Time to unmask?

[RustedFox]

Playing basketball is an objective measure of your ability to play basketball. The MCAT, GPA’s, letters of recommendation, academic awards, and extracurriculars are not objective measures of someone’s ability to be a physician and are heavily correlated with race, gender, and income.

Even ignoring that, are you arguing that underpresented groups in medicine are underrepresented because they systematically lack merit? That’s your argument? That you’re not a basketball player because your race is inherently bad at basketball and minority groups are underrepresented in medicine because they are I herrently bad at medicine and screened out by the totally fair and objective selection process that is magically isolated from centuries of blatantly racist policy?

I love the bolded. Having good academic scores doesn't make you good at an academically intense career? Okay...

That's like, super ostriched.

There you go again... making it all about race.
I'm saying this again. If you want what you want, git gud at it. It won't come easy.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DeadCactus]

So underrepresented minorities are just as a group systematically not qualified to be physicians? That’s your take?

 

[RustedFox]

So underrepresented minorities are just as a group systematically not qualified to be physicians? That’s your take?

Again. The one drawing "black" and "white" conclusions... is you.

The one pointing to individual achievement regardless of mentioning background... is me.

Enjoy your victim complex.

 

[DeadCactus]

It’s a straight forward question: why are certain groups underrepresented in medicine if the process is objective and fair? Why do you keep dancing around it? I keep mentioning race because I think there are systematic biases against those groups are the explanation. You don’t, so what’s the answer then?

 

[RustedFox]

It’s a straight forward question: why are certain groups underrepresented in medicine if the process is objective and fair? Why do you keep dancing around it? I keep mentioning race because I think there are systematic biases against those groups are the explanation. You don’t, so what’s the answer then?

Maybe read my post about merit and skill again. Got the skills? Okay. Don't got the skills? Git Gud.

Anyone else remember the story about the guy who struck out with med school admissions, then faked his race to be underrepresented and got an avalanche of acceptances?

Mindy Kaling's brother: I faked being black to get into medical school | CNN

Actress Mindy Kaling's brother, Vijay Chokal-Ingam, says he posed as black to get into medical school. He's trying to pitch a book deal on the experience.

www.cnn.com

Systemic bias. Ohhkayyy.

 

[DeadCactus]

Maybe read my post about merit and skill again. Got the skills? Okay. Don't got the skills? Git Gud.

Anyone else remember the story about the guy who struck out with med school admissions, then faked his race to be underrepresented and got an avalanche of acceptances?

Mindy Kaling's brother: I faked being black to get into medical school | CNN

Actress Mindy Kaling's brother, Vijay Chokal-Ingam, says he posed as black to get into medical school. He's trying to pitch a book deal on the experience.

www.cnn.com

Systemic bias. Ohhkayyy.

Let’s just be clear. You believe underrepresented groups are underrepresented because members of that group disproportionality lack merit and skill? Because that’s the only way your argument would answer the question.

 

[RustedFox]

Let’s just be clear. You believe underrepresented groups are underrepresented because members of that group disproportionality lack merit and skill? Because that’s the only way your argument would answer the question.

Maybe people are different and we should measure them individually.

Again. It's you that demands to classify people by their race

 

[DeadCactus]

Maybe people are different and we should measure them individually.

Again. It's you that demands to classify people by their race

I don’t know why you think pointing out me bringing up race is some gotchya. If race didn’t affect things, then why are certain races not proportionally represented in medicine? I think it’s because of systemic biases against those races. You seem to think it’s because of a lack of merit and skill among members of those races.

 

[RustedFox]

I don’t know why you think pointing out me bringing up race is some gotchya. If race didn’t affect things, then why are certain races not proportionally represented in medicine? I think it’s because of systemic biases against those races. You seem to think it’s because of a lack of merit and skill among members of those races.

Le sigh.

 

[thegenius]

Playing basketball is an objective measure of your ability to play basketball. The MCAT, GPA’s, letters of recommendation, academic awards, and extracurriculars are not objective measures of someone’s ability to be a physician and are heavily correlated with race, gender, and income.

What are objective measures of someone's ability to be a (good) physician??

If you were the Dean of Admissions and you have 150 spots to fill, what would be your high-level criteria?

