brazil84, I see that the achievement gap between blacks and whites in the United States is an issue of interest to you, and that you claim that political correctness is clouding the issue. Now, I know you’ll probably claim that you merely want this political correctness to disappear in order for everyone to gain a better understanding of the reasons for this gap, but the way you frame the issue (you seem to establish a false dichotomy between “the gap is intractable” and “the gap is due to white racism and/or male sexism”) makes me think that you’re quite sure that the main reason for this gap is the first one I mentioned. So let me ask you this: what if it is indeed true? What if, say, we get credible studies that show that, all other factors left constant, blacks in America are less likely to succeed academically than whites? What do you think should happen then? I’m trying to get an idea of where you’re trying to go with all this.
Agreed.
Not exactly, since it’s conceptually possible that the gap is not intractable and not due to white racism/sexism.
By “all other factors left constant,” are you including the politically incorrect factor of genetics?
Genetics is not politically incorrect, the misuse of genetics most assuredly is.
What I mean is that if we want to determine whether there is an inherent difference between the capabilities (athletic, intellectual, artistic, whatever) of different ethnicities, we must have access to comparable samples. It’s possible that differences in income or way of life, or other non-inherent factors, account for a large part of the difference.
If we’re to try to determine whether there is an inherent difference between ethnic groups, we should in fact strive to make genetics the only variable factor, so I don’t really understand your question. And I don’t see how genetics is “politically incorrect” either.
It’s politically incorrect to assert that the obvserved achievement gap is partly or wholly the result of genetics.
I believe what you are asking is this:
Is that what you are asking me?
That’s what you say, but while I don’t follow this sort of debate, I don’t have any indication that there’s ever been a methodologically correct study that indicated that any achievement gap was partly or wholly the result of genetics. I remember there having been a few studies discussed here on this board, but the consensus was that those studies were deficient. So if you or anyone else wants to assert that genetics has a role to play in any achievement gap, it is this person’s responsibility to provide evidence for this. I like to think most people here (not all, but most) will then evaluate the evidence with an open mind and decide whether it is convincing or not.
Yes. I don’t intend to doubt your good faith, but I want to know what the “goal” of all this is, so to speak.
Calling opponents “politically correct” has become a popular tactic when you want to stage a pre-emptive strike on behalf of your own politics or morals.
Case in point: this Chicago Tribune columnist, who dismisses the great weight of scientific evidence contradicting his position as being “politically correct”. He, of course, is just after Truth. :rolleyes:
Based on your statements, here, I would guess that it is your contention that one may not have one’s pudding if one has not eaten one’s meat.
But as you say, it does not really matter.
In other words, you also agree that there’s glory for you.
Actually, it is an historical and demographic accident that 72% of the teachers are white. However, I would agree that O’Connell is looking to change some of the practices of some unidentified percentage of the teachers. That would tend to be obvious from his having called a conference to discuss the issues.
Nah. There are dozens of “real life” stories out there from the perspective of numerous different (and conflicting) political and pedagogic philosophies. They make the cover of Parade magazine two or three times a year and no one pays any attention to them.
It is interesting that you roll ypour eyes at stuff that you hafve invented for the ourpose of building a large straw effigy in this thread. I too roll my eyes at your distraction. As you said it doesn’t matter. Your assertion appears to be that most evils in the system are the result of people preaching political correctness (which, by default is criticism of the Left) while you blithely ignore problems on the Right (for which we have no catchy name).
This (coming back to the point of the thread) was a point I have already made. Thank you for demonstrating the accuracy of my observation.
Maybe and maybe not, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s politically incorrect to make the assertion.
The first priority should be to raise up blacks if possible. I would do this by studying the genes of people who are genetically smart. (Ashkenazi Jews?). We have drugs and food supplements that can make people taller or fatter or thinner. So there’s a decent chance it’s possible to come up with drugs or food supplements that make people smarter.
I don’t know what this means.
Again, I don’t see your point. What glory are you talking about?
And it wasn’t an accident that he mentioned the percentage of teachers that is white.
Would you care to cite a few? I’d like to see what you have in mind.
Lol. Sadly, it ain’t no straw man. All too many people follow the “moralistic fallacy.”
Here’s an example:
Essentially his argument seems to be that parents are not the biggest influence because to say otherwise would be racist and therefore wrong.
That’s not true at all. What system are you talking about? Where did I assert that most evils in the system are the result of people preaching PC?
brazil, let me ask you a different question. Should it matter to a teacher that students may come from different cultural backgrounds in which different behavior is appropriate?
Take the eye-contact example. Stipulate that when most white American kids refuse eye contact during a scolding, it’s a sign of defiance. Stipulate that when most black American kids refuse eye contact during a scolding, it’s a sign of submission to the scolding. Is it appropriate for a teacher to respond to white and black students the same way? Is it helpful for teachers to know about this cultural difference?
Consider similarly students from poor areas, who at home are taught that insults must be met with violence, and that this is a means, sometimes literally, of survival. If you’re trying to teach children to resolve conflicts without violence, is it helpful for teachers to know about this cultural tendency?
