I don’t think Fergusons critique is actually a critique at all. Ferguson discusses cherry picking of facts, how Glenn doesn’t truly offer a counter-narrative and his “supposedly” difference in perspective from 2007 to 2022 - which is not a difference in kind but in type. Saying there are systemic issues affecting the black community is not stating that systemic racism is the boogeyman of all progress for black America.
When Glenn discusses issues he is speaking by way of comparison regarding how race is used ubiquitously as justification for some social ill. The bottom line narrative of Glenn’s podcast and writings have been to reiterate the points made by Sowell and others namely; 1) prerequisites are different than probabilities 2) dissolving the composition fallacy that characterization of one is not a characterization of all 3) victimization does not lead to growth 4) and finally CULTURE MATTERS!
How Ferguson chooses not to see that is quite astonishing.
If we had a free market in secondary education I am certain that vocational schools that included internships and apprenticeships in existing fields and whose graduates all got skilled jobs would become very popular. The stranglehold of the college graduates teacher unions would be broken if parents only had choices. How hard would that choice be? Let’s see, a vocational school that prepares my child for a successful and good paying career vs a high school that may or may not prepare them for a liberal arts college that will indoctrinate them in “woke” and won’t prepare them for anything other than grad school?
I don't expect Prof. Loury to be the change agent for the future, that is a job for everyone to muster.
Prof. Loury's being-ness in this forum strikes a deep note, like standing on a secure base. Whether it's generational understanding or midwestern roots in common, here is a perspective familiar from long ago and increasingly rare to find. TGS hits an internal home run regularly.
Of course I can find fault or see stuck patterns, we all have issues and I tend to over analyze, but having a window into a world that is deeply familiar provides relief and refuge. Thanks.
It’s important to disagree and criticize and be criticized, so solid points for that! But man: Some of the criticism was just absurd. Cherry-picking? So hold on: You’re saying that BLM and the woke antiracism crowd DON’T cherry-pick??? That’s precisely ALL they do. Cherry-pick, pull things out of context, use broad language like ‘structural racism,’ lie about and obfuscate data, etc. Go put the details into the Washington Post police database: You’ll see immediately that police brutality against black Americans in contemporary times is a myth. (In the past, very real.) We know this. Every honest person knows this. This is the fundamental problem with antiracism and Wokeism: They refuse to be questioned or criticized. As John McWhorter said in Woke Racism: We’re dealing with The New Religion. They’ve even got original sin. They lie and gaslight like the worst far-right republicans.
Your posts and discussions are very stimulating. They really help to open my eyes about different viewpoints and perceptions. It helps to form and adjust my own worldview.
a beautiful but sober encomium. I think Glenn certainly acknowledges many leftist arguments like 'structural' or 'systemic' impediments to progress, if not racism, but believes it's a matter of emphasis. That, the arguments for victimhood are so disproportionate and commonplace, there is almost nothing to add. And that too few are standing up for agency and responsibility or concepts often identified as 'right' or 'conservative' but must be contained within a formula for black equity and success. how could it possibly be otherwise when it's a part of the success story for every ethnic group? And so, when 95% of arguments are focused on victimhood, even if there is obvious truth in that, what else is he going to add to that argument? Of course, rhetorically, it's always a good idea to acknowledge the value of a sliver of opposing arguments and focus instead on emphasis. (Unless they contain 0% truth value). And by and large, I think that's principally what Glenn is trying to do.
In his book Woke Racism, John McWhorter advocated for an increased focus on vocational training for Black Americans. Charles Murray made the same argument in Real Education but for all Americans irrespective of race. By his estimation, only about 10-20 percent of students really benefit from a 4-year college degree, but I believe these days over 50% of high school cohorts end up attending a traditional 4-year undergraduate program.
In my opinion we're seduced by what I've referred to as the cult of prestige or what has also been described as Yale or jail. It's why we're so fixated on racial disparities at the 8 elite high schools in New York City, when as Glenn's recent guest Wai Wah Chin has pointed out only about 5% of the 100,000 or so high school students in recent cohorts end up attending one of those 8 schools.
We're also seduced by the tendency to conflate correlation with causation. Glenn made this point recently when his guest Ian Rowe argued that people who end up getting married have better life outcomes on average than those who don’t. Glenn's frequent guest Clifton Roscoe also emphasizes statistics showing that those who end up graduating from a 4-year college on average tend to be better off than those who don’t. I believe it’s very possible that there’s a self-selection effect at play and that individuals with certain positive attributes are more likely to end up getting married or attending college. I vaguely recall seeing some statistics showing that once you control for SAT scores much of the disparity in life outcomes between individuals who attend elite colleges versus those who attend lesser colleges goes away.