 

[dantt]

Credibility of physicians among which group(s)? It feels like the groups that share the beliefs you've mentioned haven't exactly been onboard with our (doctors') recommendations for a couple of years now.

Not worth debating you in an online forum. I've leave with one thing. Ever heard of the silent majority? I think there will be a lot less sympathy the next time "the other party" conducts their purge of the public institutions.

 

[DeadCactus]

Le sigh.

Why are you so averse to answering a simple question? I'll number it out for you.

1) IF there is no reason to think race would affect someone's ability to be a physician AND
2) IF the selection and recruitment of physicians is objective and not biased by race
3) THEN the racial distribution of physicians should closely match the general population
4) BUT the racial distribution of physicians DOES NOT match the racial distribution of the general population.

These can't all be true, so tell me which one you disagree with because I think point 2 is false.

What are objective measures of someone's ability to be a (good) physician??

If you were the Dean of Admissions and you have 150 spots to fill, what would be your high-level criteria?

I don't know that there are perfect criteria but that doesn't mean we can't identify specific problems and work to address them.

 

[thegenius]

I don't know that there are perfect criteria but that doesn't mean we can't identify specific problems and work to address them.

There is some serious poo flinging here and I'm staying very far away. I'm not even venturing through the zoo entrance gates on this topic.

I'm just curious what you think would be a more meritorious way to select people for medical school. Medical school topics are not particularly difficult to understand in the grand scheme of things. I think astrophysics and chemistry, and stuff like that are conceptually more difficult. But the volume of material that has to be learned in medical school is vast. If candidates are getting B's and C's in high school and college, what would make you think they can get A's and B's in medical school?

I actually think these days medical schools would love to have their classes represent the general population percentages for race and ethnicity.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

There is some serious poo flinging here and I'm staying very far away. I'm not even venturing through the zoo entrance gates on this topic.

I'm just curious what you think would be a more meritorious way to select people for medical school. Medical school topics are not particularly difficult to understand in the grand scheme of things. I think astrophysics and chemistry, and stuff like that are conceptually more difficult. But the volume of material that has to be learned in medical school is vast. If candidates are getting B's and C's in high school and college, what would make you think they can get A's and B's in medical school?

I actually think these days medical schools would love to have their classes represent the general population percentages for race and ethnicity.

I believe the thinking is that because of decades of things like segregation, red lining, and so on that black people are at a disadvantage from the start. If you are born into poverty (which is a huge multifactorial issue to begin with) you are likely starting kindergarten behind the children of people like most of us here.

 

[WilcoWorld]

Were you guys sucking the phlegm out of patients noses through a straw or something? I just don't believe this argument has any bearing. I've had zero difference in amount of "colds" pre and post mask. They just don't work like that.

All I can say is that you're anecdotal experience is quite different from mine.

 

[WilcoWorld]

I am all for merit-based evaluation. I think the problem is that our means of evaluation may not be nearly as meritocratic as we think we are.

A striking example is this study:

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?​

 

[Arcan57]

Not worth debating you in an online forum. I've leave with one thing. Ever heard of the silent majority? I think there will be a lot less sympathy the next time "the other party" conducts their purge of the public institutions.

You don't have an effective counter-argument, so you peace out. Cool. Bonus points for the appeal to an amorphous group with unverifiable characteristics. If there's a purge of public institutions it's because we've fallen into fascism which seems a weird thing for which to hope. But you do you.

 

[RustedFox]

Why are you so averse to answering a simple question? I'll number it out for you.

1) IF there is no reason to think race would affect someone's ability to be a physician AND
2) IF the selection and recruitment of physicians is objective and not biased by race
3) THEN the racial distribution of physicians should closely match the general population
4) BUT the racial distribution of physicians DOES NOT match the racial distribution of the general population.

These can't all be true, so tell me which one you disagree with because I think point 2 is false.



I don't know that there are perfect criteria but that doesn't mean we can't identify specific problems and work to address them.

Ohhh! Oh, oh oh!
I get it now: you want me to say: "ItS BeCaUsE MiNoRiTiEs ArEnT As SmArT", and then you can say: "See? See! You're a racist!!"

I love your false premise.

