# Convince me not to be racist **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 17, 2014, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-not-to-be-racist/695781 "2014-08-17T21:35:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![cain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/85e7bf/32.png) [@cain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cain)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-not-to-be-racist/695781/141 "2014-08-25T03:37:37Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > You realize that the OP is never going to change his mind… I find this comment ridiculously prejudiced. What if he’s an open-minded racist? ---
**Author:** ![eman77](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f04885/32.png) [@eman77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eman77)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-not-to-be-racist/695781/142 "2014-08-25T21:47:02Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Doing something to deliberately piss off another poster is a bad idea in Great Debates. Announcing your intention is a really bad idea. > > Further, if you are going to “reword” another’s post, use quotation marks or italics. Do not use the software’s Quote tags unless you are actually quoting the poster. > > [/Moderating] I think you can agree I’ve been very civil in this thread. I used “pissed off” in a sense that what I was about to do was going to show his hypocrisy. But I will use quotation marks in the future if I do something like that again. Thanks for the heads up. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-not-to-be-racist/695781/143 "2014-08-25T21:49:20Z")
> [@eman77](#): > > I think you can agree I’ve been very civil in this thread. I used “pissed off” in a sense that what I was about to do was going to show his hypocrisy. > > But I will use quotation marks in the future if I do something like that again. Thanks for the heads up. That’s a load of bollocks. I didn’t show any hypocrisy and, for you to “show” it, you had to make up something. ---
**Author:** ![cain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/85e7bf/32.png) [@cain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cain)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2014, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-not-to-be-racist/695781/144 "2014-08-26T00:56:17Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Again, rational risk assessment is multivariate. If you’re going to use crude statistics in a boneheaded manner, you should be concerned that [83% of white homicide victims are murdered by other whites](http://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053811/white-on-white-murder). But isn’t it also true whites overwhelmingly encounter other whites? If one lived in an area where he encountered whites and blacks the same number of times (and for the same duration), is the chance that he’s victimized by either group the same? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2014, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-not-to-be-racist/695781/145 "2014-08-26T07:31:15Z")
> [@cain](#): > > But isn’t it also true whites overwhelmingly encounter other whites? If one lived in an area where he encountered whites and blacks the same number of times (and for the same duration), is the chance that he’s victimized by either group the same? Well actually most murders occur among acquaintances. Stranger-danger homicide, which is what we’re discussing, is far rarer. So these comparisons are bunk: the quoted statistics match poorly to the application. But note that I was discussing using crude statistics in a boneheaded manner. A blinkered emphasis on race when navigating urban threats, such as they are, implies piss-poor risk assessment: other considerations are far more helpful. But some choose to protect their worldview more than their personal safety. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2014, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-not-to-be-racist/695781/146 "2014-08-26T08:13:07Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > Why is this not in the Pit? Gee I dunno probably because the OP isn’t flaming other posters. Ya think? Do you think that any thread in which someone expresses obnoxious views should be moved to the pit so you can abuse them? I’m curious as to exactly what the hell you think is appropriate in these instances. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2014, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-not-to-be-racist/695781/147 "2014-08-26T12:04:01Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Pissed off? Nah. Just not impressed and not amused. > > That’s false. I do not have the same belief structure as the OP. And I certainly do not have the beliefs you put in your fake quote. > > Being racist is a choice. Being a member of a race isn’t. Racists have decided to remove themselves from decency. Yeah, it’s the old bullshit line more commonly seen as: ‘if you’re saying we should be tolerant, you should tolerate the intolerant!’. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2014, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-not-to-be-racist/695781/148 "2014-08-26T15:14:37Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > A blinkered emphasis on race when navigating urban threats, such as they are, implies piss-poor risk assessment: other considerations are far more helpful. But some choose to protect their worldview more than their personal safety. I don’t think there actually is blinkered emphasis, at least not in an exaggerated way… that is, I think very few people, even the one who are openly and proudly racist, would choose to cross the street to get out of the way of a middle aged black couple in their Sunday church best, if crossing the street meant they instead had to walk past a young white guy wearing extremely “urban” clothing and looking shifty. I think the issue is more subtle than that… they’re walking down the street, see a young black guy wearing a hoody and other fear-inducing clothing: (a) do they in fact cross the street (b) when thinking about and recounting the incident, to what extent do they focus on race as being the triggering criterion? ---
**Author:** ![eman77](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f04885/32.png) [@eman77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eman77)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2014, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-not-to-be-racist/695781/149 "2014-08-26T16:22:41Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > That’s a load of bollocks. I didn’t show any hypocrisy and, for you to “show” it, you had to make up something. What I’m saying is, by you mentioning that racists are impossible to “turn”, it’s just as closed-minded as saying black people are impossible to “make good” I wrote what I wrote as an analogy, very similar to what the person in one of the first replies did with their “males commit more crimes” post. For some reason, you had an emotional reaction to it. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2014, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-not-to-be-racist/695781/150 "2014-08-26T16:50:44Z")
> [@eman77](#): > > What I’m saying is, by you mentioning that racists are impossible to “turn”, it’s just as closed-minded as saying black people are impossible to “make good” > > I wrote what I wrote as an analogy, very similar to what the person in one of the first replies did with their “males commit more crimes” post. For some reason, you had an emotional reaction to it. That’s more bollocks. And that’s not an emotional reaction: it’s pointing out a fact about your postings in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-not-to-be-racist/695781/151 "2014-08-27T02:03:45Z")
Is the OP non-racist now? Because I don’t think this bickering is fixing him. Not that I think anything could fix him, just as I don’t think he’s seriously asking to be fixed. ---
**Author:** ![Gorilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/eada6e/32.png) [@Gorilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorilla)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2014, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-not-to-be-racist/695781/152 "2014-09-03T15:01:08Z")
The OP _might_ be interested in this: “The Jane Elliott Study” > [@](#): > > A classic study which very clearly illustrates the cumulative impact > of wrongful social definitions upon people was conducted in 1968 through > 1971, by Jane Elliott. Ms. Elliott was a rather unlikely candidate for the > authoring of one of social science’s most creative and important studies. > She worked as a third grade teacher in the small northeastern Iowa town > of Riceville. Up until the time of her experiment she had been a very > motherly, highly respected teacher who had been well liked by all. > However, upon the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King in March > 1968, she became very distressed and upset. She wanted to teach her > eight and nine year old pupils the evils of racial discrimination, but did > not know how to approach the problem in a way that would prove > incisive and thoroughly convincing. Eight year olds cannot be lectured > to in the way that university students and adults are commonly dealt > with in educational settings. And aggravating the problem was the fact > that most of her young pupils had never even seen a black person apart > from on television or in the movies. The children were all living in a > very rural part of a state which has very few black residents. Of our > fifty states, only Wyoming has a smaller fraction of black residents than > does Iowa. > She finally hit upon a plan which she decided to pursue with > enthusiasm and conviction. She entered her classroom one morning with > a large book which she claimed had been written by a very famous > scientist who is extremely wise and knowledgeable. She proceeded to > tell her young pupils that this scientist had determined that brown-eyed > people are naturally dirty, unkempt, uncooperative, incapable of learning > at a satisfactory speed, incapable of retaining knowledge, discourteous, > unlikely to go far in life, etc. She proceeded to enumerate quite > systematically a whole host of ways whereby brown-eyed people were > alleged by