Contrary to many, I’ve actually been somewhat skeptical of elite immigration from South Asia and East Asia over the past 2-3 decades. America has a population of 330 million. Letting in self-selected people from China and India, with a combined population of almost 2800 million, has in my opinion produced significant distortions in our group comparisons and further fueled our obsession with prestige. I recall former NYC Educational Chancellor Richard Carranza proclaiming in response to over 70% of the incoming student body at Stuyvesant a few years back being Asian that admissions to elite high schools in NYC weren’t the province of any single ethnic group.
I’m sympathetic to arguments about how to reduce existing disparities but I worry that we’re focused on the wrong things. As a society we’re too fixated on whether or not there’s enough diversity in physics or among the student body at elite high schools and universities. We’re even too fixated on the notion that everyone needs to attend a 4-year college program. In my opinion we should shed our obsession with prestige and focus instead on effecting foundational changes that uplift much broader portions of society.
The WSJ just ran an article on how employers are starting to rethink the need for college degrees in the current labor market. The article talked about how companies like Google, Delta Airlines and IBM have started to eliminate 4 year degrees as a requirement for certain jobs. It was heartening to read and gives me hope that we can move in a saner direction as a society.
It seems that in Europe people working with their hands are more appreciated.
Many European countries have an educational system that offers after primary school, vocational schools. These schools are more geared towards working with your hands (as well as your head). They allow children (and their parents) to opt for one of several levels and choose what is best suited for the student in question. High School is in that system only for students that go to college or university. The system is organized in such a way that is is possible to transfer to a higher level. Many successful people started in vocational school and later on went for more education, e.g. a degree based acquired at a University or based on courses at a the Open University.
To me the US High School system seems "one size fits all" - and that never works. Also, going metric would IMHO improve results considerably as the system is logic and beautiful.
Thank you. We have a rhyme about politicians: "They drank a gin-fizz, took a piss, and left it all like it-is." (I am rather proud of this translation.)
Only re. the US healthcare system some improvements were made re. insurance. But when it comes to e.g. immigration nothing is done about the broken system, because apparently nothing can be done ? In the mean time the problem grows. But like the other big problems (education) immigration is studied, debated.
I came here 25 years ago, I really would have liked to see some real change (although too late for me). Women should not be forced to live in the Republic of Gilead. Children brought illegally can stay under DACA - but children brought legally are kicked out !
Maybe the US should break the monopolies that Dems and Reps have when it comes to voters. In my country we have 18 parties in parliament (Lower House). On local level more/other parties can be voted for. This means that parties always have to work together - vilifying one another to be elected serves no purpose.
Something else that continues to amaze me: the US abhors socialism etc. but your kids have to take an oath to the flag every morning.
I'm impressed that Prof. Ferguson is willing to assign Prof. Loury's work to his students. More typically, progressives rely on lying about easily verifiable facts, and silencing or demonizing anyone who questions their fairy-tale fantasy narratives.
Prof. Loury's work is so appealing because of its fundamental values of honor and honesty, as Prof. Ferguson pointed out. In contrast, the Kendi-ist narrative is fundamentally based on lies, and its proponents deserve nothing but contempt and ridicule.
By the way, regarding those awful policies to which Prof. Ferguson alludes -- they are largely explainable in terms the intense desire of the largely multiracial non-underclass to avoid becoming crime victims at the hands of the largely monoracial underclass.
In passing, Ferguson writes, "They say Glenn cherry-picks his facts—which he does . . . " When I read about cherry-picked facts or what-abouts (and whataboutism), I wonder if these oddities are understood as simply a tit-for-tat, an argumentative tactic to score a point; or, in a very different sense when those oddities stand in a critical paradigmatic juncture and call for an assessment in a systematic analysis. In the latter sense, which is what I think Loury does more often than not, those cherry-picked facts are the stubborn and nettlesome places that require major intellectual surgery. I hope Ferguson and Loury pick up one of those cherry-picked facts and continue the journey.
I commend Loury for sharing this speech and opening up the dialogue with some of Ferguson’s critiques. Here, however, I want to remark on the following quoted comment from one of Ferguson’s students: “I later learned why he [the student’s friend] and so many others joined a gang—to feel a sense of community, make income to support his low-income family, and to feel protected from the threats we faced in our community.”
I’ve taught in urban public schools for over 15 years. I grew up in the city where crime was prevalent in some neighborhoods and where segregated poverty made a home in many others. I grew up in a single-parent household where canned chicken from the government food pantries steamed hot on our dinner plates. My brothers were not in gangs. In fact, they were beat up by black kids from other neighborhoods. This was the 60s and racial animosity still lingered, although in our household this was not the case and in fact, forbade.
