;
https://www.sasetamu.org/
Always mistakes. I'll just add one note: Yeah, a lotta people *would* say it's a "white" organization. Can someone explain who is *benefitted* by having this feeling? Who's the beneficiary of breaking things down by race this way? I'm not seeing who benefits, but *somebody* obviously is. Just can't figure out who, myself.
Weeeel, I got time to poke my head in here one last time. I read the results of the Pew study to say something different. I read the results to say that Blacks believe a lotta hogwash. As I "said," or at least implied, I think Black people have been sold a bill-a goods. To put it bluntly. They've been sold a vision of society that isn't just inaccurate, but which serves to drastically limit possibilities that exist.
The percentage of Blacks who believe drastic overhaul is necessary. *Somebody* should inform these folks that the best approach when seeking change is to start from what is actually *possible.* This whole idea that institutions need to be "dismantled?" There's another Pew study to show who much faith we've lost in our institutions. And You're lookin at the results of that loss. Replace them? With *what?*
And the bar graph of the money got from decreasing funding of the police should be spent? Is that still a live trope out there? *Decrease* funding? Only Pew would ask that question in these times.
You've got 18% of Blacks who believe reparations "are likely." And what percentage think reparations are desirable? Considerably higher, no doubt. I'm sorry, but this is what's *wrong* with America. KenDiAngeloism. Yeah, right. The way to improve the problem of discrimination is to just aim it at the *right people.* How does that even pass as intelligent conversation. "What's bad for me is *good* for You" is one-a the oldest stories in the book, right? Hint: It never ends well...
I'll stop there. Loong day. Mebbe tomorrow.
And, ooooops. I believe in my haste I forgot to say thank You for Your replies, Sir Clifton. ("My bad." ;-)
TY for reply. Yeah, I reject that notion of the need for racial caucuses and societies. TY for bringing that up. No, i sort-a doubt that many others do, or have even given it sufficient thought.
However, the leadership You're describing, M BDavi? Is that still around these days? Seriously, tho, a lotta what I see about leadership these days is how to best appease the vocal minorities. The majority? The normies? I dunno they get much shrift.
But i applaud the last paragraph. From what I can tell, that's not necessarily the popular opinion around this crowd. But ICBW (I Could Be Wrong). Frequently am.
I'm just failing to see why Blacks can't agree skin color is not destiny and is, in actual fact, immaterial to the majority of Americans if given half a chance. And the Blacks saying, at the same time, I appreciate some-a the good aspects of what's-called Black culture or traditions, and I wanna keep them.
Somehow it's thought that these two are mutually exclusive. I don't get it. But I'm not in a racial minority. I'm definitely a minority in other respects, tho. But that's a personal problem.
From reading Wesley Yang's "The Soul of Yellow Folk," there's *always* gonna be this trade-off minorities face. How much to accept the majority culture, and whether Your own culture needs to be sacrificed in the process. *All* minorities. I recall this story of a successful, young black woman over on JFBT. She was real excited about all her success. But there was one line that stood out for me, which is she regretted she'd lost some-a her "blackness."
That's sad. But if You want the success, I'm afraid, part-a that necessitates accommodating the culture of the majority population. If an "African American" wants to be more African than American, it's just gonna be harder. I suppose that sounds racist. Because that *is* unfair. But life *isn't* fair, and it's something that minorities around the world face, AFAIK (As Far As I Know). ICBW, of course.
TY again for Your thoughtful reply.
Exactly. Couldn't agree more.
In the end, though, aren't we all -- in one sense or another -- aren't we all our own minority of one?
As trite as it sounds it's undoubtedly true....all of us: strangers in a strange land.
My skin color may be a majority skin color but that is not ME. My western European ancestry has shaped my face, my body, and created a whole slew of genetic tendencies...but that also is not who I am. My height, my weight, the sound of my voice, my likes and dislikes, those things I'm drawn to, those things which repel me, my education, the books I read and don't read, the movies I like, the conversations I enjoy:
gather them all together, shake them up, roll them out and you find ME. And I may be the only one standing there when all is said and done (just as you may be the only standing when a similar shake/rattle/& roll happened with y ou)
So none of us should be surprised to learn that our idiosyncratic selves are at least somewhat 'out of synch' with what passes for 'majority' culture. We all 'have to sacrifice' pieces and part of ourselves (the most minority culture of all) to move smoothly through our 'majority' public spaces.
