Today I get to be a psychologist and actually talk about something in my field….
A few days ago, I made a blog post in which I “called out” overt acts of racism found within the “tea party” crowd. It is safe to say that the post was controversial. Quite a few people responded – some with anger – that they oppose Obama because of his ideas and not because of racism.
Just yesterday, former President Jimmy Carter made a similar statement – claiming that much of the opposition to Obama was in fact racist in nature. Carter stated “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American.”
For some reason I can’t quite fathom, Carter’s remarks have generated even more attention than mine. Go figure. For example, Michael Steele (Chair of the Republican National Committee) is quoted as saying “President Carter is flat out wrong. This isn’t about race. It is about policy. This is a pathetic distraction by Democrats to shift attention away from the president’s wildly unpopular government-run health care plan that the American people simply oppose.”
(Note that the White House has been careful to distance themselves from such talk.)
Many people – correspondents, bloggers, tea-partiers, politicians, average citizens – have said similar things. “I oppose Obama because of his ideas and his policies. My reaction to him has nothing to do with race.”
Assuming that these people are telling the truth, does that mean we can just put this behind us – that we can agree that race is not a primary factor in reactions to Obama?
Sadly, no.
A substantial body of psychological research has shown that people harbor and act on racist attitudes without being aware that they are even doing so. The majority of people in modern American society disavow racism – yet those same people, when tested in subtle ways, display racist attitudes.
Let me describe a series of psychological experiments. These experiments have been replicated numerous times, both under controlled laboratory conditions and under “field testing” in the real world.
Here is a typical experimental design.
Subjects in the experiment are given a set of resumes and asked to rate the employability of each applicant.
For one group of subjects, a resume was from Donald Smith.
For another group of subjects, the IDENTICAL resume was Denzel Smith.
No photo was attached. The content of the resume was EXACTLY the same – the same education background, the same job experiences – EVERYTHING was the same - with the exception that in some cases the name was traditionally Caucasian, while in others the name was traditionally African American.
So – what’s in a name?
Subjects gave significantly lower employability ratings to resumes with African American first names (Denzel, Lafonda, Jorell, etc) compared to THE EXACT SAME RESUME containing a traditional Caucasian name (Donald, Larry, John, etc).
When interviewed later, the experimental subjects denied taking race into account. They denied even being aware of the race of the applicant – this despite the clear evidence that indeed they had based their judgment on the perceived race of the applicant.
Were they lying? Were they too embarrassed to admit racism had a part in their ratings? Probably not. They were likely acting subconsciously. Subconscious racial attitudes can indeed have an effect on behavior.
Modern racism is subtle. We have thankfully moved beyond the days in which cross burnings and lynching were common. It is rare that someone will make an overtly racist comment. But racism is still there, simmering beneath the surface, in the form of deeply held attitudes of disdain and mistrust. It is may unconscious – but don’t fool yourself by claiming it isn’t there.
Are opponents to Obama racist, or are they simply acting on the basis of his policies?
Probably some of both. Substantial evidence suggests the existence of a subtle and subconscious racism – a racism which could well taint one’s views of the President without even surfacing to conscious awareness.
How does one fight such racism? How does one act against something so subtle yet potentially so powerful?
Serious and honest self-reflection is perhaps a good first step.
Tags: Carter, conservative, democrat, left-wing, liberal, Obama, psychology, racism, right-wing, wordpress-political-blogs
September 16, 2009 at 4:07 pm |
“Serious and honest self-reflection” MUST be the first step to identifying racism, but also overcoming it. I would argue that racist tendancies are not limited solely to “subconscious minds” but exist in the everyday attitudes of large groups of people. Furthermore, they may have been there since birth. If racism is ever going to be overcome, it’s going to have to start with parents as their racist remarks will be imprinted on their children at a very early age and the cycle will repeat.
September 16, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
Prof, do you agree with things that Michael Steele says?
If not, does that make you a closet racist, who may even be unaware of your own racist mentality?
I assume you will reply “no,” so I will preempt that by saying “prove it.”
September 16, 2009 at 4:42 pm |
Red,
Like many people born with white privilege, I indeed have some unconscious racist attitudes. As Joe mentioned in the previous comment – we first learn racist attitudes from our family. One side of my family is from the DEEP south and sadly I grew up with racism in my family.
Recognizing that the attitudes are there is the first step to overcoming them – just like in AA.
Do I agree with everything Michael Steele says? Obviously not. I do try to self reflect to make sure that my attitudes toward him are indeed not racist and that my actions are in fact not motivated in that way.
That is the same type of self reflection I suggest everyone should employ.
Not the response you expected, huh?
– hippieprof
September 16, 2009 at 4:52 pm |
I respect the honesty while also maintaining my respecful disagreement that most of us are unintentional closet racists.
And I think Carter’s comments, along with those that politicise racial issues (not accusing you of such), cheapen the real issues of race that do exist, and make it impossible to have honest, intelligent dialog on a very important topic.
September 16, 2009 at 5:03 pm |
As an unrepentant Behaviorist, I don’t think we will agree on this. Racism is a learned behavior. To suggest room back room racism, and subtle ,covert racism is the same kind of fear mongering the left accuses the right of doing. I have kids with me, so I need to think on this more.
I am just SOOO tired of the moniker racism, and it is a one way street hurled at the white middle class at the moment. (I disdain actual racism mind you)
You might as well say “it’s not their fault their retarded” instead of labeling someone with a valid point in opposition to Obama, but that wouldn’t be as convenient as the racism banner.
I will think more and respond more eloquently larter.
peace,
nodot
September 16, 2009 at 5:49 pm |
Red and Nodot….
I understand your reluctance to accept what I am suggesting – I didn’t like it either when I first heard about it, and I denied it the same way that you are.
However, I am also a researcher by training – and I trust in the experimental method. The results are clear and replicable – people subconsciously take race into account when making employment decisions. To deny that the phenomena occurs is to deny the validity of the data. All data and all experiments should indeed be subject to review and to skepticism – but as a professional in the field I think these results are pretty strong.
– hippieprof
September 16, 2009 at 6:20 pm |
Have you done that test online that shows pictures of either white or black people and has you associate words?
That one is just plain embarrassing. But it important for white people to realize that those thought processes are there.
link https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1
I read another article that had training to “rewire” the brain to not make those associations….wish I remembered where I read it…
September 16, 2009 at 6:07 pm |
Covert racism looks more tame than overt racism…but it still does significant damage. It may be even worse because not only is it hard to measure, but the task of eliminating covert racism seems impossible. Not only that, but any time covert racism is brought up, it is discredited as “the race card” or a pawn in a bigger game. The reality is that covert racism is alive and well, and white people have a hard time accepting that they are part of the institution of racism in our country.
If people think that they “don’t see color” or that Obama’s color hasn’t triggered unconscious thought patterns (learned behavior though they are) they are mistaken.
September 16, 2009 at 8:35 pm |
I am white
All whites are racist
Therefore I am a racist.
I never owned a slave. Neither did my father nor any of my ancestors own slaves. My ancestors were serfs. In effect they were slaves.
My father taught me to be a racist. He formed his opinion of blacks from the job. He worked his ass off to be kept from being sent back to his old country. The blacks that he worked with formed his opinion of all blacks as lazy, good for nothings.
My dad tried his best not to transfer his hatred to me, but some of it rubbed off. I have since made up my own mind about blacks. They are God’s people. Some are good, and some are bad. Obama is bad because he is a communist, and a racist. He was a black raised white, and he had trouble with that. He wanted to be raised black so he could be one of his kind. His mother and his grandparents would have made life alot easier had they just dropped him off at the hut iof his father in Kenya and left.
