Full Version: Education Resegregation
Every time a pollster inquires about the priorities of the American voter, education is rightly and consistently in the top ten.
However, the debate on education seems a bit stilted. Even here at
.
It seems the focus is off. We decry our lagging behind other rich nations in math and science performance, but the solution is presented as a matter of curriculum and expectations.
The fact is both are drops in the bucket. A true improvement in American education needs to focus on those lagging behind in basic skills which are required for any change in upper-level curriculum to make a difference.
I think one of the best things about black history month is that it bring into focus the staggering negative effect that the history racism and discrimination has had on every aspect of the American life.
In order to move forward more quickly I think we must move beyond that dynamic on a practical level rather than philosophically or even legally.
Which is why the phenomenon of resegregation is so disheartening.
Schools More Separate: Consequences of a Decade of Resegregation
Many are unaware of the history of legal integration post-Brown.
Resegregation in American Schools
The affects of this as well as the phenomenon of "white flight" to the suburbs are clear.
The report ends on what I see as a positive note.
Is "de facto" segregation in public schooling detrimental to American Society?
Is it inevitable?
If not, what can be done to address the issue?
However, the debate on education seems a bit stilted. Even here at
.It seems the focus is off. We decry our lagging behind other rich nations in math and science performance, but the solution is presented as a matter of curriculum and expectations.
The fact is both are drops in the bucket. A true improvement in American education needs to focus on those lagging behind in basic skills which are required for any change in upper-level curriculum to make a difference.
I think one of the best things about black history month is that it bring into focus the staggering negative effect that the history racism and discrimination has had on every aspect of the American life.
In order to move forward more quickly I think we must move beyond that dynamic on a practical level rather than philosophically or even legally.
Which is why the phenomenon of resegregation is so disheartening.
QUOTE(Harvard Civil Rights Project)
new statistics from the 1998-99 school year show that segregation
continued to intensify throughout the 1990s, a period in which there were three major Supreme Court decisions authorizing a return to segregated neighborhood schools and limiting the reach and duration of desegregation orders. For African American students, this trend is particularly apparent in the South, where most blacks live and where the 2000 Census shows a continuing return from the North. From 1988 to 1998, most of the progress of the previous two decades in increasing integration in the region was lost. The South is still much more integrated than it was before the civil rights revolution, but it is moving backward at an accelerating rate.
continued to intensify throughout the 1990s, a period in which there were three major Supreme Court decisions authorizing a return to segregated neighborhood schools and limiting the reach and duration of desegregation orders. For African American students, this trend is particularly apparent in the South, where most blacks live and where the 2000 Census shows a continuing return from the North. From 1988 to 1998, most of the progress of the previous two decades in increasing integration in the region was lost. The South is still much more integrated than it was before the civil rights revolution, but it is moving backward at an accelerating rate.
Schools More Separate: Consequences of a Decade of Resegregation
Many are unaware of the history of legal integration post-Brown.
QUOTE
When President Kennedy asked Congress in 1964 to prohibit discrimination in all programs receiving
federal aid, 98% of Southern blacks were still in totally segregated schools.
The peak of the effort to desegregate the schools came in the late l960s and early 1970s. The only period
in which there was active positive support by both the courts and the executive branch of the government was the
four years following the enactment of the l964 Civil Rights Act.
federal aid, 98% of Southern blacks were still in totally segregated schools.
The peak of the effort to desegregate the schools came in the late l960s and early 1970s. The only period
in which there was active positive support by both the courts and the executive branch of the government was the
four years following the enactment of the l964 Civil Rights Act.
QUOTE
In 1973, the Supreme Court in a case from Denver, Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, extended desegregation requirements to Northern and Western cities with a history of local policies that fostered but did not directly require segregation. This case also recognized the right of Latino as well as African American students to desegregated education. But the expansion of desegregation rights ended 25 years ago, with the Supreme Court's decision in Milliken v. Bradley, which would have desegregated students from the largely minority city schools with suburban students in metropolitan Detroit. This rule was made in spite of findings of intentional discrimination by both state and local officials, which intensified segregation in the metropolitan area
Resegregation in American Schools
The affects of this as well as the phenomenon of "white flight" to the suburbs are clear.
QUOTE
In spite of the rapid increase in minority enrollment, white students in most states had relatively few
minority classmates. Even in the District of Columbia, where less than one student in twenty was white, the typical white student was in a class with a slight majority of whites. Even as the white proportion of students was dropping nationally, they managed to remain segregated from growing minority populations.
minority classmates. Even in the District of Columbia, where less than one student in twenty was white, the typical white student was in a class with a slight majority of whites. Even as the white proportion of students was dropping nationally, they managed to remain segregated from growing minority populations.
The report ends on what I see as a positive note.
QUOTE
Segregation is not inevitable. It declined sharply for a long time when there was a serious effort for change a generation ago. While segregation is far from the only problem facing American schools, it makes the other problems worse and takes away an important tool for teaching people of differing backgrounds how to live and work and run communities together.
Is "de facto" segregation in public schooling detrimental to American Society?
Is it inevitable?
If not, what can be done to address the issue?
QUOTE(turnea @ Feb 5 2007, 02:24 PM) 
Is "de facto" segregation in public schooling detrimental to American Society?
Is it inevitable?
If not, what can be done to address the issue?
Interesting topic Turnea. I believe that I have some interesting insight.