The specifics of such matters are certainly worth discussing. I have real trouble imagining in what way the teacher’s ignorance or failure to differentiate is a good idea.
Daniel
What I don’t understand is how in the world does what some group want to be called actually offend someone that’s not of that group? I am white. If blacks want to be called blacks, fine. If they want to be called African American, fine. How does this change my life? What slight impact does this have on me? My day and my stress is not changed. Most of the time I just call them “people.” (as in, “this guy I work with,” or “the person in my classroom” not “this black guy I work with” or “this african american woman in my classroom”)
If someone is handicapped and they want to be called “differently abled” what is the big freaking deal? Do you have to change all the stationery for some reason?
Blackboard vs. chalkboard? And this is what people who are offended by PC terms get upset about? And the PC crowd is supposedly the too-sensitive side?
You know, it’s like using “retarded.” I could see why people who have mentally disabled family members would not like the term because it’s usually used as an insult or as a derogatory term. So, if they would rather you call them mentally challenged or mentally disabled, what difference does it make? Seriously? What does it hurt? How does this change your life to simply remember that they prefer to be called mentally challenged or whatever?
I also don’t understand instances where the attempt to be more accurate is described as being “PC.” For instance, in one of George Carlin’s books, he talks about how “shell shock” became “battle fatigue” became “Post-traumatic Stress disorder.” I realize he was trying to be funny, but this brings up a point. I mean, I work in a school and I know kids who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Would it be right to describe them as having “shell shock?” The are suffering the after (post) effects of something traumatic that happened to them, but I doubt they’ve been near an exploding shell. But gosh, if I use a more accurate term, I will be labeled “PC.” So, if a group of symptoms are shared by war veterans and other people who have been through something traumatic, why NOT use the more accurate term?
But seriously, how difficult is it to call people by what they want to be called?
To be fair, sometimes it is difficult, and sometimes it is irritating. Mentally retarded, if I understand correctly, was intended to be a term to get away from other medically accurate terms like moron, imbecile, and idiot; those terms had derogatory meanings, and folks didn’t want those to attach to folks with retarded (i.e., delayed) mental abilities.
Thing is, engineering language doesn’t work very well. The new medical term just got the old negative connotations attached to it, until now “retarded” has exactly the same connotations as “moronic.”
Well-meaning folks are now encouraging, at least within education, the phrase “developmentally delayed.” Which is fine, but if that term gains currency, it seems likely that in a couple decades kids will say, “You listen to oldies music like Radiohead? That’s so delayed!”
On the other hand, maybe keeping one step ahead of the insult is the best that can be done and is worth doing.
Daniel
Or perhaps, on a more optimistic note, the need to insult people by comparing them to developmentally delayed people will be replaced by more accurate terms.
“You listen to oldies music like Radiohead? You have an old-fashioned and a poor taste in music that I do not agree with.”
In a lot of situations, it may be a good idea. The most important thing is the specifics of what the teacher does or doesn’t do. I would imagine that most teachers who regularly teach students from some particular group already have a pretty good idea about these things and wouldn’t benefit much – if at all – from being more culturally sensitive.
What’s silly (and a result of PC) is to suggest or claim that the achievement gap can be explained by cultural insensitivity.
Because it’s annoying to keep track of, and externally imposed. In effect, it’s a mild imposition of one group’s morality on everything else.
Imagine that a group of Brits decided that us Merkins should drive on the left side of the road. Sure, it’s not actually hard, per se, to accomodate their request, but it’s an annoying imposition, and who the hell are they to tell us how to drive?
I’m not sure if there is much point in continuing a discussion of education with someone who is ignorant of both Pink Floyd and Lewis Carroll.
Firstly, we’ve got to assume that this is an accurate quote from George Carlin. Secondly, I don’t think he’s a qualified doctor and so isn’t in a position to diagnose PTSD. Thirdly, the reverse logic you are suggesting is ridiculous. (Smoking causes cancer, yes? So do we call all cancer sufferers ‘smokers’?)
And what does this analogy explain, in any way at all?
Gorilla Man said
I own the book that he said it in.
How is what I am saying reverse logic? I am saying that you can call people who have shell shock as having “PTSD”, people who have been through trauma as “PTSD” but not that kids have shell shock because they’ve never been near an exploding shell. Your example is not like my example at all.
People who exhibit a certain cluster of symptoms based on a traumatic event are said to have PTSD. Whether it’s caused by exploding shells, child abuse or molestation or natural disaster. All I am saying is that it’s ridiculous to say that they have “shell shock” when the more descriptive and accurate term would be that they exhibit PTSD. How is that reverse logic? I guess you’d say that they all have “shell shock” and that would make more sense and not be ridiculous?
Actually, I recognized the first thing as referring to a Pink Floyd song. But I still didn’t understand your point.
Why not explain your points?
That’s not true at all. What system are you talking about? Where did I assert that most evils in the system are the result of people preaching PC?