[martyup]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=13558.msg140565#msg140565 date=1447088358]
When you find a racist system, go after it.  Shut it down.  When you find a racist, shame them.  Symbolic heads on a spike don't change anything.

Is that not shaming people? If the president's response was inadequate then forcing him to resign is saying that the culture needs to change, which is the same message as your first two points.
[/quote]

I have not heard any facts that would lead one to say that Wolfe did anything wrong or negligent.  Kathy spelled out the affirmative steps he took to address the problems at the University.  Apparently these steps were insufficient in the opinion of the protesters.  It sounds like this man worked hard throughout his life to attain the position of University President.  Absent a compelling argument that he did anything wrong, besides being the President, I will remain of the opinion that he was unfairly targeted. 

[martyup]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=13558.msg140565#msg140565 date=1447088358]
When you find a racist system, go after it.  Shut it down.  When you find a racist, shame them.  Symbolic heads on a spike don't change anything.

Is that not shaming people? If the president's response was inadequate then forcing him to resign is saying that the culture needs to change, which is the same message as your first two points.
[/quote]

I have not heard any facts that would lead one to say that Wolfe did anything wrong or negligent.  Kathy spelled out the affirmative steps he took to address the problems at the University.  Apparently these steps were insufficient in the opinion of the protesters.  It sounds like this man worked hard throughout his life to attain the position of University President.  Absent a compelling argument that he did anything wrong, besides being the President, I will remain of the opinion that he was unfairly targeted. 

[Roberton3]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=13558.msg140545#msg140545 date=1447084303]
That's a nice catchy phrase, but what system are they protesting.  What laws?  What regulations?  What policy of enforcement?  Where is the system?  Yes, there are still racists in America.  But, I think we have done a pretty thorough job of weeding out racist systems. 

Well, I mean, just a random example out of nowhere: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/mar...lacks.html

Or, weirdly, another one:

Despite the recent and large declines in blood-lead levels, young children of urban minority families are found to be at the greatest risk of lead poisoning. According to the most recent NHANES III-Phase 2 report, 8 percent of impoverished children are lead poisoned, compared to 1 percent of children from high-income families...Among all children, 11.2 percent of African-American children are poisoned compared with 2.3 percent of white children.

http://www.nrdc.org/health/kids/ocar/chap3.asp
[/quote]

Unequal outcomes don't necessarily indicate racism.  It's easy to come up with alternative hypotheses that don't involve racism.  For example, my experience in DC (before the recent legalization) suggests that while overall marijuana use rates are similar, black people are vastly more likely than white people to smoke marijuana in public, and I'm sure you're more likely to get arrested for drug use in public than in private.  And for blood lead levels, the main thing that matters is living in badly maintained old housing -- which basically means being poor in an older urban area, and that's strongly correlated with being a minority (and that might be because of current racism, or because of past racism, or for any number of other reasons).  So none of these examples are proof (or even solid evidence) of racism, either institutional or by individuals.

Of course, that doesn't prove there isn't racism, either.  Getting solid evidence one way or the other is really hard.  But claiming that unequal outcomes prove the existence of racism is not helpful.

[Roberton3]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=13558.msg140545#msg140545 date=1447084303]
That's a nice catchy phrase, but what system are they protesting.  What laws?  What regulations?  What policy of enforcement?  Where is the system?  Yes, there are still racists in America.  But, I think we have done a pretty thorough job of weeding out racist systems. 

Well, I mean, just a random example out of nowhere: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/mar...lacks.html

Or, weirdly, another one:

Despite the recent and large declines in blood-lead levels, young children of urban minority families are found to be at the greatest risk of lead poisoning. According to the most recent NHANES III-Phase 2 report, 8 percent of impoverished children are lead poisoned, compared to 1 percent of children from high-income families...Among all children, 11.2 percent of African-American children are poisoned compared with 2.3 percent of white children.

http://www.nrdc.org/health/kids/ocar/chap3.asp
[/quote]

Unequal outcomes don't necessarily indicate racism.  It's easy to come up with alternative hypotheses that don't involve racism.  For example, my experience in DC (before the recent legalization) suggests that while overall marijuana use rates are similar, black people are vastly more likely than white people to smoke marijuana in public, and I'm sure you're more likely to get arrested for drug use in public than in private.  And for blood lead levels, the main thing that matters is living in badly maintained old housing -- which basically means being poor in an older urban area, and that's strongly correlated with being a minority (and that might be because of current racism, or because of past racism, or for any number of other reasons).  So none of these examples are proof (or even solid evidence) of racism, either institutional or by individuals.