In a uniform population, with a uniform distribution of people, with uniform strengths, weaknesses, and traits... sure.
But that's now how the real world works. The distribution is not uniform. There's poor performance, there's self-selection, there's attrition, there's familial expectations, there are ostriches, there are multiple factors.
But the only item that you want to hear is: "Because it's racist", so you can maintain your victimhood complex.

I didn't reply for a bit because I was out hitting golf balls.
That's a "white" thing, right?
I didn't hit them very well.
Maybe, it's because I'm not good at swinging a golf club.
Nah. Must be because the golf balls are white, and therefore are racist.
But what if I practiced.... ?
Maybe I could.... get good?

But no. Everything is racist!

 

[Ubba]

well, we've reached the "fascism" stage. Just a couple more steps until we reach the crowning achievement of the forum format, the inevitable comparison with a certain 20th-century political party

 

[Ubba]

Ohhh! Oh, oh oh!
I get it now: you want me to say: "ItS BeCaUsE MiNoRiTiEs ArEnT As SmArT", and then you can say: "See? See! You're a racist!!"

I love your false premise.

In a uniform population, with a uniform distribution of people, with uniform strengths, weaknesses, and traits... sure.
But that's now how the real world works. The distribution is not uniform. There's poor performance, there's self-selection, there's attrition, there's familial expectations, there are ostriches, there are multiple factors.
But the only item that you want to hear is: "Because it's racist", so you can maintain your victimhood complex.

I didn't reply for a bit because I was out hitting golf balls.
That's a "white" thing, right?
I didn't hit them very well.
Maybe, it's because I'm not good at swinging a golf club.
Nah. Must be because the golf balls are white, and therefore are racist.
But what if I practiced.... ?
Maybe I could.... get good?

But no. Everything is racist!

Ignore the trolls. They're just trying to bait you into saying something bannable so they can strengthen their hegemony.

 

[RustedFox]

well, we've reached the "fascism" stage. Just a couple more steps until we reach the crowning achievement of the forum format, the inevitable comparison with a certain 20th-century political party

How he thinks it is:

How it is:

EDIT: Buggered if I know why the image is listed in duplicate; I didn't create it.

 

[Arcan57]

well, we've reached the "fascism" stage. Just a couple more steps until we reach the crowning achievement of the forum format, the inevitable comparison with a certain 20th-century political party

When you're talking about purging public institutions, there's sorta 2 political movements of the 20th century that spring to mind. Despite all the dystopian YA novels I read in the 80s, I kinda doubt America is going to be taken over by Communists.

 

[DeadCactus]

There is some serious poo flinging here and I'm staying very far away. I'm not even venturing through the zoo entrance gates on this topic.

I'm just curious what you think would be a more meritorious way to select people for medical school. Medical school topics are not particularly difficult to understand in the grand scheme of things. I think astrophysics and chemistry, and stuff like that are conceptually more difficult. But the volume of material that has to be learned in medical school is vast. If candidates are getting B's and C's in high school and college, what would make you think they can get A's and B's in medical school?

I actually think these days medical schools would love to have their classes represent the general population percentages for race and ethnicity.

I think it's a complicated problem and would defer to people who spend their careers focused on this. I would argue there is a large gray area where metrics suggest a candidate is capable of succeeding in medical school but would typically be neglected in the admission process. I also think it's hard to offer a meaningful, specific answer because it's unfair to dump the full responsibility for solving the problem on admission committees.

As a broad answer to avoid completely side-stepping the question:
I think the typical metrics should be considered within the context they were earned.
I think there need to be more faculty and leadership in from underrepresented groups to help mitigate the biases in subjective portions of the application.
I think diversity needs to be valued as something of inherent value.

In a uniform population, with a uniform distribution of people, with uniform strengths, weaknesses, and traits... sure.
But that's now how the real world works. The distribution is not uniform. There's poor performance, there's self-selection, there's attrition, there's familial expectations, there are ostriches, there are multiple factors.

I'm asking you basic questions about your beliefs and the logic that got you there. If that induces some panic about a racism gotchya, that's on you. So you think poor performance, self-selection, attrition, familial expectations, ostriches, and multiple other factors are inherent parts of the races that are underrepresented in medicine?