But I don't know that it's exactly sad that our deepest & most personal selves are not usually welcome in that Public Space. As a matter of fact, most of us actually believe 'constraint' is a good thing in those shared environments. It's why we all discourage our work partners from warming-up Tuna Casserole in the office microwave!
I'll just quote You.
"Exactly. Couldn't agree more."
I like that: "shake them up, roll them out..." That fills up most-a the day, with pleasure most-a the time.
Yeah, we're all minority of one. No one that *I* know of escapes trade-offs.
I only got a little into Professor Sowell's views on the vision of constraints. What I fear (when I bother to fear anything, which is pretty much never)... Well, those who believe in the vision of NO constraints don't really have a realistic view of things. AFAIK.
TY again for reply. A pleasure...
I will join the prior praise for Mr. Roscoe’s writing here. Very well done. I was struck when he wrote that until the K-12 achievement gap closes, other measures related to success will not close relative to other racial groups (I am paraphrasing here). I agree with his argument. Thank you Mr. Roscoe for that essay, and keep writing!
And if that K-12 "achievement gap" is rooted in a cognitive ability gap which is significantly (if not overwhelmingly) genetic in origin? What then? Mr. Roscoe's axiom still applies. Do yours?
I’m not sure what you are asking Mr. Bicker as I didn’t assert an axiom, outside agreeing with Mr. Roscoe. If you have a point, please state it.
Respectfully, I think you might be misapprehending my opinions about any achievement gaps and remedies therefore. You stated, “generally, people who term...”. I try not to be a “general” thinker, but I acknowledge that as a human being I am fallible and ignorant about many things, even those that interest me.
Wonderful! So, given your open mind and curiosity about the world around you, I suggest you look deeper into the "gap" and make up your own mind regarding its source and thus what, if anything, can or should be done about it. Good luck on your journey—enlightenment awaits.
Generally, people who term black-white educational disparities an "achievement gap" tend to believe reform of educational content and methods (more effective "preparation") will lessen if not eliminate the approx. 1 standard deviation difference in standardized test results. They've been on that project for the better part of a century with zero impact on "the gap." One would think they'd re-examine their basic assumptions given this track record of dismal failure, but it never seems to happen. Those axioms.
Black solidarity is no different than white solidarity. Its a vice. Abandoning racial solidarity is moral progress for any individual. When will more racial minorities begin to accept that racial tribalism for their own race is no less shameful than the racial tribalism of white people? "White Nationalists" are rightly viewed with a contempt by most people; it shouldnt be any different for "Black Nationalists" or "Latino Nationalists" or any other racial / ethnic nationalists. Our tribal loyalties should transcend and eschew race. Its superficial, ignorant characteristic to have solidarity around.
There are 20 people drowning and only 10 people can be saved, and 10 people are black and 10 people are white, and a person can also know anything they like about those peoples' characters and personalities, their professions, their families-- and none of them are "equal"; and if they factor in race to make their selection on who to save, that would be a demerit In the same scenario of 20 people drowning and they are one of the people drowning, their "racial solidarity", should be a mark against them being one of those who should be saved.
I agree. I'm surprised that I had to read so many comments before your observations were made by someone! At least, you spared me from typing that. However, I shall add --> if Glenn affirms that the attribute of racial identity has a positive influence for him (and I suspect, others), THEN HOW does Glenn think white folk should affirm positive attributes for their group? How can Glenn endorse soft black nationalism while, I presume, eschewing white nationalism or white pride?
Similar issue for pride in your "team." What do we think of those who lose?
Achievement gap(s)? And what, really, does that mean? If the "races" are equal, then why did all the $$ that was poured into the KCIty school system fail? Not total answer, but IMO, cultural values.
"Even if we desire a world in which race isn’t important, we don’t live in that world yet."