Of course, that doesn't prove there isn't racism, either.  Getting solid evidence one way or the other is really hard.  But claiming that unequal outcomes prove the existence of racism is not helpful.

[burger]

And for blood lead levels, the main thing that matters is living in badly maintained old housing -- which basically means being poor in an older urban area, and that's strongly correlated with being a minority (and that might be because of current racism, or because of past racism, or for any number of other reasons).  So none of these examples are proof (or even solid evidence) of racism, either institutional or by individuals.

Of course, that doesn't prove there isn't racism, either.  Getting solid evidence one way or the other is really hard.  But claiming that unequal outcomes prove the existence of racism is not helpful.

You should probably do some reading on the history of racial discrimination in housing in the US.  The fact that many minority neighborhoods are in poor urban areas is not a coincidence.  Start here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...ns/361631/
(even if you disagree about the need for reparations, the history of discrimination is undeniable).

[burger]

And for blood lead levels, the main thing that matters is living in badly maintained old housing -- which basically means being poor in an older urban area, and that's strongly correlated with being a minority (and that might be because of current racism, or because of past racism, or for any number of other reasons).  So none of these examples are proof (or even solid evidence) of racism, either institutional or by individuals.

Of course, that doesn't prove there isn't racism, either.  Getting solid evidence one way or the other is really hard.  But claiming that unequal outcomes prove the existence of racism is not helpful.

You should probably do some reading on the history of racial discrimination in housing in the US.  The fact that many minority neighborhoods are in poor urban areas is not a coincidence.  Start here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...ns/361631/
(even if you disagree about the need for reparations, the history of discrimination is undeniable).

[Roberton3]

Wolfe grew up in Columbia (the son of MU professors), was quarterback of the high school state championship football team, graduated with a business degree from MU. After a 30-year career in management at IBM and other computer software companies, he became president of the system 3½ years ago (he didn’t apply for the job — the curators came to him and asked if he would take it on).

I don't know much about the Missouri situation beyond what I've heard from some friends there and what's in this thread (thanks, Kathy, for the background info).  But I have to think part of the problem is having a president with no experience in academia (other than being a student).  As I've said before, that's like a major program picking a football head coach who has never played or coached football before.

[Roberton3]

Wolfe grew up in Columbia (the son of MU professors), was quarterback of the high school state championship football team, graduated with a business degree from MU. After a 30-year career in management at IBM and other computer software companies, he became president of the system 3½ years ago (he didn’t apply for the job — the curators came to him and asked if he would take it on).

I don't know much about the Missouri situation beyond what I've heard from some friends there and what's in this thread (thanks, Kathy, for the background info).  But I have to think part of the problem is having a president with no experience in academia (other than being a student).  As I've said before, that's like a major program picking a football head coach who has never played or coached football before.

[BobK]

Hope Mizzou Card sees this as he had a similar experience just not at Missouri.  He's on another board and was at the Colorado game 

[BobK]

Hope Mizzou Card sees this as he had a similar experience just not at Missouri.  He's on another board and was at the Colorado game 

[Rally]

It seems to me the unifying theme of all of these type of protest is that the protesters really don't know what, exactly, they want, so they can never be satisfied.  I think the Democrats discovered this when they tries, unsuccessfully, to glom onto the Black Lives Matter group.  So in this case the demand was that that the president resign.  Okay, he did.  Now what?  Next Guy's gonna fix everything?  Within what?  A week?  Give him two weeks?  To ensure no drunk guy ever again utters a racial slur? 

[Rally]

It seems to me the unifying theme of all of these type of protest is that the protesters really don't know what, exactly, they want, so they can never be satisfied.  I think the Democrats discovered this when they tries, unsuccessfully, to glom onto the Black Lives Matter group.  So in this case the demand was that that the president resign.  Okay, he did.  Now what?  Next Guy's gonna fix everything?  Within what?  A week?  Give him two weeks?  To ensure no drunk guy ever again utters a racial slur? 