In Shreveport, Louisiana during the early-mid 90's, the city made a decision to create a "magnet" program at a larger city school with a less than efficient record. Basically, what they'd do is take kids in "accelerated classes" city wide and send them to this school for Math and Science based programs. It would allow the school, basically, to become more integrated. The integration part worked on a peripheral level, but there were still stark divides, and significant cultural clashes. I was a part of this "integration". They touted large integration numbers, improvement of said school's academic record, etc.
Simply put, what happened is that the suburban kids who went to the school kept to themselves, of course excepting when fighting the urban kids. They rarely shared classes, and most often didn't socialize except on the football field/basketball court, which often resulted in fights and still hasn't created a decent football/basketball team over a decade later. The strides in SAT/ACT scores, etc, were nearly 100% proven to come from the kids that they "folded" into this school. From outside this school, it looked integrated, but 10 steps in the front door proved otherwise.
Basically, it has and still does create two things. 1.- Akward school dividing lines, often in the form of "magnet wings" and sporting teams that these kids just don't participate in (on both sides) and 2.- Kids going to private schools instead.
Your articles mention white flight, and I think that you've missed some significant points that have little or nothing to do with race. It really centers, particularly in the south, around Socio-Economics. It's not that Billy's Dad doesn't want to send his kid to school with black kids, it's just that the inner city schools come with a subset of issues that often prevent academic excellence. Financing issues, disruptive behavior, etc. These all contribute to poor academics. Billy's dad often would send his mom to work to pay for private school tuition (not in my case, of course!). This happens in the US ALOT. I don't even have kids, and I purchased in a neighborhood that has state records for academia.
The issue remains. If my future children were to go to a school where forced social integration diminished the value of the education, I'd either sell and move (as our neighborhood is overpriced for this reason) or put the kid(s) in private school. This still is going to create a "perceived" atmosphere of segregation.
The fact is that defacto segregation also relies on a number of completely independant factors, such as choice, values statements proven in purchasing, and economic standing that no government legislation has proven to change. I find it interesting that people have/do entertain the notion of forced geographical integration within cities particularly when choice has forced cities to be segregated. The US gov't will never effectively address poor education in poor schools without inevitably addressing why education is poor in those areas. Cultural values of poor people, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and the unfortunate lack of parental involvment all play into the lack of success. However- I believe that if we introduced competition into the scenario, for instance allowing inner city/black kids to go to private schools for no cost to the families (ie. vouchers subsidized based on income), you might see some results.
I don't believe that American Society suffers as a general rule, as this socio economic issues of this nature are part of the belly of Capitalism and inevitable. However, the real issue arises when people allow generations of our youth to be left alone in one specific demographic. I believe grants, scholarships, and other higher education initiatives to let black kids go to college has helped... but obviously not enough. We need to allow private enterprise to attempt to make a difference. Our public education systems are borderline socialist in that they never suffer from poor performance, yet still maintain consistent (if not more) funding. It's a strange and ineffective dichotemy that would never happen in a capitalist system.
QUOTE(aevans176)
In Shreveport, Louisiana during the early-mid 90's, the city made a decision to create a "magnet" program at a larger city school with a less than efficient record. Basically, what they'd do is take kids in "accelerated classes" city wide and send them to this school for Math and Science based programs. It would allow the school, basically, to become more integrated. The integration part worked on a peripheral level, but there were still stark divides, and significant cultural clashes. I was a part of this "integration". They touted large integration numbers, improvement of said school's academic record, etc.
I'm a magnet school grad myself. Attended the Alabama School of Fine Arts in downtown Birmingham. (I was a Math & Science major, art crossed the street when it saw me coming.)
Surprise, surprise my anecdotes are different. In was my best experience with the practical value of a multicultural society.
As much as I'd love to rehash the ASFA days, swapping anecdotes solve nothing. The fact is desegregation has been shown to improve education time and time again.
QUOTE
Desegregation was not ordered as an educational treatment but to end deeply rooted patterns of illegal
separation of students. Nevertheless, there is evidence that desegregation both improves test scores and changes the lives of students.[...]A recent study of elite law schools shows, for example, that almost all of the black and Latino students who made it into those schools came from integrated educational backgrounds. Minority students with the same test scores tend to be much more successful in college if they attended interracial high schools. In addition, recent surveys show that both white and minority students in integrated school districts tend to report by large majorities that they have learned to study and work together and that they are highly confiden['t about their ability to work in such settings as adults.
separation of students. Nevertheless, there is evidence that desegregation both improves test scores and changes the lives of students.[...]A recent study of elite law schools shows, for example, that almost all of the black and Latino students who made it into those schools came from integrated educational backgrounds. Minority students with the same test scores tend to be much more successful in college if they attended interracial high schools. In addition, recent surveys show that both white and minority students in integrated school districts tend to report by large majorities that they have learned to study and work together and that they are highly confiden['t about their ability to work in such settings as adults.
QUOTE
Research that The Civil Rights Project and others conducted in colleges clearly showed such benefits for white students, whose previous schooling had been the most segregated, and this research was recognized by the Supreme Court in upholding affirmative action. A recent national poll in 2004 found that close to two-thirds of Americans surveyed believe it is “very important” that colleges and universities prepare students to participate in a diverse society. Further, more than 70 percent of those surveyed believed that students acquiring a diverse educational experience on college and university campuses would bring society together.
Not only does desegregation benefits all races, but most Americans know it.
QUOTE(aeveans176)
Your articles mention white flight, and I think that you've missed some significant points that have little or nothing to do with race. It really centers, particularly in the south, around Socio-Economics. It's not that Billy's Dad doesn't want to send his kid to school with black kids, it's just that the inner city schools come with a subset of issues that often prevent academic excellence. Financing issues, disruptive behavior, etc. These all contribute to poor academics. Billy's dad often would send his mom to work to pay for private school tuition (not in my case, of course!). This happens in the US ALOT. I don't even have kids, and I purchased in a neighborhood that has state records for academia.