Why don't we?
Who or what or why or where or how is 'race STILL being made important' in this, our particular world...that we would otherwise choose (maybe??) to change?
Our laws are not race-centric; our organizations do not hire, fire, or promote on the basis of race (and let us ignore, yet again, affirmative action). There are no venues which admit or refuse admittance because of skin color. No schools which gauge entry by melanin. No institutions which determine policy per skin tone. No banks whose loans decisions are made by race. No neighborhoods in which home sales are a function of dark or light. These things aren't happening and haven't happened for generations.
And if, in some stagnant backwater, we do indeed discover such racist practices, our media highlights them; America deplores them; and the Justice System eliminates them. This truth has been demonstrated over and over again for decades (even to ridiculous extremes).
So what is it, exactly, and who is it, exactly who keeps insisting that 'race is important' ...so important, in fact, that their insistence actively prevents us from achieving the 'post-racial' world we supposedly desire?
The answer is .... Black Adults. That's who's insisting. (As Pogo might say, 'We have met the enemy and he is us!')
95% of all Black adults say race is important to how they see themselves." 54% say it is EXTREMELY important. Skin color, in other words, is critical to a sense of self if that 'self' is Black. None of the other colors really seem to care.
So what's this mean?
If...we truly desire a world in which skin color is unimportant....WHY do we keep behaving as though skin color is critically important? If the institutions, organizations, policies and practices of the world are explicitly set to ignore race, why does one Race continue to insist that race must be emphasized, even as they say they prefer a world in which it isn't?
At a fundamental level, skin color is simply a demographic marker -- no more, no less. Some of us are tall, some short. Some of us are fat; some thin. We are old; we are young; we have big feet & small feet, long hair and short, curly & straight...red hair, dark hair, blonde hair, no hair. We are Black, White, Tan, Brown, Sepia, etc.. These are all just simply demographic tags which have absolutely nothing to do with who we actually are as human beings. They have nothing to do with what we can achieve or whether or not we can build a good & decent life for ourselves and our families. Nothing, that is, unless we listen to that demonic voice whispering in our ear: "COLOR is what & who I am!"
The data from the Pew Survey is sad.
We are told that there is "little hope among Black adults that changes to racial inequality are likely". But what are those desired 'changes' for which there's little hope?
It's just outcome rebalancing. It's not behavior changing; it's not working harder; it's not better study habits, better graduation rates, better learning, better job performance, etc. It's not saying no to teenage sex and accidental pregnancies and astronomical, out-of-wedlock birthrates & single-parent households filled with lost children No...it's none of those things. Rather it's White People giving Black People dollars because Black. It's White People giving Black People dollars because of the incredibly perverse belief that White Babies in Newborn Nurseries are born holding a past-due bill to the Black Newborn who lies next to them.
This is insane. The White child is not born in debt; the Black child is not born with an account receivable.
Half of all Black adults surveyed tell us that they believe the World needs to be REBUILT ENTIRELY in order for them to be 'treated fairly'. They say that Reality itself must shift in order for them to be as successful as White People.
Should we stop measuring 100m. dash winners across a 100m distance with the same start and finish lines? Should we eliminate standard Board Scores because test results from Standard Tests yield racial imbalances? (Wait, we've already done that) Should we substitute an essay on 'me' for a GPA? Should we just draft people for Medical School and eliminate performance hurdles because it's more important to see MORE BIPOC Cardiologists than to graduate good ones who can pass tests? Again this is insane. (especially insane if it's my heart they're operating on!)
If 63% of Black Adults say racism is an 'extremely big problem'....shouldn't someone ask, "What Racism??" Shouldn't we able to see the racist law, the racist policy, the racist procedure, the racist behavior that actually proves this assertion and provides strong evidence for this belief? Absent that proof, outcome imbalance is simply outcome imbalance, and proves nothing. How many times must that be said? If you beat me 10/10 times in that 100m. dash, I'm betting it's because you're faster....not because the race is fixed.