[Kathy]

[quote author=Kathy link=topic=13558.msg140522#msg140522 date=1447053700]
Opportunism is the key word. There is so much misinformation out there.

Thanks for some information.

There are at least two items prominent in the news that you did not mention - so I thought I would ask for clarification/your point of view.

1. The swastika-feces thing.

2. The unrest is generally described as "student and faculty protests".
Is the faculty protest broad-based?
[/quote]

The swastika thing is some sort of bizarre side note. There was no reaction from the Jewish community here. The icky incident occurred in a bathroom of Gateway Hall, a residence hall that just opened for the fall semester. The hall is the first on campus to offer "gender-flexible" bathrooms. My gut tells me it was not a racist incident, but rather a response to any number of controversies swirling on this campus right now.

As far as I can tell, the faculty protest, which popped up this morning as a call for a two-day suspension of classes, may be limited, as is the graduate student support. Both of these groups have other issues with the chancellor, who at this point still has a job. Graduate students are pushing for more pay and subsidized insurance. The faculty on the bandwagon may be along for the ride, but last week the English department issued a vote of no-confidence in the chancellor, an action that followed a written opposition report from the medical school faculty about the firing of the medical dean. These are problems unrelated to the racial fiasco that escalated over the weekend.

[Kathy]

[quote author=Kathy link=topic=13558.msg140522#msg140522 date=1447053700]
Opportunism is the key word. There is so much misinformation out there.

Thanks for some information.

There are at least two items prominent in the news that you did not mention - so I thought I would ask for clarification/your point of view.

1. The swastika-feces thing.

2. The unrest is generally described as "student and faculty protests".
Is the faculty protest broad-based?
[/quote]

The swastika thing is some sort of bizarre side note. There was no reaction from the Jewish community here. The icky incident occurred in a bathroom of Gateway Hall, a residence hall that just opened for the fall semester. The hall is the first on campus to offer "gender-flexible" bathrooms. My gut tells me it was not a racist incident, but rather a response to any number of controversies swirling on this campus right now.

As far as I can tell, the faculty protest, which popped up this morning as a call for a two-day suspension of classes, may be limited, as is the graduate student support. Both of these groups have other issues with the chancellor, who at this point still has a job. Graduate students are pushing for more pay and subsidized insurance. The faculty on the bandwagon may be along for the ride, but last week the English department issued a vote of no-confidence in the chancellor, an action that followed a written opposition report from the medical school faculty about the firing of the medical dean. These are problems unrelated to the racial fiasco that escalated over the weekend.

[yvonne]

Missouri President Resigns in the Wake of Racial Unrest on Campus

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/11...on-campus/

[yvonne]

Missouri President Resigns in the Wake of Racial Unrest on Campus

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/11...on-campus/

[Roberton3]

[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=13558.msg140574#msg140574 date=1447089748]And for blood lead levels, the main thing that matters is living in badly maintained old housing -- which basically means being poor in an older urban area, and that's strongly correlated with being a minority (and that might be because of current racism, or because of past racism, or for any number of other reasons).  So none of these examples are proof (or even solid evidence) of racism, either institutional or by individuals.

Of course, that doesn't prove there isn't racism, either.  Getting solid evidence one way or the other is really hard.  But claiming that unequal outcomes prove the existence of racism is not helpful.

You should probably do some reading on the history of racial discrimination in housing in the US.  The fact that many minority neighborhoods are in poor urban areas is not a coincidence.  Start here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...ns/361631/
[/quote]

Well, that was an unnecessarily condescending response.  I've read the piece you linked, and a whole bunch of other writing on this issue.  And I certainly didn't claim that racial patterns in housing are a coincidence (indeed, I said almost the exact opposite: "that might be because of current racism, or because of past racism, or for any number of other reasons").  There's no question that housing policies in the past were explicitly (and reprehensibly) racist.  But that in no way contradicts the point I was trying to make, which is that present-day disparities by themselves do not prove the existence of present-day racism.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that racism is dead, or anything like that.  It just really bothers me when people oversimplify a complex issue and insult anyone who dares disagree with them.

[Roberton3]

[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=13558.msg140574#msg140574 date=1447089748]And for blood lead levels, the main thing that matters is living in badly maintained old housing -- which basically means being poor in an older urban area, and that's strongly correlated with being a minority (and that might be because of current racism, or because of past racism, or for any number of other reasons).  So none of these examples are proof (or even solid evidence) of racism, either institutional or by individuals.