So, given this backdrop of life experiences, I read the first student’s remarks and wondered why he doesn’t flip the mirror to see that the threats they faced were, in fact, themselves? I don’t think that gangs of white kids were entering their neighborhoods to wreak havoc on them: They had to protect themselves from self-generated threats from within their own community. Yes, I’ve seen it: students bullied into gangs, students being enticed with street cred from gangs, and more. Why did the kids turn to gangs for a sense of community? The real community isn’t doing any better than that? Why is the kid needing to support his low-income family? Where is the accountability from the mother and the father of these kids?
Yes, growing up in a poor, stark neighborhood can suck the life out of you. But, it doesn’t have to be that way. There is more talent, creativity, love, and humanity in poor neighborhoods than there is criminal negligence. I could continue writing with hopes that I might offer some prescription that cures all that ails too many neighborhoods. Rather, I want to pose a few questions about gang activity in urban areas.
I recall my city in the 70s. The main gang was the Mafia. And, the Mafia also controlled the drugs and prostitution in the poorer black neighborhoods. Then there was a shift. I’m not certain when it started, but I noticed in the 90s the crack cocaine drug trades, the increase in availability of guns in the city. Who was orchestrating that? Who is orchestrating the drug trade now? Which big dealers would be hurt the most by the legalization of drugs? I don’t have the answers to these questions. I pose them only to suggest that the ills the student described are brought on by complex structures not revealed under a blanket assessment of institutional, societal, or structural racism. Mr. Loury writes much more eloquently and studied about these issues than I can hope to. I write only from my gut feelings and a sincere wish that others don’t suffer defeat but in fact, “Rise above.”
You nailed it: It’s not systemic racism. It’s culture. And it’s only one minor low-income urban slice of (male) culture. Why do we focus so much on this slice versus the vast majority of black Americans who are doing fine and thriving? Is the culture informed by historical racism/capitalism? Sure. Does that relieve communities or individuals of free will and agency? No. Are black Americans the only ones who have these suffering slices? Absolutely not.
“Product of their environment” both inspires some real sympathy and even empathy in me (thinking of some of the anger and confusion I felt and the structure I lacked, growing up in a somewhat traumatic and unstable family environment with a very troubled father - and then without one at all - while I remain grateful for the sacrifices my mom and her parents made to keep me away from school districts and neighborhoods where I might have gotten into serious trouble). But it’s also way too fatalistic and passive an explanation or even excuse. I’ve spoken with a very eloquent and impressive young man next to his stoop - the only one among his group who’d engage with me, while his buddies eyed me warily if not with hostility. “Product of their environment” was also how he described the ease with which his peers had gotten in trouble. He’d gotten in some himself. There is a lot of dumb behavior we can and should forgive in young people. I know the last thing I wanted was for that young man to be marginalized long-term by any petty mistakes he’d made. But of course not every kid or even most kids end up being products of their environments in that negative sense. Yes, it’s a tougher road. The families and kids who avoid trouble have to try harder and overcome more and that’s still no guarantee they won’t be victimized themselves. And yet that simplistic construction: their environment made them do it erases really any distinction between the kids who stay in and study hard and those who not only participate in but initiate and lead and most benefit from the worst behavior (at least benefit short-term). That bad behavior can mean absolutely terrorizing their classmates, making learning next to impossible and school a place to fear. It can mean predatory behavior targeting the most vulnerable people in their own neighborhoods. Yes, we’re still talking about young people who are still developing (will anyone younger than twenty-five be absolved of responsibility for committing even serious and repeat violent crimes, as so-called prosecutors seem to be moving towards in some jurisdictions?) Ultimately, most kids stay out of major trouble, in spite of their circumstances or surroundings. It seems morally obtuse to just erase that reality and remove not only credit from the kids who do right, but a sense of agency and personal responsibility from all kids. Why? Because they are black? Or black and from low-income families in areas of higher crime and more limited opportunity? That’s not a context we can just wave away. But nor can we just wave away the rock bottom expectation that kids not brutalize their peers or their neighbors. That goes for anyone anywhere who is growing up in very tough circumstances. All these kids could benefit from stable families, structure, mentors, a sense that there is another way and sustained effort can and will be rewarded. When it comes to gang initiation rituals and demands for proof of fealty to the group, I sympathize. But if the price of feeling that illusory sense of family and belonging from a violent gang is to brutalize some random stranger, we cannot ask so little, even of teenagers, even in rough areas. We’re not really talking about shoplifting or even stealing a car with no one inside. More often, we seem to be talking about slashing some random defenseless subway passenger. Or sucker punching an old man or woman and continuing to beat them. You’ve gotta do that because you’re the product of your circumstances? No, I don’t buy that. Inculcating and expecting at least some sense of agency and personal responsibility is at the core of what so many struggling communities and their residents need more of - not less. Yes we also need to better prepare and support responsible family formation and provide more and better positive mentoring and credible paths out of what’s dysfunctional about a troubled environment. That’s not something that we can blame a fifteen year old for the lack of. But: “We think you’re going to hurt people because of your skin color and environment - and we frankly don’t expect any more from you than that. And, we won’t make any meaningful distinction between a kid who maims his neighbors and a kid who busts his ass to get a degree and earn money by means other than gang criminality”? How does such a grossly patronizing imposition of low standards and no expectations help these kids? No one in or from the hood (or holler, for that matter) has ever earned some money to help their family by working a legit if unglamorous job? Even affluent parents with enough sense often make their kids work a crappy job to help them learn that you get to have and do more (including self-respect and self-reliance) by earning it. It’s the rare teenager anywhere who gets a fancy and highly-remunerative job at the outset. If we can’t expect that the average teenager in some neighborhoods won’t horribly, violently harm even more vulnerable people in their midst, what are we saying about those kids’ worth and potential? Aren’t we damning and consigning them to far worse than they and their neighbors deserve?
