Well, since I already have this thread open and I’m too lazy to open GD at present:
My concerns would be…
-Can the score jump that was noted in the study posted in this thread be replicated by other measures?
-Are there things we can do, outside of discriminatory pay scales, that will give young black children better role models? That, in particular, seems like a good role for neighberhood churches, or what have you.
-Even if there are not, does the increase in due to black teachers, alone, justify discriminatory hiring/pay scales? What if instead of several points higher on a GPA ranges down to half that. A quarter? Is any increase good enough to be used for discriminatory hiring practices and pay scales, or is there an objective line that we need to draw?
-Have the score increases been tracked in a longitudinal study? Do they lead to better college entrance rates? More people graduating in 4 years? Or do they represent a ‘blip’ that is caused by students liking teachers more who look like them and doing better for teachers they like?
-Has the potential for creating ‘white schools’ and ‘black schools’ been addressed? After all, if black teachers are better for black students, then doesn’t it follow that white teachers are better for white students? And then, for all school districts, they should actively try to hire faculty, and pay them better, if they have the same skin color as the majority of the students in the school? And that, of course, then we’d see schools with mostly white student populations going out of their way to hire and then pay white teachers better than black ones?
-Would parents, then, not endeavor to have their children in those schools, since the education they’d get there would be better?
-Doesn’t that get us right back to “separate but equal”?
These are excellent questions. I try to avoid line-by-line responses, but I think one is justified in this case.
Certainly I wouldn’t advocate moving forward with my idea without further study. I was throwing it out there for discussion, not suggesting immediate legislation.
Certainly so–but I’d say that currently those institutions are, for whatever reason, failing. A government program is something we can all do, whereas a neighborhood church isn’t.
I’m sure there is a line; I’d think a professional statistician would need input in this case.
I’d say that there’s two different benefits that kids may accrue. One benefit is derived by being around successful, stable adults who look like you: it helps you see the potential in yourself. Another benefit is derived by being around successful, stable adults who do not look like you: it helps you see the potential in others. Right now, everyone can see how white females can succeed academically. Every child, black boy or white girl or other combination, would benefit from seeing that black males can succeed in an academic career.
He is teaching in the Minneapolis school system - so the district he is in has a large need for teachers to teach in less advantaged schools - and would really like to target him there - and yes, his race is a factor.
He could go to a white middle class district where they really wouldn’t have an majority black disadvantaged school to send him to - no shortage of those in the Twin Cities suburbs. But he likes teaching where he is.
Would you say that children are around more people that are teachers or more people that are not teachers?
If you say that children are around more people that are not teachers, then doesn’t what you are saying extend to the idea that there should be preferential hiring of minorities in all professions (and other “middle class” jobs, however you define that?
Your use of the term “preferential hiring” is loaded and potentially misleading, it implies that it is the most significant criteria, thus an incompetent black is hired above a competent white. What we are actually about is advancing the positive benefit of a candidate’s race, it is legitimate factor, but one of several.
Clearly, if all other factors are roughly equal, there is no harm in exploiting the accidental fact of race. If one believes, and I do so believe, that a positive “role model” benefits young black children, then why not lean in that direction, other factors being equal?
Its not about discriminating in favor of the black teacher and against the white teacher. Its about what will benefit those kids, and what benefits them, benefits us. By definition, since they are us.
You misinterpret me. I think it’s a bad thing if a hiring decision hinges on the race of the applicant, even if the two candidates are of equal aptitude.
Therefore, if two people of equal aptitude apply for a job, and one is of race X and the other is race Y, you seem to be OK with the employer hiring the race X applicant based on the employer’s belief that doing so will benefit society in some way. I am not OK with the employer doing that.
So, you’re ok with flipping a coin, then? How about praying to Og for guidance? Trial by combat?
If they are equally acceptable candidates, then the question if going to be decided on some arbitrary and minor factor, wouldn’t it make sense to choose an arbitrary and minor factor that will do someone some good?
Except the two applicants wouldn’t be of equal aptitude. If, in the totally unscientific opinion of the interviewer, one applicant will be able to connect, get along with, identify with (choose your preference) the students better, because there is a shared background of some sort, the two are not equal.