Of course, that doesn't prove there isn't racism, either.  Getting solid evidence one way or the other is really hard.  But claiming that unequal outcomes prove the existence of racism is not helpful.

You should probably do some reading on the history of racial discrimination in housing in the US.  The fact that many minority neighborhoods are in poor urban areas is not a coincidence.  Start here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...ns/361631/
[/quote]

Well, that was an unnecessarily condescending response.  I've read the piece you linked, and a whole bunch of other writing on this issue.  And I certainly didn't claim that racial patterns in housing are a coincidence (indeed, I said almost the exact opposite: "that might be because of current racism, or because of past racism, or for any number of other reasons").  There's no question that housing policies in the past were explicitly (and reprehensibly) racist.  But that in no way contradicts the point I was trying to make, which is that present-day disparities by themselves do not prove the existence of present-day racism.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that racism is dead, or anything like that.  It just really bothers me when people oversimplify a complex issue and insult anyone who dares disagree with them.

[Canalejas]

The Missouri football strike was about a lot of things, but mostly about respect

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...lfe-strike

[Canalejas]

The Missouri football strike was about a lot of things, but mostly about respect

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...lfe-strike

[burger]

Well, that was an unnecessarily condescending response.  I've read the piece you linked, and a whole bunch of other writing on this issue.  And I certainly didn't claim that racial patterns in housing are a coincidence (indeed, I said almost the exact opposite: "that might be because of current racism, or because of past racism, or for any number of other reasons").  There's no question that housing policies in the past were explicitly (and reprehensibly) racist.  But that in no way contradicts the point I was trying to make, which is that present-day disparities by themselves do not prove the existence of present-day racism.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that racism is dead, or anything like that.  It just really bothers me when people oversimplify a complex issue and insult anyone who dares disagree with them.

Your original post didn't distinguish between present and past racism.  And from the way you wrote it, your ambivalence about racism's effects, past or present, led me to believe that you weren't aware of some of the history on the housing issue (you wrote, "and that might be because of current racism, or because of past racism, or for any number of other reasons", which sounded to me like you just didn't know the history)  I really didn't mean any condescension.

[burger]

Well, that was an unnecessarily condescending response.  I've read the piece you linked, and a whole bunch of other writing on this issue.  And I certainly didn't claim that racial patterns in housing are a coincidence (indeed, I said almost the exact opposite: "that might be because of current racism, or because of past racism, or for any number of other reasons").  There's no question that housing policies in the past were explicitly (and reprehensibly) racist.  But that in no way contradicts the point I was trying to make, which is that present-day disparities by themselves do not prove the existence of present-day racism.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that racism is dead, or anything like that.  It just really bothers me when people oversimplify a complex issue and insult anyone who dares disagree with them.

Your original post didn't distinguish between present and past racism.  And from the way you wrote it, your ambivalence about racism's effects, past or present, led me to believe that you weren't aware of some of the history on the housing issue (you wrote, "and that might be because of current racism, or because of past racism, or for any number of other reasons", which sounded to me like you just didn't know the history)  I really didn't mean any condescension.

[Roberton3]

Your original post didn't distinguish between present and past racism. 

Sorry -- I thought that would be obvious based on the comments I was responding to.

And from the way you wrote it, your ambivalence about racism's effects, past or present, led me to believe that you weren't aware of some of the history on the housing issue (you wrote, "and that might be because of current racism, or because of past racism, or for any number of other reasons", which sounded to me like you just didn't know the history)  I really didn't mean any condescension.

OK -- thanks.  Evidently I didn't write clearly enough -- one of the dangers of responding too quickly.  I am far from ambivalent about racism's effects, and certainly don't want to give any other impression.  Racism is horrible.  But because it's so horrible, one needs to be especially careful about jumping to conclusions.  And untangling the causes of current inqualities is a tremendously challenging task, even if you know the history very well.

[Roberton3]

Your original post didn't distinguish between present and past racism. 

Sorry -- I thought that would be obvious based on the comments I was responding to.

