Physical Revue says "Whiteboards are Racist"

[zapatos]

36 minutes ago, iNow said:

Thinking through how else we might approach this without explicit focus on race. 

Possibly we could enact a universal basic income program indexed to current wealth and income. Means tested. More for lower incomes, less for higher incomes. 

It addresses concerns of new racism, but since wealth among non-white Americans is orders of magnitude lower it has the potential to address the same core issues without the semantic baggage. It naturally seems more fair.  

Since it only address wealth, it seems to me this does not address reparations for the past targeting of black people. I don't necessarily object to a universal basic income program, but without explicitly addressing transgressions based on race I don't know if this will be seen by people who were so affected as a satisfactory solution.

It feels to me like a way around having to do the hard part of admitting we were wrong.

It also reminds me of the boss at work, when dealing with a bad behavior by a single employee, implements a new policy for ALL employees just because he doesn't want the confrontation with the one bad employee.

If we targeted people by race, we should make sure that we loudly proclaim that race has to be addressed in the solution. Otherwise we'll spend the next 100 years trying to get the government to fully and unambiguously address the issue.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Justice Thomas has long been strident in his opposition to affirmative action, but even his colleagues on the court suggest that he's too often arguing against strawmen and nonexistent bogeymen. He's attacking a fantasy and hyperbole more than real world problems.

I was thankful to see Justice Jackson calling him out on it

Justice Sotomayor also had some choice feedback when the right leaning justices invoked former NAACP civil rights attorney and SCOTUS Justice Thurgood Marshall (who argued Plessy v Ferguson) as a way of supporting this color blind issue we’ve been facing here in this thread. She said:

Quote

The court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter.”

 

47 minutes ago, zapatos said:

It feels to me like a way around having to do the hard part of admitting we were wrong.

Exactly, but progress is progress. I’d equally support an extra “kicker” or bonus payment for our fellow citizens who happen to be black. 

Maybe if we keep compromising by half over and over again, we might back ourselves into a “Zeno’s Paradox” path to an actual workable solution on this.  

[zapatos]

49 minutes ago, iNow said:

Exactly, but progress is progress. I’d equally support an extra “kicker” or bonus payment for our fellow citizens who happen to be black. 

 

Maybe the extra bonus is not money but an admission of what we did, an apology, a vow never to do so again, and the implementation of new laws that cement our vow.

[MigL]

We are not going to solve the World's, or even America's, problems here, but I'm glad to see people actively suggesting solutions, instead of posting pictures of pots and kettles.
I still like Zap's idea of an additional restitution in the way of education funding for black Americans, because we all know what an apology and a promise from the Government is worth.

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Thinking through how else we might approach this without explicit focus on race. 

Possibly we could enact a universal basic income program indexed to current wealth and income. Means tested. More for lower incomes, less for higher incomes. 

It addresses concerns of new racism, but since wealth among non-white Americans is orders of magnitude lower it has the potential to address the same core issues without the semantic baggage. It naturally seems more fair.  

If we move away from the notion of addressing past wrongs a bit and more towards addressing existing consequences of existing inequalities, we could look at issues surrounding college admissions. As a degree is a multiplier of wealth, but has wealth-based gatekeeping (especially in countries with high tuition fees, such as USA, Canada, UK, etc.), access does have financial consequences down the road.

That being said, universities are generally more interested in maintaining a diverse student body (which benefits them in several ways, ranging from international recruiting, to teaching environment).

In the US, abolishing affirmative action in a number of states have resulted in a significant drop in especially Hispanic and black students. Since then, admission folks have tried to figure out how to bolster diversity without using race. Other factors, e.g. grades, wealth, activities etc. have always been on the books, but just using those has not been very successful. I.e. bolstering low income students, mostly elevated Asian and white students but kept disadvantaging black and Hispanic students. What folks seem to arrive at this point (which is also mentioned in the ruling) is that universities might encourage students to write how their upbringing and background has affected their lives as part of the essay element. In a way, this avoids a potential blanket bonus (such as with wealth), but requires a narrative of sorts. The issue there, is then one of support, as both affluential folks but also less affluent white and potentially Asian folks might get more support in drafting these assays (as they generally have access to better high-schools). 

Realistically speaking though, if one wants to level the playing field and provide equal chances to everyone, the groundwork has to be done. Which means providing infrastructure and support in underserviced areas (better school, better healthcare) and you can do that by zip code. Realistically it would be pretty much the same as targeting black and Hispanic neighborhoods but it would avoid talking about race. It is a bit like doing a tap dancing around the issue and despite the fact that I hate the term, it sounds a bit like virtue signaling (we can only address the issue by not naming it).

Like treating cancer but not call it that. But if it helps, it sure is better than nothing.

 

[StringJunky]

51 minutes ago, CharonY said:

If we move away from the notion of addressing past wrongs a bit and more towards addressing existing consequences of existing inequalities, we could look at issues surrounding college admissions. As a degree is a multiplier of wealth, but has wealth-based gatekeeping (especially in countries with high tuition fees, such as USA, Canada, UK, etc.), access does have financial consequences down the road.

That being said, universities are generally more interested in maintaining a diverse student body (which benefits them in several ways, ranging from international recruiting, to teaching environment).

In the US, abolishing affirmative action in a number of states have resulted in a significant drop in especially Hispanic and black students. Since then, admission folks have tried to figure out how to bolster diversity without using race. Other factors, e.g. grades, wealth, activities etc. have always been on the books, but just using those has not been very successful. I.e. bolstering low income students, mostly elevated Asian and white students but kept disadvantaging black and Hispanic students. What folks seem to arrive at this point (which is also mentioned in the ruling) is that universities might encourage students to write how their upbringing and background has affected their lives as part of the essay element. In a way, this avoids a potential blanket bonus (such as with wealth), but requires a narrative of sorts. The issue there, is then one of support, as both affluential folks but also less affluent white and potentially Asian folks might get more support in drafting these assays (as they generally have access to better high-schools). 