You make strong and valid points that seem rooted not simply from the news but from your own careful observations of the world around you. Even with small infractions, we must, as adults, assume a posture of intolerance and encourage accountability from our youth. Sure, we know that minor incidents can eventually be swept under a rug, but in order to help build the character of our youth, we have to address when they step over a line. I am not condoning punitive harshness, but accountability in whatever logical shape that would take as a consequence. Most teachers, as myself, see that the adrenaline (and other nervous system triggers) stoked by the fear of violence, obsession with violence, escaping violence and so on . . . derails a student's ability to focus on their classwork. When one is constantly looking over one's shoulder, how can that student feel focused and comfortable in their learning zone?
Yes, that’s a measured and compassionate approach. No one wants to ruin a kid’s life because he or she serially, aggressively disrupted class, even threatened teachers, or classmates. But John McWhorter has made a similar point: in wanting to avoid setting even the most serially, aggressively disruptive and even violent kids on a path to the criminal justice system (not least to avoid “inequities”), please spare a thought for the many kids who can’t even leave behind that terrible, persistent fight or flight response within their own school buildings. The kids who actually do get beaten up week after week. Is excessive tolerance for those threats, that violence, not harming larger numbers of boys and girls who are just as black and, to the extent they’re trying so hard to avoid trouble and achieve, even more deserving of a fair chance to succeed?
Absolutely, on point. Thank you for responding. It’s clear to me that so many of us, across political ideologies, genuinely care about the plight of our youth and ponder ways to mitigate the obstacles they confront daily in their lives. I can speak at length about my observations teaching in pubic school districts - but in short, as many agree, too many public schools are not nearly as innovative, agile, and responsive as we need be to counter the dysfunctional culture of violence that permeates communities. I hear the cheer for charter schools as a solution that promotes competition and change. (My only complaint against charter schools lies within the lower salaries paid to teachers and the fact that, at least here in NY, one cannot join the teachers retirement system. Here, I digress.) Yes! Each and everyone of those children you reference deserve a fair chance to succeed and shouldn’t have to pay the price for a failure to correct and address the violent behaviors of other students. The fights, some brutal, should not be tolerated in schools where every student is legally mandated to attend until the age of 16. Addressing violence doesn’t have to equate with the notion of a school to prison pipeline, inequity, or institutional racism.
Glenn Loury is not just an intellectual giant, but more importantly, he is a person who can actually listen to the view of lesser mortals, ponder on it, and then proceed to change his mind, all the while never losing his dignity or innate civility. There is almost no one of his caliber in America who can do that today. He possesses that very rare combination of intellect, humility, and honesty, that sets him miles above mere intellectuals.
"Despite his anger at the circumstance, Glenn accepts no responsibility to help answer such questions in strategically practical ways."
Why should he? Answering a question in a "strategically practical way" is not answering a question; it's lying. Or, if you prefer, spinning. The world has far too many people answering questions in strategically practical ways.
I don’t think Fergusons critique is actually a critique at all. Ferguson discusses cherry picking of facts, how Glenn doesn’t truly offer a counter-narrative and his “supposedly” difference in perspective from 2007 to 2022 - which is not a difference in kind but in type. Saying there are systemic issues affecting the black community is not stating that systemic racism is the boogeyman of all progress for black America.