That would be bad enough if it were actually true. I frown equally on the class segregation our schools often see but I'll settle that topic later.
The fact is that the white students, even those of poor backgrounds are still segregated from other races. The schools tend to break down along racial lines even more than socioeconomics.
I've covered the "culture" issue in other debates and the fact is the "culture" nonsense directed at the poor in this country is a pure red herring.
Schools with poorer districts are consistently under-resourced and have substantially less spending per pupil than rich, suburban districts. This includes worse training for teachers, worse buildings, not enough books.
Texas knows this very well as the Kirby decision laid out the failure of the state to provide equal opportunity public education.
QUOTE
Because of the disparities in district property wealth, spending per student varies widely, ranging from $2,112 to $19,333. Under the existing system, an average of $2,000 more per year is spent on each of the 150,000 students in the wealthiest districts than is spent on the 150,000 students in the poorest districts. The lower expenditures in the property-poor districts are not the result of lack of tax effort. Generally, the property-rich districts can tax low and spend high while the property-poor districts must tax high merely to spend low. In 1985-86, local tax rates ranged from $.09 to $1.55 per $100 valuation. The 100 poorest districts had an average tax rate of 74.5 cents and spent an average of $2,978 per student. The 100 wealthiest districts had an average tax rate of 47 cents and spent an average of $7,233 per student.[...]
We hold that the state's school financing system is neither financially efficient nor efficient in the sense of providing for a "general diffusion of knowledge" statewide, and therefore that it violates article VII, section 1 of the Texas Constitution. Efficiency does not require a per capita distribution, but it also does not allow concentrations of resources in property-rich school districts that are taxing low when property-poor districts that are taxing high cannot generate sufficient revenues to meet even minimum standards. There must be a direct and close correlation between a district's tax effort and the educational resources available to it;
in other words, districts must have substantially equal access to similar revenues per pupil at
similar levels of tax effort.
We hold that the state's school financing system is neither financially efficient nor efficient in the sense of providing for a "general diffusion of knowledge" statewide, and therefore that it violates article VII, section 1 of the Texas Constitution. Efficiency does not require a per capita distribution, but it also does not allow concentrations of resources in property-rich school districts that are taxing low when property-poor districts that are taxing high cannot generate sufficient revenues to meet even minimum standards. There must be a direct and close correlation between a district's tax effort and the educational resources available to it;
in other words, districts must have substantially equal access to similar revenues per pupil at
similar levels of tax effort.
Edgewood v. Kirby, 777 S.W.2d 391 (TX 1989)
That's the state own Supreme Court talking.
Integration does not lower education quality, the failure to distribute funds equitably does.
Culture isn't even close to explaining the real problem in America's urban schools.
Is "de facto" segregation in public schooling detrimental to American Society?
It sure as heck is. De facto segregation is much more severe here in the South than in other parts of the country as the segregations still tends to occur within the income segregated urban/suburbans cocktail of modern metropolitan life.
However, this type of segregation also occurs in crippling ways in most major urban centers outside the Mason-Dixon Dixieland.
Segregation is a dangerous thing and it contributes to outrageous mutual misunderstanding and growing group distrust that is a pattern of divisiveness that weakens our nation.
Is it inevitable?
Heck no. But, we tend to make the very important decision about where we live, very carefully. Few people want their life to be a social engineering experiment, and fewer want to do this to their children. So we tend to be careful where we could heal divisions in this country the most. The most promising thing I see in todays re-segregation is that often the racial animosity is significantly toned down about it. Those with $$ try to buy into the highest level of social benefits they can afford and schooling is a part of this.
It has been a long time since I heard of people abandoning a neighborhood area because one or two minority families moved in. On the other hand I left a neighborhood that was very racially/ethnically mixed to move to a predominantly white suburb when it came time to enroll my oldest in kindergarten. I think the main factor for me was the obvious hastening decline of the area.
If not, what can be done to address the issue?
Reaching out more. We tend to live more and more class segregated lives. If we could spend a little more time trying to consciously engage in the varying communities in our worlds in good faith, we would discover some of the best things about our country. In most of our communities there are communal events to immerse yourself in. We are extremely talented at getting into a narrow social world and never depart from it. It takes effort to take a risk and be the other and enter into other communities in a spirit of good faith and exploration. Just like engaging in service, these frightening actions can be among the most rewarding things we can do.
Basically, it has and still does create two things. 1.- Akward school dividing lines, often in the form of "magnet wings" and sporting teams that these kids just don't participate in (on both sides) and 2.- Kids going to private schools instead.
.......
I believe that if we introduced competition into the scenario, for instance allowing inner city/black kids to go to private schools for no cost to the families (ie. vouchers subsidized based on income), you might see some results.
Aevans I believe a causal reading of our posts would reveal a genuine disagreement between us on this subject. I share Turnea's concerns about blaming all education issues on culture. There are problems with a culture of poverty that make parental support of education more difficult. Families with more significant problems also tend to land in poverty and are less able to fully support the education of their children. I believe in families asserting the value of education into their children's lives. I also believe we have a shrinking value of education across the spectrum in this country.
I see a stark contradiction in your logic here. Magnet schools are set up to provide a strong academic culture of a certain type, and I am familiar with the excellent school Turnea went to and was involved in an extensive interview at the school's Mobile (technical not arts) campus. In a very segregated state with strong social inertia propelling racism into the future, that school was a wonderful example of diversity in action in a successful academic environment.