September 17, 2009 at 12:01 am |
Well… that was special…
September 17, 2009 at 7:18 am |
Interesting, hippieprof, thanks.
Have you read Obama’s memoir, Dreams from My Father? It is about his coming to terms with his own racial and ethnic background, including his visits to Kenya, and I found it quite interesting.
September 17, 2009 at 2:17 pm |
I think the same type of test could be given to black people and you would have the same results. While you may have people subconsciously thinking something of a certain color of people, it seems that the democratic party uses racism as a crutch. A means to prevent any dissent. Shouting racism has now become as empty and meaningless as calling someone a doo doo head. Using the liberal logic, I could say that anyone that’s black that disagrees with Obama, must have some deep seeded rage against whitey. (Obama is half white you know)
If people TRULY want racism to disappear, the first place it starts is in the government. I ordered one of those free government program books and was surprised to find that I can’t qualify for most of the programs because I am white. If I’m a black man, the government will throw me money for starting a business, going back to school or becoming a community organizer. Hell, if I’m a black woman with a kid…it’s like hitting the lottery! Why in the world would a government that wants to end racism REQUIRE you to be a certain race to get benefits? I think it’s racist to assume that because you are black, that you also must be poor and in need of help. Or to assume that because you are white, you are at an advantage and DON’T need the help. Affirmative Action is racism in reverse. Anytime you look at color BEFORE qualifications, that is racist!! I don’t care how you slice it up and bring up the gray areas. You can’t eliminate racism with policies designed to give preference BECAUSE of race. Liberals absolutely foam at the mouth over affirmative action, and it’s republicans opposition to it that has led to them being called racists! I don’t think black people truly realize how much they are being patronized and kept down by the democratic leadership.
September 17, 2009 at 11:44 pm |
Hunt – That is an interesting question – what would happen if the experiment were repeated with black subjects? I am not sure if that has been done – I will have to check.
I am not sure that the results would be the same, though – there are quite a few studies that suggest black children are conditioned to believe that “white is better” at a very young age. For example, black children prefer to play with white dolls. Here is a story about that:
http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1301.cfm
I agree with you that affirmative-action-like programs can actually increase racist feelings – especially when people begin to believe that an individual’s achievements are due only to such programs. We saw that in the Sotomayor hearings. I am not sure what the solution is, though. I believe that substantial discrimination still exists – so such programs are still needed – but they also create a negative backlash.
I have to take exception to one remark, though. You say: “if I’m a black woman with a kid…it’s like hitting the lottery!” Remember, though, that on average that black woman with a kid has had a harder life than the average white person. It is hard to accept, but whites do have privileges in this society which blacks simply do not have.
I will write more on that soon – it is almost midnight and tomorrow is another long day.
As always, your opinions are welcome here. Thanks for commenting.
– hippieprof
September 18, 2009 at 6:32 pm |
Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor years ago said she was a “product of affirmative action” when she was admitted to prestigious universities.
“I am a product of affirmative action,” Sotomayor said. “I am the perfect affirmative action baby. I am Puerto Rican, born and raised in the south Bronx. My test scores were not comparable to my colleagues at Princeton and Yale. Not so far off so that I wasn’t able to succeed at those institutions.”
She said that using “traditional numbers” from test scores, “it would have been highly questionable if I would have been accepted.”
Overall, I see no good coming from Affirmative Action. On the left there are those who say “See? Isn’t that wonderful? We help someone get to a level they couldn’t get to on their own merits.” On the the right, we see institutions intellectually diluted. At the lowest level, we see the symbol of the hamburger and drink on the keys of the cash register at McDonald’s. They call it “the dumbing down of America” and it is real, it is documented and it is well understood.
September 19, 2009 at 10:32 am |
Ben – she graduated from Princeton Summa Cum Laude and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. She won the top award for undergraduates at Princeton.
Those are decidedly NOT accomplishments that have anything due to racial preferences or affirmative action. It is amazing that you would consider this an example of the “dumbing down” of America,
Another thing to remember: Most of those who benefit from affirmative action had a harder time along the way – they had poorer schools in their childhood, they lived in rougher neighborhoods in which crime and gang violence were a constant threat. All else held equal, I suspect that a child coming out of the projects is quite a bit smarter and more able than a student with exactly the same grades and SAT scores who comes from the suburbs and had every educational advantage along the way.
– hippieprof
September 17, 2009 at 3:26 pm |
“Well… that was special…” ROTFLMAO
That was good hippieprof! A perfect answer to grumpajoesplace.
I recommend everyone click on the link provided by Carly. Very interesting exercise (actually a bunch of interesting exercises …. I did the one on Obama, which showed to my surprise that I had no subconscious preference for Obama over other recent Presidents … despite the fact that consciously, I very much favor him over other recent presidents!)
September 17, 2009 at 3:30 pm |
The problem as i see it is that Republicans or conservatives think that to admit there is an element of racism in the reaction to Obama is to say that all of their political views are suspect.
I do not agree. There are lots of people who oppose Obama on policy grounds alone. There are more than a few who oppose him (consciously or unconsciously) because he is black. Those two phenomena can co-exist. There is no contradiction there.
September 17, 2009 at 11:31 pm |
Rutherford said: There are lots of people who oppose Obama on policy grounds alone. There are more than a few who oppose him (consciously or unconsciously) because he is black. Those two phenomena can co-exist. There is no contradiction there.
Absolutely agreed – in fact, they can co-exist in the same person. One can disagree with Obama and simultaneously react to him more strongly because of his race.
Another important point: Because this type of racism is often unconscious, it can occur in very good, well meaning people. It is something they do without being aware of it – and something they would most likely be upset about if they did realize they were doing it.
You are right – the link Carly provides is really interesting. I also recommend people check it out – it can be thought provoking to say the least.
– hippieprof
September 17, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
So after a day of refection and Valium (generic of course) I have decided to take this stance. The insinuation of racism across the board is belittling and not worth true debate. I am not even going to try to debate the interpretation of data from a study on resume’s and extrapolate that to the venue of political world views. Data can be collected, but by and large statistical analysis finds exactly what people want\intended to find.
My opposition is neither based on race nor religion. It simply in dissent to the content of this administration’s public agenda. I thought we both agreed to not bother with someone’s intent or hidden agenda.
Is there racism in the world? Yes. Is there inequality in the world? Yes. Does inequality automatically equate to racism? Not hardly.
Does the examination of racism in the timing of this public policy debate obscure facts related to positive and effective dialogue? Yes. Even if you know someone harbors racist thoughts, that doesn’t mean they cannot do math and disagree with numbers.
I want and need this country to succeed. I think that corruption in government currently runs too deep to trust them with any more authority without transparent accountability FIRST.
Barack Obama does not have a track record of accountability. You may discount the birthers as ideologues, but Obama was not forthcoming in his response to an initial inquiry. You may say the the R’s fabricated Death Panels, but the bill is gray enough for them to be right. (there is too much complexity and confusion in the bill). I do not see the President striving to restore trust; in fact he has participated, more than overtly, in disinformation tactics on the health care bill, while publicly decrying foul for others (mostly R’s) doing so.
I want cheaper health care too, but I cannot find a single instance where government could do anything cheaper, better, or faster than private industry for any length of time. So am I a racist? It seems that you might be saying I am a closet racist even if I don’t know it.
I cannot argue a negative point. I cannot argue the absence of a lack of racism in my own opinions.( try saying that fast) In fact it distracts from my point. Jimmy Carter has done a lot of good for a lot of people through Habitat an other ‘good works’. But I think he has done us all a disservice by stirring the pot here.