 

[RustedFox]

I think it's a complicated problem and would defer to people who spend their careers focused on this. I would argue there is a large gray area where metrics suggest a candidate is capable of succeeding in medical school but would typically be neglected in the admission process. I also think it's hard to offer a meaningful, specific answer because it's unfair to dump the full responsibility for solving the problem on admission committees.

As a broad answer to avoid completely side-stepping the question:
I think the typical metrics should be considered within the context they were earned.
I think there need to be more faculty and leadership in from underrepresented groups to help mitigate the biases in subjective portions of the application.
I think diversity needs to be valued as something of inherent value.

I'm asking you basic questions about your beliefs and the logic that got you there. If that induces some panic about a racism gotchya, that's on you. So you think poor performance, self-selection, attrition, familial expectations, ostriches, and multiple other factors are inherent parts of the races that are underrepresented in medicine?

No matter how had you try, you can't make everyone alike. And that's okay.

 

[Ubba]

No matter how had you try, you can't make everyone alike. And that's okay.

Wrong. We just need to hire a committee to figure out how to make that happen.

If that doesn't work, we'll hire a sub-committee.

If that doesn't work, we'll hire- wait, how on earth have college and grad school tuitions gotten so high?!!

 

[DeadCactus]

Wrong. We just need to hire a committee to figure out how to make that happen.

If that doesn't work, we'll hire a sub-committee.

If that doesn't work, we'll hire- wait, how on earth have college and grad school tuitions gotten so high?!!

The majority of this work is done as unfunded labor dumped on the underrepresented groups in question.

 

[doctalaughs]

I think it's a complicated problem and would defer to people who spend their careers focused on this. I would argue there is a large gray area where metrics suggest a candidate is capable of succeeding in medical school but would typically be neglected in the admission process. I also think it's hard to offer a meaningful, specific answer because it's unfair to dump the full responsibility for solving the problem on admission committees.

As a broad answer to avoid completely side-stepping the question:
I think the typical metrics should be considered within the context they were earned.
I think there need to be more faculty and leadership in from underrepresented groups to help mitigate the biases in subjective portions of the application.
I think diversity needs to be valued as something of inherent value.




I'm asking you basic questions about your beliefs and the logic that got you there. If that induces some panic about a racism gotchya, that's on you. So you think poor performance, self-selection, attrition, familial expectations, ostriches, and multiple other factors are inherent parts of the races that are underrepresented in medicine?

The bottom line is that certain minorities ARE less qualified (objectively, statistically, as a group not individually) for certain jobs requiring academic skills (ie physicians).

This doesn’t mean they are less innately intelligent. It probably all is because of poverty, bad schools, single-parent households and certain social norms within those groups.

However, the answer is NOT to just lower the bar for those groups to get better representation in certain professions. That breeds more (likely justified) doubt of merit, possibly unqualified people doing the jobs and individualized racism the other direction (ie, why Harvard is likey going to lose their legal battle, which is great).

Instead try to figure out how to change the schools, the culture, the landscape of single-family houses, the early education gap etc.

I would think that’s obvious but people rather call that viewpoint as racist or unenlightened…. All the while saying it’s just fine to discriminate against other colors that don’t fit a specific narrative.

 

[WilcoWorld]

Instead try to figure out how to change the schools, the culture, the landscape of single-family houses, the early education gap etc.

I think you've come close to paraphrasing the idea of Antiracism here 👆

 

[doctalaughs]

I think you've come close to paraphrasing the idea of Antiracism here 👆

Nah- that isn’t how anti racism is being pushed across this country, which is why many people reject it.

If it was about the above - instead of literally changing hiring/admissions standards based on skin color, cancel culture, hunting down “institutional racism”, trainings to shame/ pin bias on certain groups etc - it would be way less controversial.

 

[Mr. Vandemar]

SDN turns into Truth Social, yet again.

 

[doctalaughs]

SDN turns into Truth Social, yet again.

Never have looked at Truth Social - but since I detest Trump I doubt I will anytime soon.

I do think while Trump has a small core of crazy supporters- he largely gained power because of the ridiculous stuff the left did against all common sense that pushed some moderates over to vote republican.

 

[Siggy]

Nah- that isn’t how anti racism is being pushed across this country, which is why many people reject it.