If magnet schools will fail to integrate communities as they cling to separated wings, how would a private school fix the problem? I do not share your commitment to capitalism. I believe that capitalism and its emphasis on the commitment to amoral pursuit of profit is ill suited to creating education but it is well suited to attracting $$'s.
Capitalism has, I believe, effectively created a system in which societies tend to get wealthier when compared to other systems, but the benefits of that wealth leave too many behind. This happens for areas (think of how American capitalism left the Tennessee River Valley behind or the very slow arrival of electricity to rural areas) as well as for groups and classes. If there is a value to be had in promoting racism, the capitalist model will produce the wealth from that value.
I don't see a clear connection between the social choices that we make and the capitalist system. by this I mean that the capitalist model follows our social practices it does not dictate them. If we create a demand for outfits with white hoods and gasoline and wooden crosses, the market will bring those goods to market.
If we create a demand for community centers and outreach programs, the market will create those too.
It sure as heck is. De facto segregation is much more severe here in the South than in other parts of the country as the segregations still tends to occur within the income segregated urban/suburbans cocktail of modern metropolitan life.
However, this type of segregation also occurs in crippling ways in most major urban centers outside the Mason-Dixon Dixieland.
Segregation is a dangerous thing and it contributes to outrageous mutual misunderstanding and growing group distrust that is a pattern of divisiveness that weakens our nation.
Is it inevitable?
Heck no. But, we tend to make the very important decision about where we live, very carefully. Few people want their life to be a social engineering experiment, and fewer want to do this to their children. So we tend to be careful where we could heal divisions in this country the most. The most promising thing I see in todays re-segregation is that often the racial animosity is significantly toned down about it. Those with $$ try to buy into the highest level of social benefits they can afford and schooling is a part of this.
It has been a long time since I heard of people abandoning a neighborhood area because one or two minority families moved in. On the other hand I left a neighborhood that was very racially/ethnically mixed to move to a predominantly white suburb when it came time to enroll my oldest in kindergarten. I think the main factor for me was the obvious hastening decline of the area.
If not, what can be done to address the issue?
Reaching out more. We tend to live more and more class segregated lives. If we could spend a little more time trying to consciously engage in the varying communities in our worlds in good faith, we would discover some of the best things about our country. In most of our communities there are communal events to immerse yourself in. We are extremely talented at getting into a narrow social world and never depart from it. It takes effort to take a risk and be the other and enter into other communities in a spirit of good faith and exploration. Just like engaging in service, these frightening actions can be among the most rewarding things we can do.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Feb 5 2007, 04:46 PM)
Basically, it has and still does create two things. 1.- Akward school dividing lines, often in the form of "magnet wings" and sporting teams that these kids just don't participate in (on both sides) and 2.- Kids going to private schools instead.
.......
I believe that if we introduced competition into the scenario, for instance allowing inner city/black kids to go to private schools for no cost to the families (ie. vouchers subsidized based on income), you might see some results.
Aevans I believe a causal reading of our posts would reveal a genuine disagreement between us on this subject. I share Turnea's concerns about blaming all education issues on culture. There are problems with a culture of poverty that make parental support of education more difficult. Families with more significant problems also tend to land in poverty and are less able to fully support the education of their children. I believe in families asserting the value of education into their children's lives. I also believe we have a shrinking value of education across the spectrum in this country.
I see a stark contradiction in your logic here. Magnet schools are set up to provide a strong academic culture of a certain type, and I am familiar with the excellent school Turnea went to and was involved in an extensive interview at the school's Mobile (technical not arts) campus. In a very segregated state with strong social inertia propelling racism into the future, that school was a wonderful example of diversity in action in a successful academic environment.
If magnet schools will fail to integrate communities as they cling to separated wings, how would a private school fix the problem? I do not share your commitment to capitalism. I believe that capitalism and its emphasis on the commitment to amoral pursuit of profit is ill suited to creating education but it is well suited to attracting $$'s.
Capitalism has, I believe, effectively created a system in which societies tend to get wealthier when compared to other systems, but the benefits of that wealth leave too many behind. This happens for areas (think of how American capitalism left the Tennessee River Valley behind or the very slow arrival of electricity to rural areas) as well as for groups and classes. If there is a value to be had in promoting racism, the capitalist model will produce the wealth from that value.
I don't see a clear connection between the social choices that we make and the capitalist system. by this I mean that the capitalist model follows our social practices it does not dictate them. If we create a demand for outfits with white hoods and gasoline and wooden crosses, the market will bring those goods to market.
If we create a demand for community centers and outreach programs, the market will create those too.
QUOTE(turnea @ Feb 5 2007, 02:24 PM)
Is "de facto" segregation in public schooling detrimental to American Society?
Is it inevitable?
If not, what can be done to address the issue?
So I'm going to say this thing and I'll probably be branded some sort of racist forever here but you know, it's like that sometimes.
People like to live with people like them. They do. One can look at Finland. Take a look around Finland. People in Finland look a like they talk a like it's like they're identical cousins. Now people in Finland aren't racists. They live in a country. We can do this with a lot of countries but not America.
America is large (larger than Finland) and very diverse. We've got everything the human race has to offer. It's one of the reasons that we're as successful as we are. However you really can't legislate goodwill towards men. People will simply tend to want to be with their own. This isn't racist - if it is Finland is a really bad place. Don't even get me started about Mexico.
So how does this self segregation play into public education? Well in two ways. Races will keep to themselves. To some exent the same ways jocks and band members will. The real separation will come under the economic stratas. Even the Finnish do this. This is more of the same. People like to be around people like themselves.