And from the way you wrote it, your ambivalence about racism's effects, past or present, led me to believe that you weren't aware of some of the history on the housing issue (you wrote, "and that might be because of current racism, or because of past racism, or for any number of other reasons", which sounded to me like you just didn't know the history)  I really didn't mean any condescension.

OK -- thanks.  Evidently I didn't write clearly enough -- one of the dangers of responding too quickly.  I am far from ambivalent about racism's effects, and certainly don't want to give any other impression.  Racism is horrible.  But because it's so horrible, one needs to be especially careful about jumping to conclusions.  And untangling the causes of current inqualities is a tremendously challenging task, even if you know the history very well.

[Kathy]

Mizzou's chancellor just stepped down ... says he's "transitioning" to a position in the university that oversees research, an open position at MU that apparently just got filled.

[Kathy]

Mizzou's chancellor just stepped down ... says he's "transitioning" to a position in the university that oversees research, an open position at MU that apparently just got filled.

[CTcard]

Mizzou's chancellor just stepped down ... says he's "transitioning" to a position in the university that oversees research, an open position at MU that apparently just got filled.

Now that is curious.
I was expecting him to transition "back to his first passion - teaching and research".

If I remember correctly, much of what the Chancellor was in trouble for - at least wtih the faculty - was punting on issues of academic freedom with respect to research at Mizzou; particularly with respect to stem cell work and various kinds of loose connections to Planned Parenthood.

Transitioning to "overseeing research" is not only a rather bizarre downward move, but would seem to exacerbate much of the problem in his case.

At least that is in news reports. I suppose those there might have a somewhat different take.

[CTcard]

Mizzou's chancellor just stepped down ... says he's "transitioning" to a position in the university that oversees research, an open position at MU that apparently just got filled.

Now that is curious.
I was expecting him to transition "back to his first passion - teaching and research".

If I remember correctly, much of what the Chancellor was in trouble for - at least wtih the faculty - was punting on issues of academic freedom with respect to research at Mizzou; particularly with respect to stem cell work and various kinds of loose connections to Planned Parenthood.

Transitioning to "overseeing research" is not only a rather bizarre downward move, but would seem to exacerbate much of the problem in his case.

At least that is in news reports. I suppose those there might have a somewhat different take.

[cardcoug]

[quote author=burger link=topic=13558.msg140596#msg140596 date=1447095069]
Your original post didn't distinguish between present and past racism. 

Sorry -- I thought that would be obvious based on the comments I was responding to.

And from the way you wrote it, your ambivalence about racism's effects, past or present, led me to believe that you weren't aware of some of the history on the housing issue (you wrote, "and that might be because of current racism, or because of past racism, or for any number of other reasons", which sounded to me like you just didn't know the history)  I really didn't mean any condescension.

OK -- thanks.  Evidently I didn't write clearly enough -- one of the dangers of responding too quickly.  I am far from ambivalent about racism's effects, and certainly don't want to give any other impression.  Racism is horrible.  But because it's so horrible, one needs to be especially careful about jumping to conclusions.  And untangling the causes of current inqualities is a tremendously challenging task, even if you know the history very well.
[/quote]
I generally try not to step into political discussions on this board, but I think it's worth pointing out that there is definitely some miscommunication happening here. A racial disparity that is the effect of past (explicit) racism is the paradigm case of "systematic racism", as I understand it. The whole point of talking about systematic racism is to point out that social systems can be set up such there are racist effects on people without there being some specific person (s) whose current racist attitudes (except perhaps apathy or ignorance) are responsible for those effects. It seems to me like you (Roberton3) are not using the term in this sense, so I don't think your point about sorting out the real causes is going to carry much weight with the people protesting systematic racism.

You're obviously right that people should pay careful attention to exactly what causes a given disparity, but i dont think we should withhold the term "racist" until we find a confederate flag flying bigot behind the scenes. If black people are getting harsher sentences than white people for the same crime (they are), that is racist. End of story. Finding out exactly why that is true is the most important step in fixing the problem, but I can't imagine a cause for this effect that would make it not racist. Perhaps all I'm doing here is insisting that we use the term "racist" differently than you are using it, but that in itself is not unimportant.

[cardcoug]

[quote author=burger link=topic=13558.msg140596#msg140596 date=1447095069]
Your original post didn't distinguish between present and past racism. 

Sorry -- I thought that would be obvious based on the comments I was responding to.