the scientist to be inferior to blue-eyed people. And since her > class was composed of nine brown-eyed children and nine blue-eyed > children (and she herself was green-eyed), she had rather fertile soil for > her experiment. > Again, Ms. Elliott had been well-liked, and there was a very strong > tendency for these impressionable young minds to believe everything > that she said. And as she proceeded through her twenty minute sermon > about the evils of brown-eyed people and the virtues of those with blue > eyes, she could see the brown-eyed children begin to slouch and to > travel off into a world of daydreams. In fact, throughout the experimental > day the disparaged brown-eyed children reacted primarily in one of four > different ways—depending upon their individual temperaments: > (1) withdrawing and going off into a world of fantasy, daydreams, or > sleep; (2) crying and sulking; (3) clowning and goofing off behavior; and > (4) hostile, obstreperous, inconsiderate and/or bullying behavior. > Meanwhile, as Ms. Elliott made her way through the same initial > spiel, the blue-eyed children began to sit up more and more erect. They > began to pay attention to what was going on in class more closely and > intensely than many of them had ever done before. In essence, right > from the very outset of the experiment the disparaged group (browneyed > children) and the exalted group (blue-eyed youngsters) began to > behave in dramatically and very conspicuously different ways. > After Ms. Elliott completed her twenty minute lecture she > announced that since brown-eyed children are not likely to go very far > in life anyway, and since they do not learn as well as other youngsters, > are dirtier, less cooperative, etc., it makes good sense to accord them > fewer classroom privileges than the “naturally superior” blue-eyed children > should be accorded. And with that she ran down a prepared list > of new rules and restrictions that would impact the brown-eyed children > from that moment on. And just so that each child in the classroom could > tell every other child apart on the basis of the criterion of eye color, she > placed large black collars around the necks of each of the brown-eyed > youngsters. Once this was accomplished everyone could easily tell > whether any particular pupil had brown eyes or blue eyes. > Then she began to involve the children in their daily reading lesson. > As usual each child was required to read aloud a passage from a third > grade reader. When a blue-eyed child made a mistake or stumbled through > a passage, Ms. Elliott helped him/her along in a kindly manner, and > then praised him/her. If a blue-eyed student read a passage well, lavish > praise was heaped upon him/her. And she would say: “See, that just > goes to show that everything I said is really true. Blue-eyed people really > are smarter; and they learn their reading lessons much better than browneyed > children do.” > On the other hand, if a brown-eyed child read his/her passage > without error, Ms. Elliott rather abruptly asked the child to stop, and > she immediately moved on to the next child without according the browneyed > youngster a word of praise or recognition. If a brown-eyed youngster > stumbled through a passage, she reacted with a statement similar > to this: “See, that just goes to show how brown-eyed children just won’t > learn.” > In essence, positive or disparaging remarks were systematically > applied to the children throughout the day strictly on the basis of eye > color. Positive behavior was ignored in the brown-eyed youngsters > whereas negative behavior was always noticed and punished with a > rather coldly phrased comment such as: “I guess this is what can naturally > be expected from brown-eyed youngsters.” > By the end of the school day quite remarkable changes had occurred > in Ms. Elliott’s classroom. For example, the brown-eyed third graders > had regressed to first grade reading level, whereas the blue-eyed third > graders were reading at or beyond the fifth grade level. Arithmetic scores, > vocabulary scores, spelling scores, and all other academic criteria > employed to assess change in young children showed that the blue-eyed > pupils were all performing (1) far beyond what would normally be > expected for third graders, and (2) far beyond where they (these very > same children) had performed just one week prior to the experiment. > These same test scores similarly revealed the brown-eyed children to be > functioning at a level that was (1) far below what would ordinarily be > expected for third grade youngsters, and (2) far below the level of performance > that they had displayed just one week prior to the experiment. > Academic performance was hardly the only thing to be affected by > the experimental design that Ms. Elliott had imposed upon her pupils. > After a mere six hours of their new experiences in Ms. Elliott’s classroom > the brown-eyed children had all suffered serious blows to their selfimages. > None of these children liked themselves anymore, and they > displayed these self-disparaging attitudes in a whole host of ways. Some > of the children cried and sulked. Many began to behave in a sullen