In short, I want to judge a man’s political views by the content of his argument not his ‘perceived’.
I actually do have positive, solution focused ideas, as do others. But if I spend my time trying to convince someone that I am not a racist, it certainly seems like a distraction tactic by some to say there are no better answers.
as always Peace, and thanks for letting me share my perspective. I am not as educated as you, but I feel I can contribute to the product.
nodot
September 19, 2009 at 10:49 am |
nodot –
Sorry to take so long to respond – the last 24 hours have been dedicated to takin’ it to the man with high-powered rock’n'roll!
(Maguire’s last night – where were you, by the way?)
I want to make something clear that I think was missed in my earlier post.
There are many valid reasons to oppose Obama that have absolutely nothing to do with race.
This having been said, I think implicit, covert racism still plays a role. For example, I suspect many opponents of Obama who would oppose him on policy grounds do so more aggressively than they would if he held the same policies and he was white. Yet, they do so unconsciously.
Look – I have the advantage here of knowing you personally. I know that you are a really good, ethical guy with family values to the core. I would never ever ever accuse you of doing anything unethical.
However, like me, you grew up white. You probably absorbed some covert racist attitudes along the way. SO DID I. I am not saying you are guilty of anything I am not also holding against myself.
You know – “guilty” is really the wrong word anyway – because “guilty” implies conscious intent.
Thanks again for sharing your ideas….
– hippieprof
September 17, 2009 at 6:42 pm |
I have you added to my blogroll.
I had already read this early this morning. Only I did not have time to respond then.
I do believe that racism is a learned response, same as stereotypes and prejudices. The only difference is that the latter two usually come from experience.
Do I believe that racism exists? Yes. Do I have the answers to resolve that issue? No. Some don’t wish to be educated or to change, but I do believe if someone really wants to, they can and will, no matter what the theme is.
I also don’t believe racism is limited to one certain race of people. The definition of racism is 1. prejudice or animosity against people who belong to other races; 2. the belief that people of different races have different qualities and abilities, and that some races are inherently superior or inferior.
My point is that it is possible that the racism issue that keeps returning in this era of Politics is not on only one side of the fence.
I believe we should all refuse to allow racism to cloud the true issues at hand. The future is in danger in more than one area. It isn’t only the USA, but the world that is sharing in the recession we have been experiencing. Petty differences should be of no consequence when survival is at stake.
I mean, really! Are we working together, or against each other? Do we not wish for the same goal?
I am weary of hearing the racism slurs thrown out there when someone disagrees with the President. It overshadows the event to the point that I never quite hear what the disagreement is about. I would like to hear that.
Maybe, it is a right on judgement being passed when we don’t hear an intelligent argument. I can’t really interpret the truth of any given situation with a lack of information. However, I don’t know these people and I refuse to pass that judgement myself.
The one question that keeps coming to mind is this, if a person dares to make an intelligent and thought out argument against the President, will they be branded racist? Will they have to defend their personal integrity because they simply don’t agree? The reason I ponder that is due to the lack of criticism towards Obama in the media.
I believe you can still support your President if you don’t always agree with him. I don’t mind giving him the respect the position demands, but as a citizen of this great country, I would like to think that I deserve respect in my opinions as well.
September 19, 2009 at 10:57 am |
Patty – sorry I didn’t respond earlier. As I mentioned to Nodot in the last post I have been preparing for a gig with my band – plus there is always that pesky day job to take up time…
You ask: “The one question that keeps coming to mind is this, if a person dares to make an intelligent and thought out argument against the President, will they be branded racist?”
I certainly don’t think they should be. In fact, the type of subtle racism I am talking about isn’t something that should ever rise to the level of “accusation” anyway. It is not a personal choice – it is unconscious. It is not something you choose to do overtly, like burning a cross or dressing in a sheet. It is not something to “blame” someone for because they absorbed it as part of their upbringing.
My point was not to accuse anyone or blame anyone – my point was to note that subtle racism exists and can shade our reactions without us even knowing it.
Thanks for coming by and commenting!
– hippieprof
September 17, 2009 at 8:47 pm |
I think the test is a little off base. Let’s say you were raised to love everyone….even guys named Moonpuppie, but during the course of your life, you are raised around people with names such as Ted Johnson, Bob Wilson, George Harris…etc. Your parents didn’t intentionally move you into a neighborhood that was predominantly white, that’s just where you ended up since you live somewhere in West Idaho and it’s just crawling with whitey! Your subconscious grows used to hearing the names and trusting the people that are associated with those white names. You aren’t presented with names like Sheniqua Jackson, Chin Pow Woo, Mike Szerbiania or Snoop Diggity Doog throughout your life, so you play a name association game and which names do you pick? Does it make you a racist? Hardly.
Repeatedly drink and you develop a subconscious need to drink. Practice playing guitar everyday for years and you find that you can play it blindfolded while it’s on fire. (I didn’t practice as hard as I should have, so my eyebrows are MIA) After a while, it’s no longer forced because it’s now etched in your skull.
You may be presented with names everyday that are pretty damn white and you may not have a racist bone in your body. Just because your subconscious chooses the white names you are used to doesn’t mean you hate a race of people. It’s simply repetition for some people. A test like this can’t test the heart of a person, and for that reason it is fatally flawed. The names you choose in a name association test doesn’t mean you have been reporting to Klan headquarters for years…or that you’ve had hatred passed on to you.
For years, liberals have repeatedly told us that tests in high schools had to be fixed so African Americans could pass them. Claiming that the tests were racially biased. I’m still waiting to hear the Irish, Indian, Mexican, Asian and Ethiopian people claim the tests need to be fixed to fit their ethnic background too, but amazingly they don’t require government intervention or constant victimization.
September 18, 2009 at 12:49 am |
This type of racism is often taken too personally. Look at the bigger picture…the institution of racism. You may not be actively racist like a KK K member, but the institution of racism affects us all, whether we like it or not.
Let’s go back to when whites and black were separated. Whites sprawled out to the affluent suburbs more easily getting loans and community covenant approval. Blacks had a significantly harder time moving out of poorer urban areas. Whites actively prevented blacks from moving into white neighborhoods. This was sanctioned and legal.
(start reading at page 245 for some info/data http://books.google.com/books?id=i3XcbUD0jx8C&lpg=PA375&ots=Mh24tCzW4-&dq=history%20of%20black%20urban%20housing&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20black%20urban%20housing&f=false )
As Whites got richer and Blacks got poorer, the gap kept growing and racism and prejudice built on the idea of blacks being too “lazy” or “uneducated” or “stupid” and blaming the individual for where they where at in life. In reality, the blacks couldn’t get out even if they tried. It made a vicious cycle that, although not as obvious, continues today.
Keep going down the road. You know jim, tom, harry, and joe because the institution of racism has had Whites separated from blacks for so long. It isn’t anything any one person did, but rather a system at work that perpetuates prejudice. Had racism never been an issue, blacks and whites would have been equally dispersed, and you would have known many more Darrells, Ebonys, and Jamals.
Does that make you a racist? No
Does it mean that you have prejudice? Probably. Not because you don’t like black people, but rather the institution of racism has set things up that way.
Don’t be so quick to shrug off racism just because it doesn’t look at obvious as the KKK. Racism is an entire institution that affects us all.
September 18, 2009 at 4:03 pm |
Carly, your comment “Had racism never been an issue, blacks and whites would have been equally dispersed, and you would have known many more Darrells, Ebonys, and Jamals” strikes me as a bit funny in that if racism did not exist, and different “races” did not migrate to separate places, then by assimilation many blacks would be named Joe and many whites would be named Denzel.