Just the same, as when hiring a personal assistant, if I had two equally qualified applicants, I will choose the one that I best get along with (which might mean deliverately disqualifying the Christian, because I don’t like religion)
Answered technically, of course they are around more people that are not teachers: they are around 20 times as many children as they are around adults.
If you’re asking about the adults that kids are around, most kids spend their weekdays around more adults who are teachers than otherwise. There are ~30-35 teachers at our school (counting specialists), and another ~10 teacher assistants. Most kids on weekdays don’t encounter 40 other adults.
More significantly, the adults most kids know best are family members and their teachers. During the school year, I spend 5.5 hours a day around the kid. There are plenty of parents who don’t spend that much time around their kid; some spend significantly less. Teachers are the primary role model that many kids have, excepting their parents.
Even if your premise were correct (which it’s not), your conclusion wouldn’t follow. Incentives for black male teachers won’t be an easy program to implement, but compared to the idea of implementing a program across the board, it’s a piece of cake. Any such program should emphasize attracting black males to professions that children encounter: incentivizing black men to work as server administrators won’t serve the purpose I’m looking at to nearly the degree that incentivizing them to teach would.
(Thanks, by the way, for responding as a decent person responds, i.e., without obnoxious accusations of racism or ridiculously hyperbolic and offensive analogies).
I might. I certainly, however, would participate in a thread that provided a thorough critique of the studies supporting this conclusion, because if that utopian assumption were true, then your murderous position would not be untenable. In GD, the correctness of your position is up for debate. In the Pit, the reasonableness of your position is up for critique. So if your offered studies strongly supported your position, I don’t think a Pit thread would be fair.
And indeed: this is the crux of this matter. You’ve now characterized these studies as “vague” and “not-quite-on-point.” But unless I’ve missed it, you haven’t really supported those characterizations with any actual argument. You’re well within your rights to dismiss my “it just seems that way to me” claim as a gratuitous assertion, but you cannot handwave away the cites offered without a bit more argument.
No. If you’re now modifying your position to object only to “the paternalism” we can certainly focus our discussion on that complaint. But if you won’t withdraw your objection to the role model argument, then it seems incumbent on you to defend it more cogently than you have.
And I’ll probably regret this, but with respect to the paternalism charge: aren’t schools supposed to stand in loco parentis during the day? In light of that role, isn’t a bit of paternalism a valid role for a school to assume, almost by definition?
Luci, please try to think about this in a more nuanced way. It is not the case that hiring the candidate of one race “will do someone some good.” It is more the case that you think it will do someone some good. As pointed out above, the good effects could be of a same race and gender teacher could be limited to the grades in that teacher’s class etc and therefore may offer no benefit when looked at over the long term. There’s not enough evidence yet to say “it will do someone some good.”
So, with this more nuanced view in mind, you are asking whether I think it’s OK to peeferentially hire a candidate of one race based on the employer’s vague notions that it may do someone some good. I don’t think it’s OK, and if you were able to view the situation in a more nuanced manner I think you would agree.
Luci, do you think it’s OK for a voter to vote for a proposition overturning a state supreme court ruling upholding the right of same sex couples to marry based on the voter’s belief that same sex marriage would destroy society? That voter is doing the same thing you want the employer to do.
There is some evidence that hiring Black teachers would be beneficial to Black students; there is also evidence that gay marriage has no detrimental effect on society, and may in fact benefit society. In both cases, I would consider the evidence, and ask others to do the same, rather than making assumptions based on belief.
Actually Rand Rover seriously tried to support his position over his ‘chess ability’.
He posted “Please. I never get to play 7. Be2 because motherfuckers KNOW not to play 5…Be7 against me.”
This is a reference to analysis and games by Kasparov in an attempt to revive the Evans Gambit.
The point of this is that he has now confessed that he knows nothing about chess and made it all up "to gain respect’.
This tells me a lot about him, both as someone who makes fake claims (which cast doubt on his ‘I’m a tax lawyer’ and ‘I’m rich’) and as someone who has a fragile ego.
I wonder what public reactin would be, if Letterman had told the same story, only with Obama’s daughter being raped.
Somehow, I dn’t think the lefties would find it all that funny!
Except that it’s not the explicit purpose of most other careers to prepare children to become functional, contributing members of society. So their ability to act as role models to children should not be a factor in their hiring, because it’s not related to their ability to do their job.