But is it a bad thing? Tough to say. Is segregation a good thing? If it is what's wrong with the Finns?
I tend to think that given enough time humans will end up surrounded by similar humans especially in the face of humans who refuse to assimilate to their surroundings. In the case of humans who assimilate - learn the languages, customs, dress of the locals - segregation isn't much of an issue. I don't presume that every human will embrace a dissimilar human just because that human is wearing the same kind of t-shirt and speaking the smae language. I think it could help however.
So ultimately - Yes, I think de-facto segregation is inevitable.
QUOTE
Is "de facto" segregation in public schooling detrimental to American Society?
Yes. People tend to live near people of the same race or ethnicity.
QUOTE
Is it inevitable
?Yes.
QUOTE
If not, what can be done to address the issue?
There is no issue about where people choose to live the issue is bad schools for many minorities. Bush NCLB has made a good start in addressing this but we need to go further. Bad schools should be closed and kids given vouchers to get a decent education. Testing should be universal – for students AND teachers.
Violent kids should be helped and if they cannot conform booted from the schools. Theses issues are the same in many predominantly white school districts.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate)
America is large (larger than Finland) and very diverse. We've got everything the human race has to offer. It's one of the reasons that we're as successful as we are. However you really can't legislate goodwill towards men. People will simply tend to want to be with their own. This isn't racist - if it is Finland is a really bad place. Don't even get me started about Mexico.
Both you and Ted make that assertion, but the fact is the statement....
1.) Is not entirely true
and...
2.)
Hardly explains segregation in our public schools.
Let's deal with #1 first.
The Finland example makes little sense as it isn't a case of segregation by choice. They didn't have large scale populations of other races to segregate from.
The Mexico example is also rather poor as it is a racially diverse country and though they have racial tensions segregation there is not widespread.
There is nothing in human nature that says that people want to be around other of the same race. That is a division of our own making, the consequence of racism in the past reaching us in the present.
Americans have this problem to a sad degree, we think our racial divisions in living spaces are natural when in fact they are almost entirely artificial.
The separation between non-whites and whites in this country was created by force, and sustained through inertia.
School districts especially are artificial constructs and many were created for the purpose of excluding blacks.
Does this still go on?
In some places certainly...
In others the simple inertia is enough.
Is "de facto" segregation in public schooling detrimental to American Society?
Yes, I think so. I went to a high school that was both unusually racially diverse and quite successful in educational outcomes. It occasionally gets national press coverage -- National Geographic ran a story about it a few years back. I'm glad I had the opportunity to go there, and I'd recommend it to others.
Is it inevitable?
For most schools, probably so. My high school happened to be sited in the middle of a fairly rich, white suburban area, but just a few miles from lower income apartments and public housing. Where it's possible to locate schools like that, I think it's a good idea, but the race and class segregation of housing makes that difficult.
If not, what can be done to address the issue?
I don't know. You (turnea) favorably cite the Kirby decision, and if I read you correctly, think that it's all about resources. (Cultural issues being a "red herring.") How do you explain the failure in Kansas City, where a Federal judge ordered taxes and transfers from rich white suburbs, over a 20-year period, but the education got worse?
On what do you base this belief? In my experience, self-segregation is the norm, and complete integration is almost impossible to find in the real world. Do you have some counterexamples, or other evidence that racial preferences are "almost entirely artificial"?
Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji is one of the pioneers of a psychological tool called the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Scientific American had a short article about her last June (subscriber link):
Not a pleasant thought, but we're better off facing unpleasant truths than leaning on comforting myths. As I said in an earlier thread about the IAT, Rodgers and Hammerstein had it wrong in that famous song from South Pacific. You don't have to be carefully taught prejudice; it comes naturally. We can be taught to overcome it, but it takes work.
Yes, I think so. I went to a high school that was both unusually racially diverse and quite successful in educational outcomes. It occasionally gets national press coverage -- National Geographic ran a story about it a few years back. I'm glad I had the opportunity to go there, and I'd recommend it to others.
Is it inevitable?
For most schools, probably so. My high school happened to be sited in the middle of a fairly rich, white suburban area, but just a few miles from lower income apartments and public housing. Where it's possible to locate schools like that, I think it's a good idea, but the race and class segregation of housing makes that difficult.
If not, what can be done to address the issue?
I don't know. You (turnea) favorably cite the Kirby decision, and if I read you correctly, think that it's all about resources. (Cultural issues being a "red herring.") How do you explain the failure in Kansas City, where a Federal judge ordered taxes and transfers from rich white suburbs, over a 20-year period, but the education got worse?
QUOTE(turnea @ Feb 9 2007, 01:34 PM)
There is nothing in human nature that says that people want to be around other of the same race. That is a division of our own making, the consequence of racism in the past reaching us in the present.
Americans have this problem to a sad degree, we think our racial divisions in living spaces are natural when in fact they are almost entirely artificial.
Americans have this problem to a sad degree, we think our racial divisions in living spaces are natural when in fact they are almost entirely artificial.
On what do you base this belief? In my experience, self-segregation is the norm, and complete integration is almost impossible to find in the real world. Do you have some counterexamples, or other evidence that racial preferences are "almost entirely artificial"?
Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji is one of the pioneers of a psychological tool called the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Scientific American had a short article about her last June (subscriber link):
QUOTE(Scientific American)
Most recently, Banaji has been trying to discern when race attitudes first form and when conscious beliefs begin to diverge from those below the surface. In child-friendly tests, Banaji discovered that Japanese and white New England children as young as six both openly and implicitly preferred people like themselves. By age 10, their unconscious and conscious attitudes began to split. Despite expressing more egalitarian views as they grew older, people in the two societies continued to show automatic bias against black faces. For Japanese participants, both implicit and explicit attitudes toward European faces became more positive.