September 18, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
Hmm….it is an interesting thought Rutherford.
However, I’d like to think that perhaps it could be possible to not assimilate but still coexist peacefully. Black people and white people have different cultures….I couldn’t tell you how they might be different if racism wasn’t a part of the picture. Who knows.
I hope you still got my point though
September 18, 2009 at 1:48 pm |
Actually I saw a similar test administered in France that looked at the native /Muslim divide.
I know such things exist but I think people are capable of change we just need it it bite size bits.
Curious HP would you agree prejudice can be overcome by logic ?
Also to Rutherford. not for nothing but what you say has an unintentional truth to it methinks. If people didn’t feel the need to defend themselves due to others perhaps you’d be right. history especially contemporary hx has shown us that when you give a little you tend to get hit.
September 19, 2009 at 11:02 am |
Alfie,
I think the type of subtle racism/prejudice I am describing can indeed be overcome with logic, if the individual is open to changing.
As I have said above – subtle racism exists, unconsciously, in most white Americans – the vast majority of whom would never want to be thought of as racist. All it really takes is recognizing it in yourself, and then capitalizing on that recognition and changing behavior.
I used the AA example earlier, but I think it fits. The first step to overcoming alcoholism is admitting that you are an alcoholic.
Likewise, the first step to overcoming covert racism is to admit that you might have some of those attitudes – attitudes you probably didn’t even know you had.
– hippieprof
September 18, 2009 at 5:55 pm |
If we’re going to go here, then never again shall a black American criticize a white president for it will forever be judged as racist.
Grow up people. We can disagree on the issues and at the end of the debate still call the man a friend. It absolutely has nothing to do with race.
With all things of the event being as they were, if John Wilkes Booth was a black man, would the death of Lincoln be rooted in racism? No, but a lot of ignorant people would call it that…. as they are calling any given disagreement with Obama.
For anyone to believe in the crap coming out of the mouth of Carter may be as much of a racist as he.
September 19, 2009 at 11:09 am |
Ben – I have a ton of conservative friends (half of my band is practically neocon) and I like nothing more than having a few beers with them and sitting back talkin’ political BS. This has nothing to do with respect or friendship or any of that. I suspect I would enjoy having a beer with you – and maybe a jam too….
Still, I don’t agree that this “has absolutely nothing to do with race” – as I have said in other comments, this isn’t overt cross burning behavior. This is a subtle institution we absorb growing up white.
– hippieprof
September 19, 2009 at 12:19 pm |
Then I will forever see a black man’s dissent of a white president as subtle racism because they grew up black.
September 19, 2009 at 12:35 pm |
Ben says: “Then I will forever see a black man’s dissent of a white president as subtle racism because they grew up black.”
Ben – have I ever mentioned that it can be frustrating having a debate with you?
(yeah – I am sure you feel the same about me…)
Two things – first – it is hard for me to use the label of racism against the group that has been on the receiving end of racism for generations. I tend to think that, if it exists at all, it is more like fighting back.
Second – repeat after me (maybe the point will stick that way) – it is perfectly OK to object to Obama on non-racist grounds. Recognition of the subtle racism that we grow up with in white culture does not belittle the various valid reasons for opposing Obama.
– hippieprof
September 19, 2009 at 1:00 pm |
RE:Ben – have I ever mentioned that it can be frustrating having a debate with you?
Me thinks I be called thick headed in a back-handed way.
Look, I got your point. My point is this; we should be allowed to disagree with this president and not have the ugly specter of racism shoved into our face like a steaming pile of dog-hooey. It’s insulting. It shuts down debate. It’s emotional. It distracts. It is shallow. Look how much energy is being spent talking about this and not the merits (or lack of) of HR-3200 and the allegations of congressman Joe Wilson.
Dammit, now I forgot my other point. Ok, I’ll just go to this:
RE:it is hard for me to use the label of racism against the group that has been on the receiving end of racism for generations. I tend to think that, if it exists at all, it is more like fighting back.
Flawed. The black community is not immune to racism. To believe it is simply a form of tit-for-tat is naive and in effect gives them a pass; a blank check to forever cash. If racism is to be fought at all then it has to be fought regardless of the direction from which it comes. Racism is racism. Period.
September 18, 2009 at 5:59 pm |
… and another thing…
While some say Carter is a great man, which is arguable, it is more likely that he is a bitter man with a chip on his shoulder attempting to overshadow his dismal presidential legacy with more appalling positions on the world political scene of the present.
At the end of the day Mr. Carter does more harm than good and should probably just sit down and shut up.
September 19, 2009 at 11:16 am |
“At the end of the day Mr. Carter does more harm than good and should probably just sit down and shut up.”
The 1976 election is the first one in which I voted. I didn’t vote for Carter – I voted for Anderson (the independent Republican candidate). When the results were final, I posted a note on my dorm bulletin board, dramatically claiming my hope that the country will survive the next 4 years under Carter.
I don’t think he was a very good president – but we did survive – just like we will survive what I hope are 8 years under Obama.
I think Carter has been a much better ex-President than he ever was a president – and I am a little amazed that you do not give him credit for the good he does. One of the strongest conservative tenants is that social service work should be done by volunteers and not by the government. Isn’t Carter’s work with Habitat the exact embodiment of that principle?
– hippieprof
September 19, 2009 at 12:27 pm |
It was then as it was for Obama’s election; a population rushing and falling all over themselves to vote in a dark horse attempting to shake up the status quo in Washington.
RE:and I am a little amazed that you do not give him credit for the good he does.
I did. I said, “At the end of the day Mr. Carter does more harm than good and should probably just sit down and shut up.” I think it is accurate assessment. It’s too bad his God-like ability to know what lies in the hearts of men and his arm-chair analysis of foreign affairs over shadows his social service work.
September 18, 2009 at 5:59 pm |
If you do not agree to
* $180 billion given to insurance company AIG, stating they are simply too big to fail, you might be a racist.
* giving over 70 billion dollars to General Motors and Chrysler serving only to delay an inevitable bankruptcy, you might be a racist.
* General Motors filing for bankruptcy while the Feds force Chrysler to accept a merger with Italy’s Fiat, you might be a racist.
* The heads of labor unions at General Motors remaining in their offices, you might be a racist.
* over $12.8 Trillion USD as of March 2009 given to various firms and programs, you might be a racist.
* Marxist lines of thinking such as Representative Maxine Waters (D-Ca), who believes in nationalizing certain sectors of the U.S. economy, you might be a racist.
* Obama signing a $787 billion stimulus bill into law, proposed an eye-popping $3.6 trillion budget for the 2010 fiscal year, taken over a massive $700 billion Wall Street bailout program and created other billion-dollar programs, you might be a racist.
* the creation of a 1.5 trillion dollar health care bill and count yourself among the 82 percent who say the issue will be a major factor in their vote in next year’s elections, you might be a racist.
* allowing non-U.S. citizens access to our health care programs and count yourself among the 83% of voters nationwide who say that people should be required to prove they are a citizen of the United States before receiving government health care subsidies, you might be a racist.
* having a Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality who co-founded a socialist collective, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, in 1994, which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia and who believes 9/11 is a government conspiracy, you might be a racist.
* the policies and conduct of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Henry Waxman, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer, Tom Daschel, Rahm Emanuel, et. al. who are leading this country to ruin with their mindless, out-of-control and insane spending philosophies, you might be a racist.
* the content of the HR-3200 and believe the President is spreading disinformation about its content and sub-programs, you might be a racist.