and > disrespectful manner. Several of the nine brown-eyed children spoke of > how they didn’t want to come to school anymore, and about how they > would find ways to play hookey. All began to look increasingly dirty > and unkempt. None revealed any interest in learning or in open, friendly > socializing with their classmates. > Contrariwise, by the end of the school day the blue-eyed children > had begun behaving far more maturely towards their teacher and visa- > vis each other than they had ever behaved before. Each child displayed > a conspicuously strong enthusiasm for learning and asserted himself/ > herself in a friendly, courteous matter, except vis-a-vis their disparaged > brown-eyed classmates. And this was as true for children who just one > day prior had been the class clowns, the “slow learners”, and the allround > “bad boys”, as it had been for the blue-eyed children who had > always performed well. The posture, grooming, and attitudes towards > self that were manifested by these blue-eyed children were nothing short > of amazing. > It is not necessary to summarize here all of the many interesting > facets of Ms. Elliott’s experiment. Interested readers will find a good > coverage of the study in her book entitled A CLASS DIVIDED which I > have listed in the bibliography at the end of this volume. Suffice it to > say that she ran the study on four different third grade classes: 1968 > through 1971. And each year she reversed things on the second day of > the experiment. In other words, on the second day she advised the > children that she had made a mistake, and that it was really brown-eyed > people who are “superior”, and that blue-eyed people are actually the > inferior ones. > It should be stressed that Ms. Elliott’s findings proved equally > strong each time she ran the experiment. Similarly, immediately after > she turned the tables she found that the academic performance and the > mental attitudes of the blue-eyed children slid downhill in an extremely > dramatic and precipitous fashion; whereas the performance and the > mental attitudes of the brown-eyed children shot upward quite drastically > after only a very short period of time in the exalted role. For some mysterious reason, _sarcasm_ this study has never been publicized even though it has been known about for decades. The OP, or at least the way it is phrased, highlights a problem that one often notices in these kinds of issues; that is a tendency by many people to make “racial” generalizations about pathologies they may observe in specific localized communities/populations. Of course this only tends to be done when one already has a negative predisposition towards that particular “race”. For example, no one ever says that there must be something wrong with Mediterranean people because of the mafia culture and high crime rate in Sicily. Thus, it is easy to see that the question “should I be ‘racist’”, if taken literally, doesn’t follow from the OP’s statistics even if one accepts the faulty analysis and bad conclusions that people tend to make about blacks in Atlanta based on those stats. As an example, the OP might be shocked to know that the people of Rwanda, despite their global repute, are actually some of the most polite and [courteous](http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/4003.cfm) and highly [organized](http://brownschool.wustl.edu/sites/DevPractice/Post%20Conflict%20Reports/Rwanda%20Timeline.pdf) people in the world. In fact, it is their high level of social organization that made the genocide so efficient. The country also has a very [low crime rate](http://www.numbeo.com/crime/city_result.jsp?country=Rwanda&city=Kigali). Sierra Leone is another country which, despite its notorious civil war, had a pretty low crime rate both before and after the war. Even Nigeria, which has become notorious in recent times for its 419 and other criminal activities, had a rather low crime rate before it fell victim to cold war puppeteering and IMF shenanigans which destroyed any serious chances it had of making real economic progress and sorting out its much needed sense of nationhood. My favorite example is that of Botswana, which has a stable democratic institution and low crime rate that many countries of Europe and America would envy. Yet, interestingly, this same country is right next to South Africa which has a notoriously high crime rate and makes perfect fodder for racist extrapolations about blacks. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2014, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-not-to-be-racist/695781/153 "2014-09-03T20:47:58Z")