And from the way you wrote it, your ambivalence about racism's effects, past or present, led me to believe that you weren't aware of some of the history on the housing issue (you wrote, "and that might be because of current racism, or because of past racism, or for any number of other reasons", which sounded to me like you just didn't know the history)  I really didn't mean any condescension.

OK -- thanks.  Evidently I didn't write clearly enough -- one of the dangers of responding too quickly.  I am far from ambivalent about racism's effects, and certainly don't want to give any other impression.  Racism is horrible.  But because it's so horrible, one needs to be especially careful about jumping to conclusions.  And untangling the causes of current inqualities is a tremendously challenging task, even if you know the history very well.
[/quote]
I generally try not to step into political discussions on this board, but I think it's worth pointing out that there is definitely some miscommunication happening here. A racial disparity that is the effect of past (explicit) racism is the paradigm case of "systematic racism", as I understand it. The whole point of talking about systematic racism is to point out that social systems can be set up such there are racist effects on people without there being some specific person (s) whose current racist attitudes (except perhaps apathy or ignorance) are responsible for those effects. It seems to me like you (Roberton3) are not using the term in this sense, so I don't think your point about sorting out the real causes is going to carry much weight with the people protesting systematic racism.

You're obviously right that people should pay careful attention to exactly what causes a given disparity, but i dont think we should withhold the term "racist" until we find a confederate flag flying bigot behind the scenes. If black people are getting harsher sentences than white people for the same crime (they are), that is racist. End of story. Finding out exactly why that is true is the most important step in fixing the problem, but I can't imagine a cause for this effect that would make it not racist. Perhaps all I'm doing here is insisting that we use the term "racist" differently than you are using it, but that in itself is not unimportant.

[washingtonismoney]

To extend off of cardcoug's point, I think attributing certain problems to poverty rather than racism is not thinking things through sufficiently. If you agree that:

a) most people agree with the Martin Luther King formulation that people should be judged by "the content of their character" rather than the color of their skin. They agree with that because of a recognition that race is, in the final analysis, irrelevant to our other qualities as a human being -- that neither black nor white nor brown people have an exclusive claim to virtue and high character.

b) if you believe that there isn't an essential difference between the characters of white, black, and brown people, then how can there be substantially unequal results? So that a black or brown person is more likely to grow up with lead poisoning, or more likely to be quoted a higher mortgage rate, and so much more. It may be that some of these sicknesses are due to being poor but then:

c) if there is no essential difference in character -- and you believe, like most capitalist/meritocrats, that rewards ought to flow to people with greater ability or character -- then why are black and brown people generally poorer? In effect, you are condoning a situation in which people are being judged by their skin color rather than their character.

[washingtonismoney]

To extend off of cardcoug's point, I think attributing certain problems to poverty rather than racism is not thinking things through sufficiently. If you agree that:

a) most people agree with the Martin Luther King formulation that people should be judged by "the content of their character" rather than the color of their skin. They agree with that because of a recognition that race is, in the final analysis, irrelevant to our other qualities as a human being -- that neither black nor white nor brown people have an exclusive claim to virtue and high character.

b) if you believe that there isn't an essential difference between the characters of white, black, and brown people, then how can there be substantially unequal results? So that a black or brown person is more likely to grow up with lead poisoning, or more likely to be quoted a higher mortgage rate, and so much more. It may be that some of these sicknesses are due to being poor but then:

c) if there is no essential difference in character -- and you believe, like most capitalist/meritocrats, that rewards ought to flow to people with greater ability or character -- then why are black and brown people generally poorer? In effect, you are condoning a situation in which people are being judged by their skin color rather than their character.

[Leftcoast]

Are you inferring that all differences in outcomes are the results of contemporary "judging" and solely racially motivated?  Seems simplistic and I'm sure you are aiming at something more subtle.

I see a knotty and multi-generational problem that is often subverted when people only focus on overt racism and/or contemporary judgement.    Racism is resistant to quotas and simple measures (i.e. representative ratios of lead poisoning) because it is now intertwined with class, economic conditions and educational levels.  When we focus on overt racism without addressing the underlying issues our solutions will be counter-productive.  Focusing on a drunk yelling racist crap in a crowd may draw crowds and get University Presidents ousted but it's not a solution.  Productive movement will need to be broader based and address structural change that doesn't follow neat black/white exclusive paradigms.  I'm guessing you might not argue against this but I too often see discussion beyond the simple black/white issues metaphorically (and sometimes literally) shouted down.