If it was about the above - instead of literally changing hiring/admissions standards based on skin color, cancel culture, hunting down “institutional racism”, trainings to shame/ pin bias on certain groups etc - it would be way less controversial.

Ah, cancel culture... anyone remember when the Republicans cancelled french toast and french fries?

The same group is now all, "Ermahgerd, witch hunt" after spending years chanting "lock her up."

 

[emergentmd]

Every group be it straight, gay, white, black, asian, woman, man get discriminated in one way or another in this world.

Bottom line is life is not fair. It typically does not get any more fair the more you try to make it fair. Everyone is born with a leg up in one manner and a leg behind in another.

Yeah, I said it. LIFE is NOT Fair. How hard is it to understand this. Accept that life is not fair and do not use it as an excuse is the only way to bring yourself up. I out compete others and do not wallow in what some may consider unfair.

I would say my environment/economic status was worse than 95% of the under represented and I choose to outwork others to get where I am today. I could have used the same excuse as people I grew up with who are still living poor/uneducated. Until the under represented figures this out, and STOP expecting the government to make it "fair", they will never improve their Lot in life. The Poor me attitude never makes your life better.

 

[miacomet]

When will we be able to work without masks again in the ER?

According to the CDC, today.

 

[Angry Birds]

The bottom line is that certain minorities ARE less qualified (objectively, statistically, as a group not individually) for certain jobs requiring academic skills (ie physicians).

This doesn’t mean they are less innately intelligent. It probably all is because of poverty, bad schools, single-parent households and certain social norms within those groups.

However, the answer is NOT to just lower the bar for those groups to get better representation in certain professions. That breeds more (likely justified) doubt of merit, possibly unqualified people doing the jobs and individualized racism the other direction (ie, why Harvard is likey going to lose their legal battle, which is great).

Instead try to figure out how to change the schools, the culture, the landscape of single-family houses, the early education gap etc.

I would think that’s obvious but people rather call that viewpoint as racist or unenlightened…. All the while saying it’s just fine to discriminate against other colors that don’t fit a specific narrative.

The above narrative is missing the most obvious and significant factor, which I will come to in a second.

I am agreeing with neither side here, at least not one hundred percent. One side is saying that the tests are all racist and that the only factor is bias. This is not convincing.

The other side is skirting around the implication and the above quote even mentions “certain social norms within those groups.” This places the onus— and more importantly, the blame — on the disadvantaged groups themselves.

The missing factor is, of course, related to the long lens of history. The side that talks about single family homes and certain social norms is the same side that doesn’t want to take into consideration the very reasons for all this. To think that societies can recover within a blink of an eye (from the timescale of civilizations) from social, cultural, and religious destruction at the hands of forced migration and chattel slavery— compounded by generations of second class status and Jim Crow — is historically uninformed and indeed unenlightened.

It is the same side that stupidly wonders why it is that Native Americans or Aborigines would be devastated by alcoholism and other conditions, as if none of this is the inevitable and predictable downstream result of events.

I have not offered solutions here or taken a side as to what to do here. Obviously there is a tension between the demands of fair play or meritocracy based on the individual and equity concerns of communities and societies at large. This is not uncommon or somehow unexpected.

 

[johhnybgood]

The above narrative is missing the most obvious and significant factor, which I will come to in a second.

I am agreeing with neither side here, at least not one hundred percent. One side is saying that the tests are all racist and that the only factor is bias. This is not convincing.

The other side is skirting around the implication and the above quote even mentions “certain social norms within those groups.” This places the onus— and more importantly, the blame — on the disadvantaged groups themselves.

The missing factor is, of course, related to the long lens of history. The side that talks about single family homes and certain social norms is the same side that doesn’t want to take into consideration the very reasons for all this. To think that societies can recover within a blink of an eye (from the timescale of civilizations) from social, cultural, and religious destruction at the hands of forced migration and chattel slavery— compounded by generations of second class status and Jim Crow — is historically uninformed and indeed unenlightened.

It is the same side that stupidly wonders why it is that Native Americans or Aborigines would be devastated by alcoholism and other conditions, as if none of this is the inevitable and predictable downstream result of events.