When Glenn discusses issues he is speaking by way of comparison regarding how race is used ubiquitously as justification for some social ill. The bottom line narrative of Glenn’s podcast and writings have been to reiterate the points made by Sowell and others namely; 1) prerequisites are different than probabilities 2) dissolving the composition fallacy that characterization of one is not a characterization of all 3) victimization does not lead to growth 4) and finally CULTURE MATTERS!
How Ferguson chooses not to see that is quite astonishing.
If we had a free market in secondary education I am certain that vocational schools that included internships and apprenticeships in existing fields and whose graduates all got skilled jobs would become very popular. The stranglehold of the college graduates teacher unions would be broken if parents only had choices. How hard would that choice be? Let’s see, a vocational school that prepares my child for a successful and good paying career vs a high school that may or may not prepare them for a liberal arts college that will indoctrinate them in “woke” and won’t prepare them for anything other than grad school?
I don't expect Prof. Loury to be the change agent for the future, that is a job for everyone to muster.
Prof. Loury's being-ness in this forum strikes a deep note, like standing on a secure base. Whether it's generational understanding or midwestern roots in common, here is a perspective familiar from long ago and increasingly rare to find. TGS hits an internal home run regularly.
Of course I can find fault or see stuck patterns, we all have issues and I tend to over analyze, but having a window into a world that is deeply familiar provides relief and refuge. Thanks.
It’s important to disagree and criticize and be criticized, so solid points for that! But man: Some of the criticism was just absurd. Cherry-picking? So hold on: You’re saying that BLM and the woke antiracism crowd DON’T cherry-pick??? That’s precisely ALL they do. Cherry-pick, pull things out of context, use broad language like ‘structural racism,’ lie about and obfuscate data, etc. Go put the details into the Washington Post police database: You’ll see immediately that police brutality against black Americans in contemporary times is a myth. (In the past, very real.) We know this. Every honest person knows this. This is the fundamental problem with antiracism and Wokeism: They refuse to be questioned or criticized. As John McWhorter said in Woke Racism: We’re dealing with The New Religion. They’ve even got original sin. They lie and gaslight like the worst far-right republicans.
Michael Mohr
‘Sincere American Writing’
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/
Glenn, thank you for this forum and community.
Your posts and discussions are very stimulating. They really help to open my eyes about different viewpoints and perceptions. It helps to form and adjust my own worldview.
It's greatly appreciated!
https://youtu.be/YMPQdaq-qqk
a beautiful but sober encomium. I think Glenn certainly acknowledges many leftist arguments like 'structural' or 'systemic' impediments to progress, if not racism, but believes it's a matter of emphasis. That, the arguments for victimhood are so disproportionate and commonplace, there is almost nothing to add. And that too few are standing up for agency and responsibility or concepts often identified as 'right' or 'conservative' but must be contained within a formula for black equity and success. how could it possibly be otherwise when it's a part of the success story for every ethnic group? And so, when 95% of arguments are focused on victimhood, even if there is obvious truth in that, what else is he going to add to that argument? Of course, rhetorically, it's always a good idea to acknowledge the value of a sliver of opposing arguments and focus instead on emphasis. (Unless they contain 0% truth value). And by and large, I think that's principally what Glenn is trying to do.
Thank you Glenn, Ronald, and folks like Jordon.
What was that rule number again about taking responsibility?
Love you guys. Please keep on sharing...I'm such a spong for your thoughts.
In his book Woke Racism, John McWhorter advocated for an increased focus on vocational training for Black Americans. Charles Murray made the same argument in Real Education but for all Americans irrespective of race. By his estimation, only about 10-20 percent of students really benefit from a 4-year college degree, but I believe these days over 50% of high school cohorts end up attending a traditional 4-year undergraduate program.
In my opinion we're seduced by what I've referred to as the cult of prestige or what has also been described as Yale or jail. It's why we're so fixated on racial disparities at the 8 elite high schools in New York City, when as Glenn's recent guest Wai Wah Chin has pointed out only about 5% of the 100,000 or so high school students in recent cohorts end up attending one of those 8 schools.
We're also seduced by the tendency to conflate correlation with causation. Glenn made this point recently when his guest Ian Rowe argued that people who end up getting married have better life outcomes on average than those who don’t. Glenn's frequent guest Clifton Roscoe also emphasizes statistics showing that those who end up graduating from a 4-year college on average tend to be better off than those who don’t. I believe it’s very possible that there’s a self-selection effect at play and that individuals with certain positive attributes are more likely to end up getting married or attending college. I vaguely recall seeing some statistics showing that once you control for SAT scores much of the disparity in life outcomes between individuals who attend elite colleges versus those who attend lesser colleges goes away.