Apologies to Jeff Foxworthy.
September 19, 2009 at 11:24 am |
Ben – I have said it seemingly 1000 times….
You can oppose Obama on substantive grounds – and your reactions might ALSO be shaded by subtle racism. I am certainly not claiming that racism is the only reason to oppose Obama.
Hell – a white person who supports Obama’s positions can be less enthusiastic about him due to race. We saw some of that in the run-up to the election – people in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania actually saying OPENLY “I should be supporting Obama because I believe in his ideas but I can’t bring myself to vote for a black man….”
– hippieprof
September 19, 2009 at 12:38 pm |
I once asked a black man at work which party he was going to vote for. This was back in the late ’80s. He looked at me then brought his hand into his view, looked at it, looked at me and then simply smiled.
Hardly a vote for the issues facing America of the day.
September 19, 2009 at 12:47 pm |
Ben said: “Hardly a vote for the issues facing America of the day.”
Ben – this again is disingenuous. Perhaps issues important to a black person are indeed those addressed by democrats. Very few African Americans vote for Republicans for precisely that reason. How can you claim this is not “issue” voting?
– hp
September 19, 2009 at 1:11 pm |
Disingenuous? Get real. Clearly the man used the color of his skin to tell him which party to vote for. Regardless of the policies of Republican candidate which would have positive affects upon his family’s life, it was of no matter. For him it was vote Democrate; long live the DNC. If there is anyone being disingenuous it was he.
It was Democrats who were responsible for counting each black slave as three-fifths of a person, who fought to extend the institution of slavery to new states entering the union, and who enacted the Fugitive Slave Law. It was Democrats who enacted Black Codes and Jim Crow laws, legalizing the oppression of blacks even after Republicans set them free. It was Democrats who created the Ku Klux Klan as a party auxiliary, achieving through lynching, flogging, arson, and other forms of intimidation, that which they could not achieve within the law.
It was Democrats who enacted the Repeal Act of 1894, repealing essentially all of the civil rights legislation won by Republicans since the Civil War. And it was Democrat presidents who banned black newspapers in the military (Roosevelt), who wiretapped Dr. Martin Luther King, trying to prove he was a Communist (Kennedy), and who, throughout the 1960s and ‘70s, worked to establish a new “welfare plantation” for blacks (Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter) to prevent them from competing against white Democrats in the blue-collar job market.
September 19, 2009 at 1:14 pm |
… and another thing…
It was a Republican president who freed the slaves. It was Republicans who enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the First Reconstruction Act of 1867, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was Republicans who wrote and passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, outlawing slavery, giving blacks full citizenship, and giving blacks the right to vote. It was Republican presidents who wrote the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, and it was Republicans who played a crucial role in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, and the Voting Rights Acts of 1965 and 1972.
September 19, 2009 at 1:22 pm |
Minister: Blacks’ Loyalty to Democratic Party ‘Unfounded’
.. one of a two-part series examining the relationship between black voters and the Democratic Party, why historically blacks have given almost blind loyalty to Democrats, why their support is unfounded, and how black leaders exploit their own people on behalf of Democrats.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/6/22/162434.shtml
September 19, 2009 at 1:40 pm |
“It was a Republican…”
But what have you done in the 20th and 21st centuries?
September 19, 2009 at 11:45 am |
Of course, if you believe that everything Obama says is wrong,
and he says the racism is not the main factor behind his opponents, then ….
September 19, 2009 at 12:32 pm |
Pancakes?
September 19, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
Hippieprof, you have been enormously patient and I risk inflaming your blog with my lack thereof … you’ve seen I’m a lot less patient in my neck of the woods.
Ben, truly you need to stop it. Carrying a sign that compares Barack Obama to an animal and calls him a “lyin’ African” is not simply opposing his polices. It’s being a racist pig.
To sit there and brag about the Republican record on race shows you to either be historically ignorant or incredibly disingenuous. Right around 1968 the Dems and the Repub’s pretty much switched places on civil rights. The Dixiecrats of old changed their tune and Republicans discovered racially divisive politics and a South eager to drink that kind of politics down. The party that freed the slaves is not the Republican party of today and you know it.
What burns me up more than anything else is that there is a simple resolution to all this debate. All decent people who oppose Obama’s policies need to say is “Damn it, the bigots and wingnuts are really making it hard for me to get my views heard. They are stealing valuable attention away from those of us who legitimately oppose Obama’s policies. I wish they would STOP IT.’” Instead, every so called decent opponent to Obama is also an apologist for the nutjobs.
While Hippieprof skillfully discussed the covert racism that is so hard to get a handle on, let us make no mistake. There is plenty of overt racism out there that needs to stop.
Ben I hope you’re man enough to join the fight to stop these idiots from keeping your real message from being heard.
September 19, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
RE:Ben, truly you need to stop it. Carrying a sign that compares Barack Obama to an animal and calls him a “lyin’ African” is not simply opposing his polices. It’s being a racist pig.
I respectfully decline. It’s just that I don’t see the racist overtone in that sign. For me, to state a fact about a man’s heritage will never be a racist statement. If you see it then it’s your interpretation. I don’t see it.
RE What burns me up more than anything else is that there is a simple resolution to all this debate. All decent people who oppose Obama’s policies need to say is “Damn it, the bigots and wingnuts are really making it hard for me to get my views heard. They are stealing valuable attention away from those of us who legitimately oppose Obama’s policies. I wish they would STOP IT.’” Instead, every so called decent opponent to Obama is also an apologist for the nutjobs.
and
Ben I hope you’re man enough to join the fight to stop these idiots from keeping your real message from being heard.
See http://hippieprofessor.com/2009/09/16/the-subtlety-of-modern-racism/#comment-353
September 19, 2009 at 4:39 pm |
Oh, I might add since this blog is owned by an academic, I’d like to introduce a theoretical construct to show how blacks being racist is totally absurd.
Racism = Prejudice + Power
In other words, a racist is someone prejudiced against another group and has the power to oppress them, the power to enforce that prejudice to the detriment of the other group.
Under that construct, blacks cannot be racist. They can indeed be prejudiced against whites. That is different.
I think because of many advances in civil rights and the increased leveling of the playing field, this construct falls on deaf ears among most whites. But it is still a construct that resonates with me.
September 20, 2009 at 9:39 am |
Nice construct but completely avoids any and all real definitions of the word.
September 20, 2009 at 9:54 am |
Rutherford said: Racism = Prejudice + Power
Thank you – I like that a lot. In fact, it is what exactly what I was trying to say when I noted in an earlier response that black “racism” is more like fighting back against the bully.
And Alfie – I think it is very applicable to the real world. The prejudice part is generally easy to see. The power differential part is harder to see – but it is very much there and certainly perpetuates the cycle.
– hippieprof
September 19, 2009 at 8:06 pm |
Ben, I really like your views, and I have added you to my blogroll. As for you liberals, it’s pretty obvious what the message of your party is. You are the party of oppressed victims, and because of your oppressed victim status, there is no argument.
Whether you are black, a woman or if you are gay, join the democrats and have your oppression patronized and used for political gain. What this “oppression” has to do with run away spending on programs that don’t work is beyond those with common sense, but just start thinking with blind emotional rage and you will see those rich white republicans for what they are! The democrats do EXACTLY what they accuse republicans of doing. They label and they continually express hate for those that don’t think like them.