If I find myself convinced that the World must change in order for me to be successful....if I come to believe that everyone else is wrong and I'm the only one who's right....then maybe it's me and not the world who needs to wake-up? Maybe it's me and not the world who needs to change? And maybe that change needs to begin by recognizing who I am as a human being has nothing to do with how I look and everything to do with what I do.
What is true on the individual level is not (necessarily) so on the level of the aggregate. Therein lies the problem. A black or white or any other person of any race or ethnicity can be pretty much anything. Black, white, and other racial/ethnic groups, in statistical aggregate, are each singularly and significantly different. Choices are: treat every person as a unique individual; treat individuals as representative of their racial/ethnic group; or ignore individuals entirely and deal with matters of race/ethnicity only at the group level. Pick your poison, people.
Very true.
And as an individual would we not (each one of us) always prefer to be seen as uniquely ourselves and not some stereotypical vessel filled with tribal category preconceptions held by others?
If I am the fastest runner on the field, I'm fastest -- it doesn't matter if my 'Category' is, in the aggregate, statistically the slowest. If I'm the smartest in the room, again, it doesn't matter if my 'Category' has average SAT's in the lowest quartile. Regardless, I'm still the fastest & smartest and who cares what my demographic category is or is not.
What is disturbing in the Pew Survey is the fact that 95% of Black Adults say a shared demographic marker is important to how they see themselves. I can't imagine anything more sadly pathetic, actually. Demographics are simply demographics. Why on earth would I want to tie my self-perception to something over which I have absolutely Zero Control. Like saying how I see myself is 'extremely dependent' upon how the Bears do when they play Green Bay. (a sad situation indeed!)
In the end I think we come back to your point about the distinction between the aggregate and the individual. And since none of us has ever met an 'aggregate' or hired an aggregate, or dated an aggregate or married or lived next to one...I'd say we should deal always and exclusively with individuals....who are and should be recognized NOT as representatives of the aggregate but as just simply themselves
Race is an artificial construct based on superficial characteristics and intended solely to divide people and elevate one group at the expense of another. It would make as much sense to divide people by handedness or by those whose second toe is longer than their big toe. Blacks, by accepting this division, continue to secure their group position at the bottom of the pack because they continue to accept the misdiagnosis of their problem as being external to themselves. I got the sense that all four of the discussion participants understand this and accept it, at least in the abstract. Not being willing to give up the group security blanket can only prolong the agony of disfunction which has nothing to do with any external characteristic.
Until a black man can rise to his feet and declare “I am a man!” and demand that every other person accept that identity, he cannot achieve his potential as an individual human.
The alternative is to continue to accept the destructive idea that externals are fate.
I am very grateful for the forum Prof Loury and his colleagues have provided in which to press this discussion. Glenn is clear in his contention that his meaningful identity is in his culture, it defines him in how he thinks about himself and his place in the world; if I can cautiously put words in his mouth. It seems confusing then to state that Blackness remains an important part of his identity. He is transparent about his struggle with that and I commend him for his honesty on the matter. Until we recognize ourselves as individuals of the same kind, we seriously limit our ability to function, let alone thrive in this world. “As a man thinks, so is he.”
Blessings.
Maybe I’m missing something but I actually understand Kmele’s post-race argument as a sound one. Think about it. The problem seems to be that the more a group identifies as A Group, the more susceptible they are to seeing overarching societal factors as the problem. Certainly there must be some degree of truth to that. But isn’t a lot of what’s going on here more about perception management a la the leftist media? For example, the narrative that black men are being murdered by racist white cops every two seconds, when we know the number is roughly 15-20 a year, in a nation of 340 million. Does this contribute to the perception of structural racism? Does this back up a group victim narrative? This can be for any group, say white working class in Trump country, too. Etc. Wouldn’t it be more ideal to ditch your racial group Association and think of yourself as a free individual with agency and worth? Couldn’t you then take concrete steps to succeed? The education and cultural parts seem most problematic to me here. Like the article said: We’re living in a time when real serious racial havoc is actually over. Systemically, legally, culturally we’re just much, much less racist as a nation than say 50 years ago. What remains is the battle over perception, narrative, belief, facts.
Michael Mohr
‘Sincere American Writing’
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/