Contrary to many, I’ve actually been somewhat skeptical of elite immigration from South Asia and East Asia over the past 2-3 decades. America has a population of 330 million. Letting in self-selected people from China and India, with a combined population of almost 2800 million, has in my opinion produced significant distortions in our group comparisons and further fueled our obsession with prestige. I recall former NYC Educational Chancellor Richard Carranza proclaiming in response to over 70% of the incoming student body at Stuyvesant a few years back being Asian that admissions to elite high schools in NYC weren’t the province of any single ethnic group.
I’m sympathetic to arguments about how to reduce existing disparities but I worry that we’re focused on the wrong things. As a society we’re too fixated on whether or not there’s enough diversity in physics or among the student body at elite high schools and universities. We’re even too fixated on the notion that everyone needs to attend a 4-year college program. In my opinion we should shed our obsession with prestige and focus instead on effecting foundational changes that uplift much broader portions of society.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/employers-rethink-need-for-college-degrees-in-tight-labor-market-11669432133
The WSJ just ran an article on how employers are starting to rethink the need for college degrees in the current labor market. The article talked about how companies like Google, Delta Airlines and IBM have started to eliminate 4 year degrees as a requirement for certain jobs. It was heartening to read and gives me hope that we can move in a saner direction as a society.
It seems that in Europe people working with their hands are more appreciated.
Many European countries have an educational system that offers after primary school, vocational schools. These schools are more geared towards working with your hands (as well as your head). They allow children (and their parents) to opt for one of several levels and choose what is best suited for the student in question. High School is in that system only for students that go to college or university. The system is organized in such a way that is is possible to transfer to a higher level. Many successful people started in vocational school and later on went for more education, e.g. a degree based acquired at a University or based on courses at a the Open University.
To me the US High School system seems "one size fits all" - and that never works. Also, going metric would IMHO improve results considerably as the system is logic and beautiful.
Valid points 🙌
Thank you. We have a rhyme about politicians: "They drank a gin-fizz, took a piss, and left it all like it-is." (I am rather proud of this translation.)
Only re. the US healthcare system some improvements were made re. insurance. But when it comes to e.g. immigration nothing is done about the broken system, because apparently nothing can be done ? In the mean time the problem grows. But like the other big problems (education) immigration is studied, debated.
I came here 25 years ago, I really would have liked to see some real change (although too late for me). Women should not be forced to live in the Republic of Gilead. Children brought illegally can stay under DACA - but children brought legally are kicked out !
Maybe the US should break the monopolies that Dems and Reps have when it comes to voters. In my country we have 18 parties in parliament (Lower House). On local level more/other parties can be voted for. This means that parties always have to work together - vilifying one another to be elected serves no purpose.
Something else that continues to amaze me: the US abhors socialism etc. but your kids have to take an oath to the flag every morning.
Love Woke Racism 🔥🔥🔥
I second joe.nalven2's comment. I hope that the discussion with Prof. Ferguson continues. It's worth exploring the differences of opinion. Nice post.
I'm impressed that Prof. Ferguson is willing to assign Prof. Loury's work to his students. More typically, progressives rely on lying about easily verifiable facts, and silencing or demonizing anyone who questions their fairy-tale fantasy narratives.
Prof. Loury's work is so appealing because of its fundamental values of honor and honesty, as Prof. Ferguson pointed out. In contrast, the Kendi-ist narrative is fundamentally based on lies, and its proponents deserve nothing but contempt and ridicule.
By the way, regarding those awful policies to which Prof. Ferguson alludes -- they are largely explainable in terms the intense desire of the largely multiracial non-underclass to avoid becoming crime victims at the hands of the largely monoracial underclass.
* https://devinhelton.com/why-urban-decay
* http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/2017/07/segregation-our-most-cherished-myths.html
In passing, Ferguson writes, "They say Glenn cherry-picks his facts—which he does . . . " When I read about cherry-picked facts or what-abouts (and whataboutism), I wonder if these oddities are understood as simply a tit-for-tat, an argumentative tactic to score a point; or, in a very different sense when those oddities stand in a critical paradigmatic juncture and call for an assessment in a systematic analysis. In the latter sense, which is what I think Loury does more often than not, those cherry-picked facts are the stubborn and nettlesome places that require major intellectual surgery. I hope Ferguson and Loury pick up one of those cherry-picked facts and continue the journey.
I commend Loury for sharing this speech and opening up the dialogue with some of Ferguson’s critiques. Here, however, I want to remark on the following quoted comment from one of Ferguson’s students: “I later learned why he [the student’s friend] and so many others joined a gang—to feel a sense of community, make income to support his low-income family, and to feel protected from the threats we faced in our community.”