So I will tell a story:
When I was a kid, my family was dirt poor. We lived in a crappy place in a bad section of town and christmas at my house wasn’t exactly the stuff dreams were made of. Instead of blaming people of oppressing them, both my parents worked their butts off with school and two jobs each to get us out of there. By the time I was 12, our life became like the song….”we were moving on up to the east side”. Not once during our entire time in poverty did I ever hear my parents blame anyone. Instead, they kept instilling in me the value of hard work and how it ALWAYS pays off. It did pay off, and I am who I am today because of their BLAMELESS sacrifice and hard work.
During that time, my parents didn’t have any benefits because they were white. Nobody gave them anything! They had to work 2 jobs each to pay for school. We literally had nothing. They would carpool to school with a black couple that also ended up making something of themselves….and they are still great friends today. Amazingly, that black couple is now republican, but I can remember the times when they weren’t and they would argue with my parents about politics. (this was during the Carter years)
I remember one argument well because it ended with my dad telling his friend “If you’d stop listening to the government tell you how black you are and how much you are kept down, you WILL succeed.” This black man, who is now my “uncle” punched my dad and told him “you don’t know nothing about being black, you honkey! ” My dad, always the debater challenged him. He said, “I live in the slums, I hang out with an angry black man that hates white people, and I can barely feed my kids…how is it worse for you?” He had no answer. They were both working crappy jobs, living in a crappy place and were riding to school together in a Pinto he owned. (We didn’t even have a car). From that day on, he never blamed anyone again. He graduated, became a physician and to this day, he says it was my dad that helped him see that it wasn’t others keeping him down, it was blaming others instead of sacrificing and pursuing the dream. He still discusses politics often with my parents, and I have now joined the discussion with them. When I see this man today, I don’t see a black man, I see a member of my family that once hit my father for the same reasons we are here today.
Like I’ve said before, none of these liberal tests will ever measure the heart of a person. You can distinguish that there is “hidden” racism in a rock if you have the right test. Yes, we all see in color, and that’s ok.
September 20, 2009 at 9:43 am |
Hunt….
Oh please – don’t encourage Ben…..
Seriously, though – I think you have a compelling story – and you would be surprised to know that I agree with much of what you say.
I agree that affirmative action and similar programs can indeed have negative consequences. As you suggest they can lead to a cycle of dependency, and they also create hostility. I think we can both agree that a fully-integrated and fully engaged society without any color-based preferences would be wonderful.
Where we differ is our assessment of whether we are there yet or not. Racial discrimination is alive and well. It has certainly lessened in the last 40 years – but it remains. Your story of the black neighbor is indeed moving – but how many in similar situations fail to make it out? Far more than succeed – and it isn’t for lack of hard work and lack of trying either.
A lot of the time, all that is necessary is for a person to be given a chance to succeed. Sometimes the government can do that. Sometimes it can be dome by individuals. I think both approaches are necessary.
I have my own story – one quite similar to yours, in fact – though my conclusions are a little different.
A number of years ago I had an African American student in my class. He was a street-wise ghetto kid – very rough around the edges – but damn! - if you looked past that you could see he was really really bright. He entered the university wanting to be a physician – but by the time I met him (late in his sophomore year) he was struggling academically and had been written off by other professors (all white and, interestingly, all quite liberal). Somehow, I saw the spark of intelligence in him, and I took him under my wing. We worked together for his last two years, and he managed to pull his grades up to a point where with the help of affirmative action programs he was able to obtain admission to medical school. He has now completed medical school and started his residency. He will tell you that I am the reason he is what he is today. I don’t accept that I am the only reason – hard work and affirmative action helped. Still, it is my proudest moment as a teacher.
Had I not been there for him, I suspect he would not have even completed college. He would have returned to the ghetto, defeated, and the cycle of poverty would have continued.
Ben might tell you that this represents “dumbing down of America” (to quote him from an earlier answer). I see nothing of the sort. I see it as breaking a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty. My student’s kids will not grow up having the same hurdles he faced. They will have a professional father as a role model, and they will receive good educations in good schools. Success for them will never be in question. Breaking that cycle is good for everyone in society – not just for the individuals who directly see the benefits – but to the community as a whole.
The eventual solution to the problem of racism lies in breaking the cycle of poverty, one individual at a time. Sometimes that can be done with hard work, sometimes that can be done by having someone intervene and help (as I did with this student), and sometimes it is through government assistance. Many times, I think, it takes all three.
Again, thanks for sharing your views – that is what this blog is all about.
– hippieprof
September 20, 2009 at 1:31 pm |
While I agree that everyone can use a hand and a mentor, I don’t agree with Affirmative Action. Dumbing down of standards is what it is, and it’s not racist to ask EVERYONE to be able to reach that standard. What about a white person that’s grown up in a trailer park…why doesn’t he get the same standard lowering as the poor black? No matter how you slice it, you can’t give someone something based on race and then wonder why there is still racism. Help shouldn’t have a color requirement! There are lots of poor in this country of ALL colors. Affirmative action is racist because it pre-determines you are poor and unfortunate because you are black and that is wrong. I’m sure there is a lot of good it was designed to do, but it is what it is.
September 20, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Hunt….
I once lost a job because I was told (off the record, of course) that the department was under orders to hire a minority. I was even told that I was the better candidate. So – I do know how affirmative action can hit you at a personal level. It felt very very unfair. I had to bite my tongue, though – because as tough as it was to lose that job I did believe in the goals of the system. I never once saw it as “dumbing down” – I saw it as an attempt to give people an opportunity to excel where previously they had been denied.
Affirmative action is one way to accomplish that goal. I certainly don’t think it is the best way.
If I ran the zoo, I would invest in education. My goal would be to make every school in the nation equal to the very best school – in terms of teacher quality, available resources, and physical plant.
Education is the key to breaking the cycle of poverty. If everyone in the country had equal access to a high quality education there wouldn’t be any need for affirmative action.
How much would that cost? Lots – but I suspect considerably less than it has cost to invade Iraq.
I will have to think about this more…..
– hippieprof
September 21, 2009 at 8:10 am
Again, we agree that there is merit to a national standard being applied to America’s education system.
Generally speaking I am opposed to big government and opposed to its involvement in our daily lives from cradle to grave, but in this case I am open to the possibilities. What I am concerned with is the quality of the education we would be getting. It is well documented that for years this federal government has been laying down policies which serve to dilute that quality.
I grew up in an Air Force family. We moved around a lot. I mean, a lot. So much in fact that I was often in summer school to make up for the credits accumulated from the previous school which were not recognized by the new school. In a word; it sucked (ok, 2 words).
Having been disadvantaged by the system I didn’t have AA running in to rescue my future. My skin color and gender served against me.
September 20, 2009 at 2:08 pm |
re: Affirmative Action:
I wonder how many people on this list have actually read the enabling legislation and the rules set by corporations and public institutions to be consistent with it.
It does NOT mandate special treatment for any racial group (diversity standards set by some institutions are a different subject).
The language very carefully applies to underrepresented groups and disadvantaged individuals. It applies equally to poor whites and blacks (and anyone else). When I was teaching (I retired last year) we had all sorts of outreach programs targeting all sorts of groups.
And as a Jewish student in the late ’50′s, I know very well what it means to have to meet a higher standard to be admitted to a college that has quotas (as most private schools did then).
September 20, 2009 at 7:55 pm |
Paul, first know that I’m being sincere here – I’m just a bit confused by your statement “It does NOT mandate special treatment for any racial group”
Although I have to admit I have not read the “enabling legislation” I do know that Affirmative Action (AF) attempts to redress racial and sexual discrimination by calling for minorities and women to be given special consideration in employment, education and contracting decisions.
While not specifying a discrete racial group the wording of AF does say “minorities” as it relates to race.