Realistically speaking though, if one wants to level the playing field and provide equal chances to everyone, the groundwork has to be done. Which means providing infrastructure and support in underserviced areas (better school, better healthcare) and you can do that by zip code. Realistically it would be pretty much the same as targeting black and Hispanic neighborhoods but it would avoid talking about race. It is a bit like doing a tap dancing around the issue and despite the fact that I hate the term, it sounds a bit like virtue signaling (we can only address the issue by not naming it).

Like treating cancer but not call it that. But if it helps, it sure is better than nothing.

 

Find another commonality unrelated to skin tone  between all black people, and use that. I thought of sickle cell, but that's only 1 in 13; thinking like the GOP here.

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Justice Sotomayor also had some choice feedback when the right leaning justices invoked former NAACP civil rights attorney and SCOTUS Justice Thurgood Marshall (who argued Plessy v Ferguson)

 Maybe I misread you, but did you mean Brown v Topeka Board of Education, 1954?  Marshall definitely argued for Oliver Brown on that one, when he was an NAACP attorney.  The SCOTUS decision then partially overruled the 1896 Plessy decision.  (iirc, another decision finished off the rest of it)  

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Realistically speaking though, if one wants to level the playing field and provide equal chances to everyone, the groundwork has to be done. Which means providing infrastructure and support in underserviced areas (better school, better healthcare) and you can do that by zip code. Realistically it would be pretty much the same as targeting black and Hispanic neighborhoods but it would avoid talking about race. It is a bit like doing a tap dancing around the issue and despite the fact that I hate the term, it sounds a bit like virtue signaling (we can only address the issue by not naming it).

The simplest tap dance I can think of is outreach to those who lived childhood below the poverty line and would be first-gen college students.  This would also defuse the victimization narrative from the white rural poor.  Where my spouse grew up, at the hub of a mostly rural area of Arkansas, this was a common narrative of resentment - If I were just black, they woulda given me a ticket to U of A!  That grievance story has legs like you wouldn't believe.

Sorry,  the quote above belongs to @CharonY, but I must have clipped it from Stringys post and the software doesn't nest quotes.

[StringJunky]

20 minutes ago, TheVat said:

 Maybe I misread you, but did you mean Brown v Topeka Board of Education, 1954?  Marshall definitely argued for Oliver Brown on that one, when he was an NAACP attorney.  The SCOTUS decision then partially overruled the 1896 Plessy decision.  (iirc, another decision finished off the rest of it)  

The simplest tap dance I can think of is outreach to those who lived childhood below the poverty line and would be first-gen college students.  This would also defuse the victimization narrative from the white rural poor.  Where my spouse grew up, at the hub of a mostly rural area of Arkansas, this was a common narrative of resentment - If I were just black, they woulda given me a ticket to U of A!  That grievance story has legs like you wouldn't believe.

Sorry,  the quote above belongs to @CharonY, but I must have clipped it from Stringys post and the software doesn't nest quotes.

No probs. 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

 Maybe I misread you, but did you mean Brown v Topeka Board of Education, 1954?  Marshall definitely argued for Oliver Brown on that one, when he was an NAACP attorney.  The SCOTUS decision then partially overruled the 1896 Plessy decision.  (iirc, another decision finished off the rest of it)  

The simplest tap dance I can think of is outreach to those who lived childhood below the poverty line and would be first-gen college students.  This would also defuse the victimization narrative from the white rural poor.  Where my spouse grew up, at the hub of a mostly rural area of Arkansas, this was a common narrative of resentment - If I were just black, they woulda given me a ticket to U of A!  That grievance story has legs like you wouldn't believe.

Sorry,  the quote above belongs to @CharonY, but I must have clipped it from Stringys post and the software doesn't nest quotes.

It may depend on location, but studies in a range of states (I believe I have seen data from Michigan, Texas and California, at least) have shown that class and socioeconomic status (and I am pretty sure it included first-gen college students) did not really increase diversity by much mostly it benefitted white folks. In fact, in some universities coming from rural communities is seen as a plus.

But there is a general issue when looking at the lowest parts of the economic ladder. Here, students are already struggling in school and as you know, admissions first check whether students pass a minimum qualification bar (with different unis having different baselines). 

But obviously if folks barely get a high school degree because they have to help out at home or work, or suffer from hunger, it will be difficult to even consider a college education. Effectively it is necessary that they are good enough to get a full scholarship, and even it could be a struggle as they often have less or no support and financial contingencies as other students.

So those that succeed tend to have some sort of support, such as being poor but at least to live near a school that is not totally gutted financially. And (un)surprisingly enough we will find more white kids in this particular segment. 

There is also one interesting tidbit regarding rural schools in the US. I remember seeing a graph on national test scores and while rural America was somewhat lagging, the reverse is true in the low-income segment. I.e. low-income students had generally lower scores compared to high-income students overall, but rural low-income students had actually slightly better scores than non-rural low income students.

Also another finding was (IIRC) that some of the biggest gaps between rural and non-rural populations are found among white folks (i.e. non-rural white students had way higher scores than their rural counterparts). That is, white rural students are not really outcompeted by black students, but by non-rural white students.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

Maybe I misread you, but did you mean Brown v Topeka Board of Education, 1954?

No. Brain fart. Meant Brown v Board, not Plessy. My bad. Should obviously stop posting while carrying sheets of plywood.

Intended point was to remind that Brown v Board of Education is what ended school segregation. Marshall argued it and won, but the lone dissenter in that landmark ruling used the same color blind language our modern Justices cited to end affirmative action just this week.