I have not offered solutions here or taken a side as to what to do here. Obviously there is a tension between the demands of fair play or meritocracy based on the individual and equity concerns of communities and societies at large. This is not uncommon or somehow unexpected.

It would seem to me that the most sensible and easy thing to do and likely something that both sides could agree upon would be to

1. Invest heavily (billions) in education and social services in historically disadvantaged communities.
2. Invest in mental health resources (all communities). School counselors, social workers, psychiatry etc…
3. Less focus on blame and divisive rhetoric and more focus on sensible solutions (eg what do these communities need to level the playing field).

 

[Angry Birds]

It would seem to me that the most sensible and easy thing to do and likely something that both sides could agree upon would be to

1. Invest heavily (billions) in education and social services in historically disadvantaged communities.
2. Invest in mental health resources (all communities). School counselors, social workers, psychiatry etc…
3. Less focus on blame and divisive rhetoric and more focus on sensible solutions (eg what do these communities need to level the playing field).

Agree 100 percent

 

[Angry Birds]

And, for the record, I am opposed to wokism, “anti-racism,” and the usage of such divisive verbiage as “white fragility,” etc.

On the flip side, I find the anti-historicist views of some people to be indeed unenlightened and dangerously close to, or at least skirting with, racism… if but by implication.

 

[Mount Asclepius]

It would seem to me that the most sensible and easy thing to do and likely something that both sides could agree upon would be to

1. Invest heavily (billions) in education and social services in historically disadvantaged communities.
2. Invest in mental health resources (all communities). School counselors, social workers, psychiatry etc…
3. Less focus on blame and divisive rhetoric and more focus on sensible solutions (eg what do these communities need to level the playing field).

Disagree. Not personally, but you are naive to think that both sides are each going to agree with those points.

 

[Angry Birds]

Disagree. Not personally, but you are naive to think that both sides are each going to agree with those points.

I think you’re right about this but perhaps he/she meant something more realistic: I think you could gain broad support if you argued for policies in a strategic way. Reparations, for example, are a way to pit whites against blacks. On the other hand, class based approaches could gain wider support, even if these disproportionately benefitted certain groups over others.

 

[Siggy]

And, for the record, I am opposed to wokism, “anti-racism,” and the usage of such divisive verbiage as “white fragility,” etc.

On the flip side, I find the anti-historicist views of some people to be indeed unenlightened and dangerously close to, or at least skirting with, racism… if but by implication.

ROFL, yet there’s a term for the study that historical racism was a factor in how current society and government was formed and how it affects society today.

…and conservatives incoherently screeches about it and they want to be ostriches and snowflakes about it.


Also, define “wokism.”

 

[Angry Birds]

ROFL, yet there’s a term for the study that historical racism was a factor in how current society and government was formed and how it affects society today.

…and conservatives incoherently screeches about it and they want to be ostriches and snowflakes about it.


Also, define “wokism.”

I gotchya. As a non-specialist on matters of race, I leave open the possibility that I’m wrong on this. However, I incline to a class based approach as articulated, for example, by Vivek Chibber/Jacobin:



Open to criticism and feedback though.

 

[Angry Birds]

Deleted

 

[DOswag]

Reading Thomas Sowell he speaks to how the black community was actually improving in things such as certain economic categories (income, graduation, home ownership etc) in comparison to other races even during the Jim Crow eras and pre-civil rights eras. The time where this seemed to halt and reverse was around the time of Great Society under LBJ in the 60's. Prior to this single parent homes in the black community were lower than that of white people. Since then its taken a stark decline to the tune of now 70% of black families are one parent families with the vast majority being single mother/fatherless homes. There is clear evidence that the break down of family structure in this way is a major risk factor for poor outcomes in just about every economic category, MH issues, crime, substance use etc. There is a clear correlation at least of the decline in the black community since that time. Not saying that the 60's are completely to blame for where we are today because there was clear evidence of by and large racism having a significant impact on the black community and where they are able to start so to speak in life.

Also there was a study done by Roland Frye a black economist at Harvard which compared american black individuals/families living in communities to black individuals/families that migrated from the west indies living in these same communities subjected to the same "systemic racism" as american blacks. By the 2nd generation, the west indies black individuals/families were outperforming their american counterparts in every category that has already been mentioned. Why were they able to overcome the systemic racism and the other group not able to? Or is the systemic racism able to distinguish between black people who migrated here vs those who were born here? I have a hard time believing the second question to be true.