Banaji now suspects that if she could test for prejudice in babies, she would find it.
Banaji now suspects that if she could test for prejudice in babies, she would find it.
Not a pleasant thought, but we're better off facing unpleasant truths than leaning on comforting myths. As I said in an earlier thread about the IAT, Rodgers and Hammerstein had it wrong in that famous song from South Pacific. You don't have to be carefully taught prejudice; it comes naturally. We can be taught to overcome it, but it takes work.
QUOTE(Jobius @ Feb 10 2007, 01:21 AM)
Is "de facto" segregation in public schooling detrimental to American Society?
Yes, I think so. I went to a high school that was both unusually racially diverse and quite successful in educational outcomes. It occasionally gets national press coverage -- National Geographic ran a story about it a few years back. I'm glad I had the opportunity to go there, and I'd recommend it to others.
Is it inevitable?
For most schools, probably so. My high school happened to be sited in the middle of a fairly rich, white suburban area, but just a few miles from lower income apartments and public housing. Where it's possible to locate schools like that, I think it's a good idea, but the race and class segregation of housing makes that difficult.
If not, what can be done to address the issue?
I don't know. You (turnea) favorably cite the Kirby decision, and if I read you correctly, think that it's all about resources. (Cultural issues being a "red herring.") How do you explain the failure in Kansas City, where a Federal judge ordered taxes and transfers from rich white suburbs, over a 20-year period, but the education got worse?
QUOTE(turnea @ Feb 9 2007, 01:34 PM)
There is nothing in human nature that says that people want to be around other of the same race. That is a division of our own making, the consequence of racism in the past reaching us in the present.
Americans have this problem to a sad degree, we think our racial divisions in living spaces are natural when in fact they are almost entirely artificial.
Americans have this problem to a sad degree, we think our racial divisions in living spaces are natural when in fact they are almost entirely artificial.
On what do you base this belief? In my experience, self-segregation is the norm, and complete integration is almost impossible to find in the real world. Do you have some counterexamples, or other evidence that racial preferences are "almost entirely artificial"?
Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji is one of the pioneers of a psychological tool called the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Scientific American had a short article about her last June (subscriber link):
QUOTE(Scientific American)
Most recently, Banaji has been trying to discern when race attitudes first form and when conscious beliefs begin to diverge from those below the surface. In child-friendly tests, Banaji discovered that Japanese and white New England children as young as six both openly and implicitly preferred people like themselves. By age 10, their unconscious and conscious attitudes began to split. Despite expressing more egalitarian views as they grew older, people in the two societies continued to show automatic bias against black faces. For Japanese participants, both implicit and explicit attitudes toward European faces became more positive.
Banaji now suspects that if she could test for prejudice in babies, she would find it.
Banaji now suspects that if she could test for prejudice in babies, she would find it.
Not a pleasant thought, but we're better off facing unpleasant truths than leaning on comforting myths. As I said in an earlier thread about the IAT, Rodgers and Hammerstein had it wrong in that famous song from South Pacific. You don't have to be carefully taught prejudice; it comes naturally. We can be taught to overcome it, but it takes work.
Would you as a person feel better off in a prison full of white prisoners or some suburb in Japan though?
Also I don’t know how you would even begin to test a babies for objective data on what it favors in such an instance as race relations.
Maybe the idea of race as its noted takes on a lot more detail then as I think is being portrayed in this thread. Such as difference in clothing for instance, or hygiene for that matter. For me to trust the above results would basically have to accommodate for everything else those people have learned in the course of there lives, example the impact of television for instance.
I know personally that person to person my take on them can vary even if they are of one color of skin from many different aspects. Noticing difference also is not the same as racism, to me more or less it may come down to what spawns culture, as in white supremacy did not stop the Nazis from killing untold amounts of white people, contrary to what neo Nazis in America might think, it might be something that leads to culture and conflict also. Maybe people or living things in general like stable and peaceful environments… The list could go on.
QUOTE(gordo @ Feb 9 2007, 06:55 PM)
Would you as a person feel better off in a prison full of white prisoners or some suburb in Japan though?
Those are my choices!?
Is the prison full of white-collar Ken Lay-type prisoners, or a more violent sort? Does anybody in my Japanese neighborhood speak English?QUOTE(gordo @ Feb 9 2007, 06:55 PM)
Also I don’t know how you would even begin to test a babies for objective data on what it favors in such an instance as race relations.
Maybe the idea of race as its noted takes on a lot more detail then as I think is being portrayed in this thread. Such as difference in clothing for instance, or hygiene for that matter. For me to trust the above results would basically have to accommodate for everything else those people have learned in the course of there lives, example the impact of television for instance.
Maybe the idea of race as its noted takes on a lot more detail then as I think is being portrayed in this thread. Such as difference in clothing for instance, or hygiene for that matter. For me to trust the above results would basically have to accommodate for everything else those people have learned in the course of there lives, example the impact of television for instance.
Well, that's where the Implicit Association Test is interesting. Please click the link and try it. I promise, it's an educational experience. It's been used on children as young as six, and even with that little acculturation, racial prejudices show through. You can't use it on babies, but it's conceivable that some kind of brain scan would detect prejudice even in infants. And one of the experts on detecting unconscious bias thinks she'd find it there.