> [@Gorilla](#): > > For some mysterious reason, _sarcasm_ this study has never been publicized even though it has been known about for decades. I have no idea what you could possibly mean by the phrase “never been publicized.” From [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott#Reactions_and_public_attention): > [@](#): > > In 1971, the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) aired a documentary about her called _The Eye of the Storm_ and made her even more nationally known. Subsequently, William Peters wrote two books—_A Class Divided_ and _A Class Divided: Then and Now_—about her and the exercise. _A Class Divided_ was turned into a PBS _Frontline_ documentary in 1985 and included a reunion of the schoolchildren featured in The Eye of the Storm. A televised edition of the exercise was shown in the United Kingdom on October 29, 2009 on Channel 4 entitled _The Event: How Racist Are You?_ This documentary was intended, according to the producers in their agreement with Jane Elliott, to create an awareness of the effects of racist behaviors by using UK citizens. After the exercise, Elliott said that the result “wasn’t as successful as I am accustomed to being.” > > Elliott was featured by Peter Jennings on ABC as “Person of the Week” on April 24, 1992.[8] She is listed on the timeline of 30 notable educators by textbook editor McGraw-Hill along with Confucius, Plato, Booker T. Washington, and Maria Montessori.[1] She has been invited to speak at 350 colleges and universities and has appeared on _The Oprah Winfrey Show_ five times.[1] It should also be noted that her efforts were not “a study,” but a class exercise with no controls or established protocols. He report of the event did inspire actual [academic studies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott#Academic_research_into_the_.22blue-eyed.2Fbrown-eyed.22_exercise) (with somewhat mixed results). I have no criticism of her actions and I think that it provided interesting information about society and human reactions. It also did spur actual sociologists and psychologists to examine that aspect of human nature. However, your claim that it was “never publicized” simply makes no sense in the context of reality. If you mean that it has not been publicized recently, you might note that the original event occurred over 46 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Gorilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/eada6e/32.png) [@Gorilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorilla)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-not-to-be-racist/695781/154 "2014-09-04T12:00:24Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I have no idea what you could possibly mean by the phrase “never been publicized.” > From [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott#Reactions_and_public_attention): > > It should also be noted that her efforts were not “a study,” but a class exercise with no controls or established protocols. He report of the event did inspire actual [academic studies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott#Academic_research_into_the_.22blue-eyed.2Fbrown-eyed.22_exercise) (with somewhat mixed results). > > I have no criticism of her actions and I think that it provided interesting information about society and human reactions. It also did spur actual sociologists and psychologists to examine that aspect of human nature. However, your claim that it was “never publicized” simply makes no sense in the context of reality. If you mean that it has not been publicized recently, you might note that the original event occurred over 46 years ago. You’ll have to forgive my tendency to be brash and impetuous at times. The woeful google results of the phrase “Jane Elliot study” - combined with the highly controversial nature of the experiment - gave me the impression that few people had ever heard of it. That phrase was simply copied and pasted from the article that I linked to. (“Jane Elliot exercise” doesn’t do much better either, though it gets better with “experiment”.) On a more serious note, I had never heard of this ‘exercise’ myself (btw, what other “controls or established protocols” did she need in order to make her essential point?) until recently. I’m relieved to know that it did receive some publicity, though I share Jane’s disappointment that it had very little effect on society in general, thanks, in part to the fact that she happened to be teaching kids who were “too young” thereby providing a convenient excuse for people to use to condemn her for daring to ruffle their own feathers. Even though it was from a letter written by just one person, this quote is still very interesting: “[How dare you try this cruel experiment out on white children](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott#Reactions_and_public_attention).” So it is apparently okay to do it on black children. And it is in fact what has been done to them for centuries and still continuing. What you said about other ‘studies’ showing “mixed results” is misleading, unless you are assuming that the basic purpose of it is to reduce racism (which would explain why you are giving undue importance to the nomenclature we give to the experiment). I didn’t see anything about other ‘studies’ showing different results in terms of the psychological and behavioral effects of positive/negative feedback and propaganda. It just says that there were “moderate” results in reducing racism and mixed opinions about the harmfulness vs benefits of such studies. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-not-to-be-racist/695781/155 "2014-09-04T13:41:35Z")
