Questioning kids on racial correlates
Topics: AA
05 Jun 2010
From: Ervan Darnell
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060309010507030906080102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
[written in another forum originally] Here is Leonard Pitts agonizing
over racism still:
"In the tests administered by the Clarks and Davis, black children were
presented two dolls, identical in appearance except that one was dark
and the other light. Asked which doll was bad, stupid or ugly, most of
the black kids picked the black doll. Asked which was good, smart or
pretty, they chose the white one. .....
FORTY YEARS. And still...
And STILL.
Leonard Pitts
"
Seems to me there are (at least) two distinct phenomena grouped under
"racism". The first is the virulent, irrational sort, e.g. epithets. The
second is taking a valid observation but over extrapolating and not
giving a particular individual a chance to prove themselves. For
instance, affirmative action in hiring is rationalized on the basis that
even though blacks won't be as qualified *on average* for a given
position, you (the employer) must make an extra effort to judge the
individual.
This study splits that gap. Instead of asking "bad" or "dumb" (as the
survey did), let's ask a more academic question: Which child has the
higher probability of committing a crime? Which child has a lower
expected SAT score? Tragically, the answer to both questions is the
black child. That's not to excuse any of the historical problems or
perverse feedback loops that create that situation. But, neither should
acknowledging those facts be inherently racist. "bad" and "dumb" are
simple proxy words that kids understand, and thus their answers reflect
reality. Would we be happier if they were paying so little attention as
to not know those things? The attractiveness one is tougher, but even
there attractiveness can be a sublimated proxy for success, in part. It
can also reflect simple things like more money for clothing and grooming
(I don't know if that would impact kids' impressions, but it's a
testable theory that SES normalizes, instead of confounding race and
income).
My problem with the survey is that grouping by race, and only race,
fails to distinguish which factor is really the causal one, or even the
highest correlate. What if they had divided students by some personality
factor (e.g. along a sociopath versus cooperative spectrum), or simply
normalizing for income? I don't want to reify by race, but if the survey
forces only that one dimension, then you are stuck there. If you only
look for race, race is all you will find.
-------------
[1]
http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/05/24/2213376/a-childs-view-of-black-and-white.html#article_comments#ixzz0pzmnpRJ3
--
Unsubscribe: kelvinistragnar+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/kelvinistragnar?hl=en
--------------060309010507030906080102
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
[written in another forum originally] Here is Leonard Pitts agonizing
over racism still:
"In the tests administered by the Clarks and Davis, black children were
presented two dolls, identical in appearance except that one was dark
and the other light. Asked which doll was bad, stupid or ugly, most of
the black kids picked the black doll. Asked which was good, smart or
pretty, they chose the white one. .....
FORTY YEARS. And still...
And STILL.
Leonard Pitts
"
Seems to me there are (at least) two distinct phenomena grouped under
"racism". The first is the virulent, irrational sort, e.g. epithets.
The second is taking a valid observation but over extrapolating and not
giving a particular individual a chance to prove themselves. For
instance, affirmative action in hiring is rationalized on the
class="text_exposed_hide">
class="text_exposed_show">basis that even though blacks won't be as
qualified *on average* for a given position, you (the employer) must
make an extra effort to judge the individual.
This study splits that gap. Instead of asking "bad" or "dumb" (as the
survey did), let's ask a more academic question: Which child has the
higher probability of committing a crime? Which child has a lower
expected SAT score? Tragically, the answer to both questions is the
black child. That's not to excuse any of the historical problems or
perverse feedback loops that create that situation. But, neither should
acknowledging those facts be inherently racist. "bad" and "dumb" are
simple proxy words that kids understand, and thus their answers reflect
reality. Would we be happier if they were paying so little attention as
to not know those things? The attractiveness one is tougher, but even
there attractiveness can be a sublimated proxy for success, in part. It
can also reflect simple things like more money for clothing and
grooming (I don't know if that would impact kids' impressions, but it's
a testable theory that SES normalizes, instead of confounding race and
income).
My problem with the survey is that grouping by race, and only race,
fails to distinguish which factor is really the causal one, or even the
highest correlate. What if they had divided students by some
personality factor (e.g. along a sociopath versus cooperative
spectrum), or simply normalizing for income? I don't want to reify by
race, but if the survey forces only that one dimension, then you are
stuck there. If you only look for race, race is all you will find.
style="border: medium none ; overflow: hidden; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">-------------
[1]
href="http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/05/24/2213376/a-childs-view-of-black-and-white.html#article_comments#ixzz0pzmnpRJ3">http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/05/24/2213376/a-childs-view-of-black-and-white.html#article_comments#ixzz0pzmnpRJ3
--
Unsubscribe: kelvinistragnar+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/kelvinistragnar?hl=en
--------------060309010507030906080102--
Home