New York Times hires unapologetic racist writer

[SlackerInc]

Kimstu, I’m onto you at this point. Unlike some other antagonists here, you make a good show of seeming reasonable and fair. But you are really not, not at all. To wit:

@Kimstu

That comes across pretty unambiguously as desiring general recognition and endorsement of the pre-Civil-Rights racialist belief that black kids are just innately not as smart as white ones on average, so we should accept lower educational standards and expectations for them

What you claim “pretty unambiguously” represented advocacy for returning to a pre-Brown approach to educating black kids included the following, which you couldn’t have missed because it was part of what you quoted:

@SlackerInc

I want us to go back to a mode where we teach them as best we can, put extra resources into their education and enrichment, and at the same time care for their self esteem.

So…srsly? The pre-Brown approach was to put extra resources into educating and enriching black kids, while being mindful of their self-esteem? For real? :dubious:

I would BTW encourage people to read that whole post. It’s a nice summation of my educational philosophy, and I think an interesting read—unlike the dry-as-dust, painfully dull squabble over school funding numbers.

@Kimstu

Yes, I would definitely describe that as “advocating making policy changes” on the basis of the abovementioned hypothesis about genetic differences.

You get a technical point here, because although I said “resisting changes”, some of that change has already been implemented over the past 10-15 years. So yes: I would like to move back to the paradigm that held sway before Dubya and his “No Child Left Behind” “soft bigotry of low expectations” bullshit. But I would settle for not letting the “reformers” do any more damage than they already have.

@Kimstu

IMHO, when the mainstream scientific consensus considers certain claims to be pseudoscientific bullshit, you don’t need scientific expertise of your own to justify saying “The mainstream scientific consensus considers these claims to be pseudoscientific bullshit.” But you do need such expertise—not to mention a whole lot of solid research evidence backing it up—to justify saying “The mainstream scientific consensus is wrong in considering these claims to be pseudoscientific bullshit.”

The conference survey, and the comments in the Vox piece, make it clear that there is no consensus. (Even if one side has 60 or 70 percent support in the field, that would not a consensus make—it’s not at all clear that you or Andy understand that.)

@Evil_Economist

I’m going to explain your own claim to you, in small words. Stop me where you get lost:

Or where you misstate my claim, which is coming in 3, 2, 1…

@Evil_Economist

STATEMENT 1: Black schoolchildren get more funding on average than white schoolchildren
STATEMENT 2: Excluding Special Ed funding, black schoolchildren get less funding than white schoolchildren

BZZZT! I did not make STATEMENT 2.

@Evil_Economist

STATEMENT 3: STATEMENT 1 and STATEMENT 2 can both be true because a higher percentage of black schoolchildren receive Special Ed funding

Yes, they could both be true. But they don’t have to be. The fact that a higher percentage of black schoolchildren receive SpEd funding does not in itself require STATEMENT 2 to be true.

@Evil_Economist

Do you not realize that, mathematically speaking, this must mean that non-special-ed black schoolchildren must receive less per capita funding than non-special-ed white schoolchildren?

If STATEMENT 2 were true, it would indeed mean that. Not “mathematically”, but because it’s basically just a restatement of STATEMENT 2. So?

@Evil_Economist

And that special ed black schoolchildren must receive less per capita funding than special ed white schoolchildren?

No. You are amazingly innumerate if you really are an economist. STATEMENT 1 and STATEMENT 2 could both be true, and special ed black schoolchildren could still receive more per capita funding than special ed white schoolchildren. (I’m not saying that’s so, just pointing out that there is no logical conflict preventing all three from being simultaneously true.)