I’ve taught in urban public schools for over 15 years. I grew up in the city where crime was prevalent in some neighborhoods and where segregated poverty made a home in many others. I grew up in a single-parent household where canned chicken from the government food pantries steamed hot on our dinner plates. My brothers were not in gangs. In fact, they were beat up by black kids from other neighborhoods. This was the 60s and racial animosity still lingered, although in our household this was not the case and in fact, forbade.
So, given this backdrop of life experiences, I read the first student’s remarks and wondered why he doesn’t flip the mirror to see that the threats they faced were, in fact, themselves? I don’t think that gangs of white kids were entering their neighborhoods to wreak havoc on them: They had to protect themselves from self-generated threats from within their own community. Yes, I’ve seen it: students bullied into gangs, students being enticed with street cred from gangs, and more. Why did the kids turn to gangs for a sense of community? The real community isn’t doing any better than that? Why is the kid needing to support his low-income family? Where is the accountability from the mother and the father of these kids?
Yes, growing up in a poor, stark neighborhood can suck the life out of you. But, it doesn’t have to be that way. There is more talent, creativity, love, and humanity in poor neighborhoods than there is criminal negligence. I could continue writing with hopes that I might offer some prescription that cures all that ails too many neighborhoods. Rather, I want to pose a few questions about gang activity in urban areas.
I recall my city in the 70s. The main gang was the Mafia. And, the Mafia also controlled the drugs and prostitution in the poorer black neighborhoods. Then there was a shift. I’m not certain when it started, but I noticed in the 90s the crack cocaine drug trades, the increase in availability of guns in the city. Who was orchestrating that? Who is orchestrating the drug trade now? Which big dealers would be hurt the most by the legalization of drugs? I don’t have the answers to these questions. I pose them only to suggest that the ills the student described are brought on by complex structures not revealed under a blanket assessment of institutional, societal, or structural racism. Mr. Loury writes much more eloquently and studied about these issues than I can hope to. I write only from my gut feelings and a sincere wish that others don’t suffer defeat but in fact, “Rise above.”
You nailed it: It’s not systemic racism. It’s culture. And it’s only one minor low-income urban slice of (male) culture. Why do we focus so much on this slice versus the vast majority of black Americans who are doing fine and thriving? Is the culture informed by historical racism/capitalism? Sure. Does that relieve communities or individuals of free will and agency? No. Are black Americans the only ones who have these suffering slices? Absolutely not.
“Product of their environment” both inspires some real sympathy and even empathy in me (thinking of some of the anger and confusion I felt and the structure I lacked, growing up in a somewhat traumatic and unstable family environment with a very troubled father - and then without one at all - while I remain grateful for the sacrifices my mom and her parents made to keep me away from school districts and neighborhoods where I might have gotten into serious trouble). But it’s also way too fatalistic and passive an explanation or even excuse. I’ve spoken with a very eloquent and impressive young man next to his stoop - the only one among his group who’d engage with me, while his buddies eyed me warily if not with hostility. “Product of their environment” was also how he described the ease with which his peers had gotten in trouble. He’d gotten in some himself. There is a lot of dumb behavior we can and should forgive in young people. I know the last thing I wanted was for that young man to be marginalized long-term by any petty mistakes he’d made. But of course not every kid or even most kids end up being products of their environments in that negative sense. Yes, it’s a tougher road. The families and kids who avoid trouble have to try harder and overcome more and that’s still no guarantee they won’t be victimized themselves. And yet that simplistic construction: their environment made them do it erases really any distinction between the kids who stay in and study hard and those who not only participate in but initiate and lead and most benefit from the worst behavior (at least benefit short-term). That bad behavior can mean absolutely terrorizing their classmates, making learning next to impossible and school a place to fear. It can mean predatory behavior targeting the most vulnerable people in their own neighborhoods. Yes, we’re still talking about young people who are still developing (will anyone younger than twenty-five be absolved of responsibility for committing even serious and repeat violent crimes, as so-called prosecutors seem to be moving towards in some jurisdictions?) Ultimately, most kids stay out of major trouble, in spite of their circumstances or surroundings. It seems morally obtuse to just erase that reality and remove not only credit from the kids who do right, but a sense of agency and personal responsibility from all kids. Why? Because they are black? Or black and from low-income families in areas of higher crime and more limited opportunity? That’s not a context we can just wave away. But nor can we just wave away the rock bottom expectation that kids not brutalize their peers or their neighbors. That goes for anyone anywhere who is growing up in very tough circumstances. All these kids could benefit from stable families, structure, mentors, a sense that there is another way and sustained effort can and will be rewarded. When it comes to gang initiation rituals and demands for proof of fealty to the group, I sympathize. But if the price of feeling that illusory sense of family and belonging from a violent gang is to