> [@Gorilla](#): > > …what other “controls or established protocols” did she need in order to make her essential point? … any? At the very least, in order to conduct a study she would have had to select the pupils randomly. By the very nature of public schooling the kids assigned to one class or three classes or even an entire school cannot be a representative sample of anything except themselves. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-not-to-be-racist/695781/156 "2014-09-04T14:16:09Z")
> [@G-SE](#): > > I know that this is really a two-part debate, but I’m most interested in why, given the statistics of crime in Atlanta, I should treat Black people equally, with as much trust and respect, as a non-Black person? I think the general consensus is that you should take each person individually, regardless of race or whatever. And then afford them the trust and respect that they deserve. I’m not really sure what deciding to be racist means to the OP either. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Nylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Mr.Nylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Nylock)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-not-to-be-racist/695781/157 "2014-09-04T16:42:35Z")
Shouldn’t you be sexist instead of racist based on those statistics? Just wondering. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-not-to-be-racist/695781/158 "2014-09-04T19:13:03Z")
> [@Gorilla](#): > > You’ll have to forgive my tendency to be brash and impetuous at times. The woeful google results of the phrase “Jane Elliot study” - combined with the highly controversial nature of the experiment - gave me the impression that few people had ever heard of it. That phrase was simply copied and pasted from the article that I linked to. (“Jane Elliot exercise” doesn’t do much better either, though it gets better with “experiment”.) > > On a more serious note, I had never heard of this ‘exercise’ myself (btw, what other “controls or established protocols” did she need in order to make her essential point?) until recently. I’m relieved to know that it did receive some publicity, though I share Jane’s disappointment that it had very little effect on society in general, thanks, in part to the fact that she happened to be teaching kids who were “too young” thereby providing a convenient excuse for people to use to condemn her for daring to ruffle their own feathers. Even though it was from a letter written by just one person, this quote is still very interesting: “[How dare you try this cruel experiment out on white children](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott#Reactions_and_public_attention).” So it is apparently okay to do it on black children. And it is in fact what has been done to them for centuries and still continuing. > > What you said about other ‘studies’ showing “mixed results” is misleading, unless you are assuming that the basic purpose of it is to reduce racism (which would explain why you are giving undue importance to the nomenclature we give to the experiment). I didn’t see anything about other ‘studies’ showing different results in terms of the psychological and behavioral effects of positive/negative feedback and propaganda. It just says that there were “moderate” results in reducing racism and mixed opinions about the harmfulness vs benefits of such studies. I doubt anyone would seriously question the proposition that explicitly telling children they are better or worse than other children and subjecting some of them to systematic teacher-directed bullying will cause the students who are bullied and labeled “inferior” will cause them to perform worse than the students who are labelled as “better” and encouraged to do the bullying. What racists and apologists for racists will argue is that that doesn’t reflect how children of different races are treated. That’s why I think other, more famous experiments may be better for the point you’re trying to make. I’m thinking of the one in which teachers were given a false list of students’ IQ scores (based on their locker numbers). Even though the students were not given the list and weren’t aware of it, and the teachers were presumably trying to teach all the students equally, the students nevertheless performed according to the unspoken expectations of the teachers, with students assigned a higher fake IQ doing better than students given a low fake IQ. Or even more on point, the famous experiment sited in Brown v. Board of Education in which black children identified white dolls as better, prettier, etc and wanted to play with those dolls preferentially compared with dolls that actually matched the children’s own race and skin. This despite the children obviously never having been told anything explicit about the dolls before. Those experiments (and I admit I don’t know how scientifically rigorous either one was by today’s standards) demonstrate that even in the absence of overt, explicit discrimination, can respond to social cues related to how they are valued and behave accordingly, even to the point of internalizing negative ideas about their own race and identity and identifying with the socially dominant race. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convince-me-not-to-be-racist/695781.md?page=7)