In its modern form, affirmative action can call for an admissions officer faced with two similarly qualified applicants to choose the minority over the white, or for a manager to recruit and hire a qualified woman for a job instead of a man.
So what gives? Isn’t that preferential treatment as mandated by AF?
What am I missing?
September 20, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Here is a very interesting article addressing the myths commonly associated with affirmative action….
http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm
– hippieprof
September 20, 2009 at 9:52 pm |
Ben–
You are correct that Affirmative Action can require that, given two equally qualified job candidates, the member of a disadvantaged class (including, but not limited to racial minorities) be hired.
It does not require that a less qualified minority be hired in preference to a more qualified white male, although some have interpreted it that way (the argument is that if two individuals meet the minimum requirements of the job, the minority be hired).
To my reading, this goes beyond the intent of the legislation.
As I’ve said, I spent forty years involved in making hiring decisions. We often had pressure to hire a member of a protected class, but to the best of my knowledge the individual we hired was never less qualified than other members of the candidate pool.
Again, I know that this is not always the case, and I agree with you that this (hiring less qualified individuals because they’re minorities) is not a good thing. If nothing else, it denigrates minorities!
September 21, 2009 at 7:12 am |
So, I am not confused; AA does “mandate special treatment for any racial group.” Further, it promotes different (preferential) treatment on a basis other than individual merit, in this case race and/or sex which, by definition, is discrimination.
September 20, 2009 at 10:08 am |
My problem with that set up is that racism doesn’t need power to exist. None of the isms do. They all thrive on ignorance.
Racism is so much bigger that anything that fits into the academic/Spike Lee construct.
September 20, 2009 at 11:08 am |
Alfie….
I think we are playing a bit of a semantic game here because we are defining the words differently. Let me try to say this without using terms such as “racism.”
All races – white, black, blue, orange, pink….. have some degree of dislike and distrust of other races. That is certainly true with ALL major US racial groups.
In most countries, including the US, power is unequally distributed across racial groups. This is certainly true in the US. Whites have more power than other racial groups across the entire spectrum of society. This has diminished some in the last 40 years, but the power differential exists.
Because whites have more power, they are able to make their dislike and distrust “stick.” In other words, there are real-world consequences.
African Americans as a group have less power in society – and as a result any “dislike and distrust” of whites can easily be ignored – or even turned against the black community by labeling it as angry and dangerous.
– hippieprof
September 21, 2009 at 8:14 am |
I’ll cut you off at the pass; you’re going to say that compared to my situation there continues to be those with more hardship and are at a greater disadvantage. Noted.
You’re also going to say that my gender and race are so much of an advantage that it overshadows the disadvantages given to me by our government. Noted.
September 21, 2009 at 1:38 pm |
Ben said: I’ll cut you off at the pass; you’re going to say that compared to my situation there continues to be those with more hardship and are at a greater disadvantage. Noted.
You’re also going to say that my gender and race are so much of an advantage that it overshadows the disadvantages given to me by our government. Noted.
Oh – we are getting to know each other too well, huh?
In addition to those things, I would say that the existing situation – with blacks underrepresented in “high level” professions – is self perpetuating. Having money pays for good education (both public and private) – good education in gives better job opportunities – these better jobs give you more money – which buys better education for your kids. Repeat.
Something needs to be done to break that cycle. As I said, affirmative action is one answer. I would prefer to go right to the source of the problem – differential educational opportunity.
– hp
September 21, 2009 at 2:25 pm |
RE:In addition to those things, I would say that the existing situation – with blacks underrepresented in “high level” professions – is self perpetuating. Having money pays for good education (both public and private) – good education in gives better job opportunities – these better jobs give you more money – which buys better education for your kids. Repeat.
I agree for the same reasons. You must be reading my mind now.
Short read, heh?
RE:Something needs to be done to break that cycle.
End AA and free high quality and equal education for all.
It’s sort of on the same page but in my world AA ceases to exist. .. .. like ACORN would.
September 21, 2009 at 8:41 am |
While I might agree with the idea that a nationalized education system may have merits, especially if higher education was free, here’s my other problem with a nationalized education system.
The problem rests upon standards. While it’s safe to say the curriculum
would be the same across the country and addressed the conditions I had been dealt, what isn’t clear is the quality of the education within that curriculum. We’ll just have to leave that up to the “experts” somewhere in the bowels of government I suppose. Remember, these are of the same ilk who gave us that brilliant set of management policies used by the failed GSEs.
The other piece of this problem is that once educated under this system there are going to be those who will be able to do more with that standard education than the guy standing next to him. Some will espouse the notion that because of race and/or gender one is at a disadvantage. Others will want to advance the idea that the success of the one over the other is based strictly upon intellect, cunning, the ability to apply abstract thinking in a real world setting in pursuit of success. Remember the exceptions to this; the minority who rises to brain surgeon strictly on his/her intellect while the white male can’t break out of the waiter job. While I would cite ambition sets the two apart I am reminded of another element. Who has the success? Success is often a state of mind and in that case both have found success in their pursuit of happiness.
So what’s the deal here? Equal education but unequal outcome. There will always be those who believe in the need for yet another institution to even the playing field for the those who couldn’t adjust to the world after giving them the equal tools.
Our mistake is made when we try to artificially create equal opportunity. Someone is always going to be discriminated against. One does not justify the other.
September 21, 2009 at 1:45 pm |
Ben says….. “The other piece of this problem is that once educated under this system there are going to be those who will be able to do more with that standard education than the guy standing next to him.”
You know what I say to that? You will be surprised.
I would say “It is bloody free market – you have the education and it is up to you to do something with it. If you fail, its your own damned fault.”
I don’t think that is discrimination at all. If we give someone an equal opportunity it is up to them to make something out of it.
Certainly, in the transition there might be some cultural issues to overcome. The black community tends to believe that the deck is stacked against them and that success is impossible. It would require some efforts to change that perception – but I suspect that with a quality educational system in place the task would not be terribly difficult. Once a lot of people start succeeding the community will take note.
– hippieprof
September 21, 2009 at 2:41 pm |
RE:I would say “It is bloody free market – you have the education and it is up to you to do something with it. If you fail, its your own damned fault.”
Wow. I … I… I have to go sit down. I’m… stunned. Are you feeling ok, man? Should I call someone for you? Wait, I’m going to go re-read something… ah… here it is..
Matthew 24:5-8 clues to discern the approach of the end times.. ah yes.. wars and rumors of wars, nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. An increase in false messiahs, an increase in warfare, and increases in famines, plagues, and natural disasters—these are signs of the end times. blah, blah,blah. …
Yes! Here it is… “Hippieprof sees that government intervention is not a solution and people should take responsibility for their actions.
Ok. we’re toast.
RE:I don’t think that is discrimination at all. If we give someone an equal opportunity it is up to them to make something out of it.
Agreed.
RE:The black community tends to believe that the deck is stacked against them and that success is impossible.
Confirmation bias?
RE:Certainly, … Once a lot of people start succeeding the community will take note.
Agreed, but there will be this one sad and remaining fact. There will still be those who believe that in spite of the above Utopia, (ok – it IS possible to pull this off with the political motivation so maybe it’s not Utopia… goal might be better) prejudice will still exist and discrimination in the market place will have to be supplanted by AA. We just have to get government to get rid of them some how.
September 21, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Ben exclaims: Yes! Here it is… “Hippieprof sees that government intervention is not a solution and people should take responsibility for their actions.