QUOTE(gordo @ Feb 9 2007, 06:55 PM)
I know personally that person to person my take on them can vary even if they are of one color of skin from many different aspects. Noticing difference also is not the same as racism, to me more or less it may come down to what spawns culture, as in white supremacy did not stop the Nazis from killing untold amounts of white people, contrary to what neo Nazis in America might think, it might be something that leads to culture and conflict also. Maybe people or living things in general like stable and peaceful environments… The list could go on.
A couple of points... Americans may consider the Jewish victims of the Holocaust "white," but the Europeans at the time saw something foreign in them. And another Harvard prof, Robert Putnam has more bad news about whether "diversity is strength":
QUOTE( Financial Times)
A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University’s Robert Putnam, one of the world’s most influential political scientists.
His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.
The core message of the research was that, “in the presence of diversity, we hunker down”, he said. “We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”
. . .
Prof Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, “the most diverse human habitation in human history”, but his findings also held for rural South Dakota, where “diversity means inviting Swedes to a Norwegians’ picnic”.
When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust. “They don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,” said Prof Putnam. “The only thing there’s more of is protest marches and TV watching.”
His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.
The core message of the research was that, “in the presence of diversity, we hunker down”, he said. “We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”
. . .
Prof Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, “the most diverse human habitation in human history”, but his findings also held for rural South Dakota, where “diversity means inviting Swedes to a Norwegians’ picnic”.
When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust. “They don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,” said Prof Putnam. “The only thing there’s more of is protest marches and TV watching.”
QUOTE(Jobius @ Feb 10 2007, 03:55 AM)
QUOTE(gordo @ Feb 9 2007, 06:55 PM)
Would you as a person feel better off in a prison full of white prisoners or some suburb in Japan though?
Those are my choices!?
Is the prison full of white-collar Ken Lay-type prisoners, or a more violent sort? Does anybody in my Japanese neighborhood speak English?QUOTE(gordo @ Feb 9 2007, 06:55 PM)
Also I don’t know how you would even begin to test a babies for objective data on what it favors in such an instance as race relations.
Maybe the idea of race as its noted takes on a lot more detail then as I think is being portrayed in this thread. Such as difference in clothing for instance, or hygiene for that matter. For me to trust the above results would basically have to accommodate for everything else those people have learned in the course of there lives, example the impact of television for instance.
Maybe the idea of race as its noted takes on a lot more detail then as I think is being portrayed in this thread. Such as difference in clothing for instance, or hygiene for that matter. For me to trust the above results would basically have to accommodate for everything else those people have learned in the course of there lives, example the impact of television for instance.
Well, that's where the Implicit Association Test is interesting. Please click the link and try it. I promise, it's an educational experience. It's been used on children as young as six, and even with that little acculturation, racial prejudices show through. You can't use it on babies, but it's conceivable that some kind of brain scan would detect prejudice even in infants. And one of the experts on detecting unconscious bias thinks she'd find it there.
QUOTE(gordo @ Feb 9 2007, 06:55 PM)
I know personally that person to person my take on them can vary even if they are of one color of skin from many different aspects. Noticing difference also is not the same as racism, to me more or less it may come down to what spawns culture, as in white supremacy did not stop the Nazis from killing untold amounts of white people, contrary to what neo Nazis in America might think, it might be something that leads to culture and conflict also. Maybe people or living things in general like stable and peaceful environments… The list could go on.
A couple of points... Americans may consider the Jewish victims of the Holocaust "white," but the Europeans at the time saw something foreign in them. And another Harvard prof, Robert Putnam has more bad news about whether "diversity is strength":
QUOTE( Financial Times)
A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University’s Robert Putnam, one of the world’s most influential political scientists.
His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.
The core message of the research was that, “in the presence of diversity, we hunker down”, he said. “We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”
. . .
Prof Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, “the most diverse human habitation in human history”, but his findings also held for rural South Dakota, where “diversity means inviting Swedes to a Norwegians’ picnic”.
When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust. “They don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,” said Prof Putnam. “The only thing there’s more of is protest marches and TV watching.”
His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.
The core message of the research was that, “in the presence of diversity, we hunker down”, he said. “We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”
. . .
Prof Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, “the most diverse human habitation in human history”, but his findings also held for rural South Dakota, where “diversity means inviting Swedes to a Norwegians’ picnic”.
When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust. “They don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,” said Prof Putnam. “The only thing there’s more of is protest marches and TV watching.”
Yes but none of this speaks on biological hardwiring of behavior, this is more or less what I am talking about. To me when people say nature what that means to me is biological in origin, everything after that is nurture. Example a tamed lion to one in the wild, or a person that grew up in a war zone compared to one that did not, that is all.
So when someone says human nature, they should also be able to point to things, such as what organ, what chromosome or genes for that matter, that’s empirical to me in regards to speaking on human nature, is it we have a racist gene, or a culture hatred gene, or posses hatred that can be formed, or distrust for that matter. Speaking in terms of nurture who knows what is truth to what is not in regards to race. If such were true for humans I would expect race relations to be nothing but warfare across the board, such is not the case though.
You can have racism in the same race, such as one nation of Africans hating the next, to one European nation to the next hating on each other for being a German, or a French person...
My point on the above example about the prison seen is even is a completely like race situation, or like culture situation, an environment can be made where the person would find comfort in an unlike situation, or desire to flee what is liked and recognized to difference if the situation is right. How many people would volunteer to go to a prison rather then a foreign nation if giving the choice?
I think the articles you pose speak on things of course but I don’t take them in any regard to be the empirical master when it comes to such, simply because way to many questions are left unanswered or covered in the research if you took five minutes and imagination of what’s common to you to it.