I think some in here need to put down the Ibram Kendi, Ta-nehisi Coates, Robin Deangelo, and pickup Thomas Sowell, John Mcwhorter, Glen Loury, Colemen Hughes. I admit I could probably do a better job of reading information from both sides of the aisle but I do try and there is some great information from Black economist and cultural authors on this subject that don't get the praise and fame of the likes of Kendi and Coates because they don't fit the woke narrative.

 

[Angry Birds]

Reading Thomas Sowell he speaks to how the black community was actually improving in things such as certain economic categories (income, graduation, home ownership etc) in comparison to other races even during the Jim Crow eras and pre-civil rights eras. The time where this seemed to halt and reverse was around the time of Great Society under LBJ in the 60's. Prior to this single parent homes in the black community were lower than that of white people. Since then its taken a stark decline to the tune of now 70% of black families are one parent families with the vast majority being single mother/fatherless homes. There is clear evidence that the break down of family structure in this way is a major risk factor for poor outcomes in just about every economic category, MH issues, crime, substance use etc. There is a clear correlation at least of the decline in the black community since that time. Not saying that the 60's are completely to blame for where we are today because there was clear evidence of by and large racism having a significant impact on the black community and where they are able to start so to speak in life.

Also there was a study done by Roland Frye a black economist at Harvard which compared american black individuals/families living in communities to black individuals/families that migrated from the west indies living in these same communities subjected to the same "systemic racism" as american blacks. By the 2nd generation, the west indies black individuals/families were outperforming their american counterparts in every category that has already been mentioned. Why were they able to overcome the systemic racism and the other group not able to? Or is the systemic racism able to distinguish between black people who migrated here vs those who were born here? I have a hard time believing the second question to be true.

I think some in here need to put down the Ibram Kendi, Ta-nehisi Coates, Robin Deangelo, and pickup Thomas Sowell, John Mcwhorter, Glen Loury, Colemen Hughes. I admit I could probably do a better job of reading information from both sides of the aisle but I do try and there is some great information from Black economist and cultural authors on this subject that don't get the praise and fame of the likes of Kendi and Coates because they don't fit the woke narrative.

Are you white?

I mean, I worry about your list of thinkers as actually conforming to another narrative.
Like I said before, it’s difficult not to appreciate the historical aspect: I.e. forced relocation of slavery and second class status through Jim Crow.

 

[DeadCactus]

It would seem to me that the most sensible and easy thing to do and likely something that both sides could agree upon would be to

1. Invest heavily (billions) in education and social services in historically disadvantaged communities.
2. Invest in mental health resources (all communities). School counselors, social workers, psychiatry etc…
3. Less focus on blame and divisive rhetoric and more focus on sensible solutions (eg what do these communities need to level the playing field).

I think this is feel-good empty nonsense. The first step to investing in these communities is admitting they are at a disproportionate disadvantage and need specific investment. This thread is a perfect example of how quickly people get triggered and defensive by that discussion. The reality that these disadvantaged communities exist because of racist policies and they continue to be disadvantaged because of racist policies is "divisive".

The data is clear that Black people and other minorities continue to be at a socioeconomic disadvantages today. What are the responses to that in this thread? Out right denial that issues continue to exist, arguments that there is something inherently wrong with Black communities, and arguments that we should implement social programs but in a way that completely ignores the fact that these disadvantages were established around race.

 

[Angry Birds]

I think this is feel-good empty nonsense. The first step to investing in these communities is admitting they are at a disproportionate disadvantage and need specific investment. This thread is a perfect example of how quickly people get triggered and defensive by that discussion. The reality that these disadvantaged communities exist because of racist policies and they continue to be disadvantaged because of racist policies is "divisive".

The data is clear that Black people and other minorities continue to be at a socioeconomic disadvantages today. What are the responses to that in this thread? Out right denial that issues continue to exist, arguments that there is something inherently wrong with Black communities, and arguments that we should implement social programs but in a way that completely ignores the fact that these disadvantages were established around race.