Martin Luther King moved to addressing poverty, class and economic justice as well as racism in his final campaigns.  If he can draw the conclusion that economic justice for all is part of the solution than I don't see any reason we can't.  It might even build a bridge with some natural, non-black allies.  (King's idea originally - not mine!)

[Leftcoast]

Are you inferring that all differences in outcomes are the results of contemporary "judging" and solely racially motivated?  Seems simplistic and I'm sure you are aiming at something more subtle.

I see a knotty and multi-generational problem that is often subverted when people only focus on overt racism and/or contemporary judgement.    Racism is resistant to quotas and simple measures (i.e. representative ratios of lead poisoning) because it is now intertwined with class, economic conditions and educational levels.  When we focus on overt racism without addressing the underlying issues our solutions will be counter-productive.  Focusing on a drunk yelling racist crap in a crowd may draw crowds and get University Presidents ousted but it's not a solution.  Productive movement will need to be broader based and address structural change that doesn't follow neat black/white exclusive paradigms.  I'm guessing you might not argue against this but I too often see discussion beyond the simple black/white issues metaphorically (and sometimes literally) shouted down.

Martin Luther King moved to addressing poverty, class and economic justice as well as racism in his final campaigns.  If he can draw the conclusion that economic justice for all is part of the solution than I don't see any reason we can't.  It might even build a bridge with some natural, non-black allies.  (King's idea originally - not mine!)

[TreesAndBirds]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13558.msg140662#msg140662 date=1447117389]
To extend off of cardcoug's point, I think attributing certain problems to poverty rather than racism is not thinking things through sufficiently. If you agree that:

a) most people agree with the Martin Luther King formulation that people should be judged by "the content of their character" rather than the color of their skin. They agree with that because of a recognition that race is, in the final analysis, irrelevant to our other qualities as a human being -- that neither black nor white nor brown people have an exclusive claim to virtue and high character.

b) if you believe that there isn't an essential difference between the characters of white, black, and brown people, then how can there be substantially unequal results? So that a black or brown person is more likely to grow up with lead poisoning, or more likely to be quoted a higher mortgage rate, and so much more. It may be that some of these sicknesses are due to being poor but then:

c) if there is no essential difference in character -- and you believe, like most capitalist/meritocrats, that rewards ought to flow to people with greater ability or character -- then why are black and brown people generally poorer? In effect, you are condoning a situation in which people are being judged by their skin color rather than their character.


I tend to not discuss politics on message boards, but this is a Stanford message board so I will assume a higher level of discourse and give it a try.

I do not believe that character is the main determinant in economic success. I would not say that the Germans have better character than the Greeks, but I think the Germans have proven themselves better at economic success (in recent times that is.....it's interesting how the reverse would of course been true 2500 years ago.) There are plenty of similar examples.

In other words, I think there are other factors beside character that significantly affect economic success. So I do not think we should assume that if two groups have different levels of economic success, it is because of discrimination, even if we can all agree that their character is essentially the same. I think it is much more complicated than that.

To be clear, obviously African-Americans have suffered substantial discrimination in our country, but that does not necessarily mean that such discrimination is the prime reason for current economic disparity.

[TreesAndBirds]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13558.msg140662#msg140662 date=1447117389]
To extend off of cardcoug's point, I think attributing certain problems to poverty rather than racism is not thinking things through sufficiently. If you agree that:

a) most people agree with the Martin Luther King formulation that people should be judged by "the content of their character" rather than the color of their skin. They agree with that because of a recognition that race is, in the final analysis, irrelevant to our other qualities as a human being -- that neither black nor white nor brown people have an exclusive claim to virtue and high character.

b) if you believe that there isn't an essential difference between the characters of white, black, and brown people, then how can there be substantially unequal results? So that a black or brown person is more likely to grow up with lead poisoning, or more likely to be quoted a higher mortgage rate, and so much more. It may be that some of these sicknesses are due to being poor but then:

c) if there is no essential difference in character -- and you believe, like most capitalist/meritocrats, that rewards ought to flow to people with greater ability or character -- then why are black and brown people generally poorer? In effect, you are condoning a situation in which people are being judged by their skin color rather than their character.