Sorta – I said government needs to be involved in giving people equal opportunity (that is what I have always taken the “All men are created equal” clause to imply). But – after we succeed in giving them that opportunity it is up to them. A lot of people who have all the advantages now screw it up with drugs or alcohol or crime or laziness – and that is their responsibility. I just want to see that everyone has the same opportunity to blow it….
In all seriousness, there will be some lingering discrimination – but with the educational preparation the currently disadvantaged communities will be in a position to overcome that.
I said: The black community tends to believe that the deck is stacked against them and that success is impossible.
then Ben said: Confirmation bias?
Maybe – but I think there is a lot of real confirmation too. I always come back to the statistic that black males are more likely to go to prison than to go to college. That statistic certainly says “why try – you will fail anyway.”
– hippieprof
September 22, 2009 at 10:02 am
Education is one part of the solution; job opportunity is the other part.
When you look at the unemployment rate in black communities (remember that that calculation is based on those actively looking for jobs, not those who have dropped out of the labor force) you can see that alternatives to “drugs or alcohol or crime” are not always available.
Crime may be the best choice in a rational job market (if you believe in a free market based on rational choice).
September 22, 2009 at 11:12 am
Freakonomics had a chapter that spoke to the drug thing. Also McWhorter’s Losing the Race sources many things focusing on Indianapolis that speaks to the opportunity piece.I also remember a piece I read somewhere about the underground economy in America poorer areas which was excellent. bottomline the opps are there as well as the energy amongst the people there is however a serious disconnect somewhere.
September 21, 2009 at 10:55 am |
Ben–
Right now public school curriculum is being set by governmental agencies;
in this case the state boards of education of California and Texas.
Their textbook purchases are so big that textbook publishers edit their texts to meet the standards of those two states; the rest of us have to live with it.
If might be nice if local school boards really did determine curriculum, but in fact their curriculum choice is based on which nationally published textbook series they decide to purchase (my wife has been a school board member and elementary school principal for many years, so I do know something about this).
And of course, as is the case with health care, European and Asian countries with national education standards have better outcomes than we do (and you can’t blame it on demographics any more — Western European countries have their own ethnic underclasses).
And on the equal opportunity front, the question is, given several hundred years of arbitrary and decidedly unequal opportunity, it is sufficient simply to create of ‘free market place’ of opportunity.
The quality of one’s education is determined by one’s childhood experiences (interactions with parents, siblings and friends) as well as formal education. This generates a self-perpetuating cycle of caste immobility where a child’s future is largely (nothing is certain) determined by her birth status.
BTW — there is in fact more social mobility in Western Europe than in the USA, contrary to our national myth.
September 21, 2009 at 11:38 am |
RE:BTW — there is in fact more social mobility in Western Europe than in the USA, contrary to our national myth.
I didn’t know there was a myth about this, but I think there is a band of wild eyed Muslims in France who might differ on this. I recall riots a few summers ago. Even still, your point may still be valid.
Over all I think you help make my point; it might benefit the country to have national education standards, release the graduates into the wild marketplace and let the chips fall where they may.
RE:And on the equal opportunity front, the question is, given several hundred years of arbitrary and decidedly unequal opportunity, it is sufficient simply to create of ‘free market place’ of opportunity.
Again we are on the same page. I do not believe we really need AA. We think we do, but we don’t. Its existence may even be due to attitude polarization. The real solution may very well be education standards instead of AA.
September 21, 2009 at 1:49 pm |
HP This may seem off the wall but you are an interesting person to ask this.
Do you think there are a lot of people entering college that shouldn’t be there ? What opinion if any do you have to the thought that America over emphasizes college ed ?
September 21, 2009 at 1:57 pm |
To slightly redefine the question:
Are the colleges being attended by most students now the same sort of institution that we called a ‘college’ fifty years ago?
September 21, 2009 at 2:47 pm |
Implying a watered down curriculum?
September 21, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
Ben Says:
Implying a watered down curriculum?
The flip answer is: to match the watered down students.
It is certainly true that the reading assignments I was required to do at an elite school in the early ’60s would provoke insurrection now, as well as being beyond the reading capabilities of some students admitted to the state college/university that I taught at.
The more serious answer is that the increase in the number of students has mostly been accommodated by the expansion of the public higher education system, both by expanding enrollments at state colleges (and rebranding them state universities) and by rebranding vocational/technical schools and community colleges as comprehensive four year institutions.
A far greater proportion of the student population is enrolling in programs designed to prepare them for specific occupations rather than as generalists (not a whole lot of liberal arts majors any more).
In other words, different schools serving different students.
If you adopt the standards of fifty years ago, you might call it a watered down curriculum, but I don’t think that that’s an appropriate comparison.
You could talk about a watered down curriculum only in the case of the same programs at the same schools with the same admission requirements reducing the rigour of their programs.
September 21, 2009 at 3:12 pm |
Alfie,
That is a really interesting question – and it has a complex answer.
I personally don’t see a lot of students who “shouldn’t be there” (at least for academic reasons) because I teach at a highly selective private college and we don’t sample the low end of the curve.
I do believe that many students entering college these days are simply not well prepared to be there. Public high schools in particular are doing an awful job of preparing students in basics like mathematics and writing. This isn’t anything new, either: I went to private Catholic schools all the way through highschool and I was absolutely astounded when I got to college at how much better prepared I was. I was actually taught how to write in highschool. I occasionally teach a first-year writing course now and I am consistently amazed at how poorly prepared incoming students are.
Now – before Ben jumps in with “dumbing down of America” I don’t think this is something you can blame on affirmative action. Our teacher education programs are poor, and teacher salaries are too low to attract the best and the brightest. Teachers unions fight against quality standards (don’t faint – that is a conservative talking point). Funding of schools based on property taxes is a terrible solution because it distributes education in proportion to wealth. On top of that, people are stingy in supporting school levies.
That last one really gets to me. I get really steamed that parents will buy their kids a $300.00 iPhone but scream like hell when a school levy wants to increase their taxes by $300.00. I know – free market. But you know, sometimes the free market is damned stupid.
Paul is right to point out that college isn’t what it used to be. I actually believe we should be pushing college more – or better yet we should be pushing highschools and gradeschools to do their job.
– hippieprof
September 21, 2009 at 3:33 pm |
RE:Now – before Ben jumps in with “dumbing down of America” …
DOH!
…I don’t think this is something you can blame on affirmative action.
Agreed. I don’t believe our watered down or dumbed down currickyoulum is caused by AA. AA enables those who can make it because of the dumbed down currickyoulum.
RE:Funding of schools based on property taxes is a terrible solution because it distributes education in proportion to wealth.
I think we addressed that problem in Texas with the Robin Hood act. The Robin Hood school finance program has been largely successful in substantially equalizing 90 percent of Texas school districts’ spending per student.
The system restricts the school districts’ tax rate for management and operation costs to $1.50 per $100 of property wealth. Also, high-wealth school districts have to keep their wealth level at $295,000 per student. The revenues above this limit will be redistributed to low-wealth districts in order to achieve equity.
In Houston, for example, Houston Independent School District has a property wealth of $239,246 per student and receives a state aid of $1,474 per pupil at a tax rate of about $1.52 per $100 of taxable property.
Despite the system’s success in reducing the disparities between school districts’ wealth, some unanticipated problems have surfaced.
“[The plan] has been successful in bringing the property wealth of wealthy districts down,” Wisnosky said. “It has been less successful in bringing the wealth of poor districts up.”
“Inflation, along with ever-increasing state and local [performance] demands, are driving up the cost of education faster than the legislature is providing new funding.”
February 21, 2010 at 10:42 pm |
[...] http://hippieprofessor.com/2009/09/16/the-subtlety-of-modern-racism/ [...]