Just to be clear on my side, I don’t disapprove of policies intended to ameliorate racial disparities. (Heck, I support affirmative action.)

I am, however, critical of woke sloganeering and virtue signaling. More to the point, I think some of the rhetoric is designed to be jarring and divisive so that it appeals to well placed activists and academic elites but not designed to actually improve conditions on the ground or gain widespread support. In sum, I am saying that a certain level of tact and strategy is needed.

To clarify, words like “white fragility” and “white privilege” are divisive. Imagine the absurdity of black and brown elites educated at the top universities using such terminology which could apply to poor and rural whites. You’re not going to win many votes using such terminology.

 

[johhnybgood]

I think this is feel-good empty nonsense. The first step to investing in these communities is admitting they are at a disproportionate disadvantage and need specific investment. This thread is a perfect example of how quickly people get triggered and defensive by that discussion. The reality that these disadvantaged communities exist because of racist policies and they continue to be disadvantaged because of racist policies is "divisive".

The data is clear that Black people and other minorities continue to be at a socioeconomic disadvantages today. What are the responses to that in this thread? Out right denial that issues continue to exist, arguments that there is something inherently wrong with Black communities, and arguments that we should implement social programs but in a way that completely ignores the fact that these disadvantages were established around race.

To be clear, I wasn’t suggesting we overlook that these communities became disadvantaged secondary to racist policies. But rather than the back and forth between left and right I’d rather see something happen to get the ball moving.

What would you like to see happen?

 

[DOswag]

Are you white?

I mean, I worry about your list of thinkers as actually conforming to another narrative.
Like I said before, it’s difficult not to appreciate the historical aspect: I.e. forced relocation of slavery and second class status through Jim Crow.

Not sure I follow you on this one. What narrative would the list I provided be conforming to? I acknowledge the historical aspects of slavery/Jim crow having a significant impact on black community as a whole. I just pointed out that we have evidence that even during the era of Jim Crow, black families were improving in nearly every category at a higher rate than other races including whites (though still disproportionately behind in many categories) until the 1960's where there is decline in just about every category. Also empirical evidence that certain black people here in America were not impacted by the claimed systemic racism and I would think we would have to wonder why that is.

We have decades of evidence now that government intervention, as we have seen, has been largely ineffective and possibly worse for the minorities they’ve intended to help. Is that systemic racism? Is the answer more government intervention?

We have evidence that even during the Jim Crow era, going back even to the 1870’s, there was an all black school in Washington DC and the majority of students were from lower income families, and the school was in a poor run down neighborhood in DC. Called the M street school later renamed Dunbar high school. This school outperformed the other all white schools in the DC area in standardized test scores and had lower absenteeism and tardiness than their white counterparts. The majority of students went on to higher education as well which was even unusual for the white schools at the time. This continued up until the 1950’s when we see a large influence of government intervening in education.

“Ironically, black high schools in Washington today have many of the so-called "prerequisites" for good education that never existed in the heyday of Dunbar High School-- and yet the educational results are abysmal. "Adequate funding" is always included among these "prerequisites" and today the per pupil expenditure in the District of Columbia is among the highest in the nation. During its heyday, Dunbar was starved for funds and its average class size was in the 40s. Its lunchroom was so small that many of its students had to eat out on the streets. Its blackboards were cracked and it was 1950 before the school had a public address system. Yet, at that point, it had 80 years of achievement behind it-- and only 5 more in front of it.”

There are other similar examples of schools in Brooklyn, Harlem, New Orleans that were competitive as far as test scores compared to white schools up until the 1950’s. So I think based on the evidence, there’s much more to the story than sYsTemIC rAcIsM. Are we more racist today than during the Jim Crow era?

 

[doctalaughs]

Disagree. Not personally, but you are naive to think that both sides are each going to agree with those points.

I think you are wrong. I wholeheartedly agree with everything proposed in the post above.

Most who the “woke” crowd deems as “unenlightened” do not actually deny the existence of history and know why certain groups are disadvantaged. They just disagree strongly that the current agenda of the left is helpful (in fact, things like affirmative action and pushing white privilege narratives are decidedly harmful to all of society). FYI I’m not white but strongly believe that.