I tend to not discuss politics on message boards, but this is a Stanford message board so I will assume a higher level of discourse and give it a try.

I do not believe that character is the main determinant in economic success. I would not say that the Germans have better character than the Greeks, but I think the Germans have proven themselves better at economic success (in recent times that is.....it's interesting how the reverse would of course been true 2500 years ago.) There are plenty of similar examples.

In other words, I think there are other factors beside character that significantly affect economic success. So I do not think we should assume that if two groups have different levels of economic success, it is because of discrimination, even if we can all agree that their character is essentially the same. I think it is much more complicated than that.

To be clear, obviously African-Americans have suffered substantial discrimination in our country, but that does not necessarily mean that such discrimination is the prime reason for current economic disparity.

[BurgXXIII]

(This post may appear twice)

During the Roman Empire, lead poisoning was the hallmark of the social elite.

[BurgXXIII]

(This post may appear twice)

During the Roman Empire, lead poisoning was the hallmark of the social elite.

[washingtonismoney]

Are you inferring that all differences in outcomes are the results of contemporary "judging" and solely racially motivated?  Seems simplistic and I'm sure you are aiming at something more subtle.

I see a knotty and multi-generational problem that is often subverted when people only focus on overt racism and/or contemporary judgement. 

Well, I would say "racism" takes many forms. Unfortunately, discussion tends to reduce to certain easily-understood actions as racism -- to which we can proclaim THAT'S RACIST and move on with our days. So this would be someone shouting racial epithets or the like.

This is definitely racism, of one type.

But I would define racism as including social systems that conspire to leave certain folk -- whether that's black or Latin or whomever -- with less opportunity and flourishing, based on belonging to a certain tribe.

So I believe that, for example, if 11% of white kids had lead poisoning, the country wouldn't rest until the problem was eradicated and solved. An instructive example can be seen with the opioid crisis that's consumed a lot of the health media. It's justified that there's so much attention on the problem -- it's played a central role, we suspect, in pushing up white middle-aged mortality over the past decade. And it's great that people are taking more of a nuanced approach to the problem -- using more harm reduction drugs like naloxone, rather than condemning all addicts to jail.

Yet I suspect that the problem would not be treated in the same way if it were primarily a black or brown problem*. Here's a New York Times article with some stunning quotes: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/us/her...rents.html

* (in fact, in a somewhat grim irony, the reason that opioid addiction isn't a problem is likely due to inequities of the healthcare system. We know black people are less likely to be prescribed pain medications when reporting various types of pain than identical white people. See, for example: http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpr...-children/)

[washingtonismoney]

Are you inferring that all differences in outcomes are the results of contemporary "judging" and solely racially motivated?  Seems simplistic and I'm sure you are aiming at something more subtle.

I see a knotty and multi-generational problem that is often subverted when people only focus on overt racism and/or contemporary judgement. 

Well, I would say "racism" takes many forms. Unfortunately, discussion tends to reduce to certain easily-understood actions as racism -- to which we can proclaim THAT'S RACIST and move on with our days. So this would be someone shouting racial epithets or the like.

This is definitely racism, of one type.

But I would define racism as including social systems that conspire to leave certain folk -- whether that's black or Latin or whomever -- with less opportunity and flourishing, based on belonging to a certain tribe.

So I believe that, for example, if 11% of white kids had lead poisoning, the country wouldn't rest until the problem was eradicated and solved. An instructive example can be seen with the opioid crisis that's consumed a lot of the health media. It's justified that there's so much attention on the problem -- it's played a central role, we suspect, in pushing up white middle-aged mortality over the past decade. And it's great that people are taking more of a nuanced approach to the problem -- using more harm reduction drugs like naloxone, rather than condemning all addicts to jail.

Yet I suspect that the problem would not be treated in the same way if it were primarily a black or brown problem*. Here's a New York Times article with some stunning quotes: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/us/her...rents.html

* (in fact, in a somewhat grim irony, the reason that opioid addiction isn't a problem is likely due to inequities of the healthcare system. We know black people are less likely to be prescribed pain medications when reporting various types of pain than identical white people. See, for example: http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpr...-children/)