QUOTE
Yes but none of this speaks on biological hardwiring of behavior, this is more or less what I am talking about. To me when people say nature what that means to me is biological in origin, everything after that is nurture. Example a tamed lion to one in the wild, or a person that grew up in a war zone compared to one that did not, that is all
. Yes none of it does and this is because we don’t know if it is “hardwiring” , how it works in the mind just as we don’t know the real cause of most diseases. This does not change the reality of the data. People seem to like, feel more comfortable and safe, living in cultural groups (so it is not just race). We see this all over the world so why are we surprised.
The idea that “diversity” in a community is “better” for the people there is IMO an illusion. Certainly it does not harm people I most cases, but as the professor points out it dose not seem to help either.
Education should be equal across all communities. We should not have to send kids out of their communities or try to force people to live where they would prefer not to in order to give families access to good schools.
In South Bend, IN the public school corporation signed a desegregation agreement in the early 1980's. The result has been massive flight from the city's school system. While the city was probably already facing some flight of the middle class, the exodus became pronounced after the desegregation agreement. Now, nearly 25 years down the road, the system actually has a problem finding enough white kids to distribute and the system is de facto segregated again.
Of course, the system has all sorts of other problems as well, and they too have contributed to the removal of students from the system. There is also an especially strong Roman Catholic private school system (imagine!) and the movement of students to the private schools also impacts the public system.
Now, here is where it gets kind of interesting... The flight to the suburban areas is not just white flight. The middle class blacks and hispanics are also moving rapidly to these suburbs. So, is it de defacto segregation based on race, or is it income segregation based on the desire to put children into a better school system?
Of course, the system has all sorts of other problems as well, and they too have contributed to the removal of students from the system. There is also an especially strong Roman Catholic private school system (imagine!) and the movement of students to the private schools also impacts the public system.
Now, here is where it gets kind of interesting... The flight to the suburban areas is not just white flight. The middle class blacks and hispanics are also moving rapidly to these suburbs. So, is it de defacto segregation based on race, or is it income segregation based on the desire to put children into a better school system?
QUOTE(bob_rx2000 @ Feb 19 2007, 08:49 PM)
In South Bend, IN the public school corporation signed a desegregation agreement in the early 1980's. The result has been massive flight from the city's school system. While the city was probably already facing some flight of the middle class, the exodus became pronounced after the desegregation agreement. Now, nearly 25 years down the road, the system actually has a problem finding enough white kids to distribute and the system is de facto segregated again.
Of course, the system has all sorts of other problems as well, and they too have contributed to the removal of students from the system. There is also an especially strong Roman Catholic private school system (imagine!) and the movement of students to the private schools also impacts the public system.
Now, here is where it gets kind of interesting... The flight to the suburban areas is not just white flight. The middle class blacks and hispanics are also moving rapidly to these suburbs. So, is it de defacto segregation based on race, or is it income segregation based on the desire to put children into a better school system?
What's happening is that parents who care about their children and who realize how important education is are not submitting their children to failed schools, filled with losers who have no incentive to learn, and school systems that cater to the lowest common denominator which is very, very low in some areas.
"Race" has nothing to do with it. Why would any rational person send their kids to a school filled with low expectation drop-out cases, rampant teen pregnancy, drug use, violence, and ultra low academic standards?
Any rational parent with alternatives will exercise them.
Why shouldn't they? Why should their children be submitted to a mess of a school out of some misguided "racial" social engineering program???
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Feb 20 2007, 02:24 AM)
QUOTE(bob_rx2000 @ Feb 19 2007, 08:49 PM)
In South Bend, IN the public school corporation signed a desegregation agreement in the early 1980's. The result has been massive flight from the city's school system. While the city was probably already facing some flight of the middle class, the exodus became pronounced after the desegregation agreement. Now, nearly 25 years down the road, the system actually has a problem finding enough white kids to distribute and the system is de facto segregated again.
Of course, the system has all sorts of other problems as well, and they too have contributed to the removal of students from the system. There is also an especially strong Roman Catholic private school system (imagine!) and the movement of students to the private schools also impacts the public system.
Now, here is where it gets kind of interesting... The flight to the suburban areas is not just white flight. The middle class blacks and hispanics are also moving rapidly to these suburbs. So, is it de defacto segregation based on race, or is it income segregation based on the desire to put children into a better school system?
What's happening is that parents who care about their children and who realize how important education is are not submitting their children to failed schools, filled with losers who have no incentive to learn, and school systems that cater to the lowest common denominator which is very, very low in some areas.
"Race" has nothing to do with it. Why would any rational person send their kids to a school filled with low expectation drop-out cases, rampant teen pregnancy, drug use, violence, and ultra low academic standards?
Any rational parent with alternatives will exercise them.
Why shouldn't they? Why should their children be submitted to a mess of a school out of some misguided "racial" social engineering program???
Sending children to different schools to increase the variation or proportions of the racial make up of the school is not the same as segregation I would say, and personally I don’t agree with it either, kids should attend schools based on school zones, but that would imply one of those dastardly social engineering programs like education in general, or parenting I guess, social engineering is actually most of any organized social entity on the planet, being it was devised, like religion, or democracy for instance and I am sure the list could go on.
To desire segregation is simply racist, and no, there is no proof that humans are hardwired racists, simply because the term itself does not make any sense overall compared to reality, typically our DNA for one, and another would be interracial relationships, friends, America in general, the fact that wars can be fought with people of the same skin color trying to kill each other, so fourth and so on, there is racial names for southern and northern Americans, the civil war, etc…
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.