brutalize some random stranger, we cannot ask so little, even of teenagers, even in rough areas. We’re not really talking about shoplifting or even stealing a car with no one inside. More often, we seem to be talking about slashing some random defenseless subway passenger. Or sucker punching an old man or woman and continuing to beat them. You’ve gotta do that because you’re the product of your circumstances? No, I don’t buy that. Inculcating and expecting at least some sense of agency and personal responsibility is at the core of what so many struggling communities and their residents need more of - not less. Yes we also need to better prepare and support responsible family formation and provide more and better positive mentoring and credible paths out of what’s dysfunctional about a troubled environment. That’s not something that we can blame a fifteen year old for the lack of. But: “We think you’re going to hurt people because of your skin color and environment - and we frankly don’t expect any more from you than that. And, we won’t make any meaningful distinction between a kid who maims his neighbors and a kid who busts his ass to get a degree and earn money by means other than gang criminality”? How does such a grossly patronizing imposition of low standards and no expectations help these kids? No one in or from the hood (or holler, for that matter) has ever earned some money to help their family by working a legit if unglamorous job? Even affluent parents with enough sense often make their kids work a crappy job to help them learn that you get to have and do more (including self-respect and self-reliance) by earning it. It’s the rare teenager anywhere who gets a fancy and highly-remunerative job at the outset. If we can’t expect that the average teenager in some neighborhoods won’t horribly, violently harm even more vulnerable people in their midst, what are we saying about those kids’ worth and potential? Aren’t we damning and consigning them to far worse than they and their neighbors deserve?
You make strong and valid points that seem rooted not simply from the news but from your own careful observations of the world around you. Even with small infractions, we must, as adults, assume a posture of intolerance and encourage accountability from our youth. Sure, we know that minor incidents can eventually be swept under a rug, but in order to help build the character of our youth, we have to address when they step over a line. I am not condoning punitive harshness, but accountability in whatever logical shape that would take as a consequence. Most teachers, as myself, see that the adrenaline (and other nervous system triggers) stoked by the fear of violence, obsession with violence, escaping violence and so on . . . derails a student's ability to focus on their classwork. When one is constantly looking over one's shoulder, how can that student feel focused and comfortable in their learning zone?
Yes, that’s a measured and compassionate approach. No one wants to ruin a kid’s life because he or she serially, aggressively disrupted class, even threatened teachers, or classmates. But John McWhorter has made a similar point: in wanting to avoid setting even the most serially, aggressively disruptive and even violent kids on a path to the criminal justice system (not least to avoid “inequities”), please spare a thought for the many kids who can’t even leave behind that terrible, persistent fight or flight response within their own school buildings. The kids who actually do get beaten up week after week. Is excessive tolerance for those threats, that violence, not harming larger numbers of boys and girls who are just as black and, to the extent they’re trying so hard to avoid trouble and achieve, even more deserving of a fair chance to succeed?
Absolutely, on point. Thank you for responding. It’s clear to me that so many of us, across political ideologies, genuinely care about the plight of our youth and ponder ways to mitigate the obstacles they confront daily in their lives. I can speak at length about my observations teaching in pubic school districts - but in short, as many agree, too many public schools are not nearly as innovative, agile, and responsive as we need be to counter the dysfunctional culture of violence that permeates communities. I hear the cheer for charter schools as a solution that promotes competition and change. (My only complaint against charter schools lies within the lower salaries paid to teachers and the fact that, at least here in NY, one cannot join the teachers retirement system. Here, I digress.) Yes! Each and everyone of those children you reference deserve a fair chance to succeed and shouldn’t have to pay the price for a failure to correct and address the violent behaviors of other students. The fights, some brutal, should not be tolerated in schools where every student is legally mandated to attend until the age of 16. Addressing violence doesn’t have to equate with the notion of a school to prison pipeline, inequity, or institutional racism.
Glenn Loury is not just an intellectual giant, but more importantly, he is a person who can actually listen to the view of lesser mortals, ponder on it, and then proceed to change his mind, all the while never losing his dignity or innate civility. There is almost no one of his caliber in America who can do that today. He possesses that very rare combination of intellect, humility, and honesty, that sets him miles above mere intellectuals.
"Despite his anger at the circumstance, Glenn accepts no responsibility to help answer such questions in strategically practical ways."
Why should he? Answering a question in a "strategically practical way" is not answering a question; it's lying. Or, if you prefer, spinning. The world has far too many people answering questions in strategically practical ways.
Glenn Loury definitely has impact on MY life.
Keeps me, or rather helps ME to hold myself accountable.
His bare presence in this world makes ME ashamed of making an excuse.
Makes ME see when I'm about to make an excuse.
I guess that's a "thank you"