In a recent article for FAIR Substack, David Ferrero argued convincingly that school programs designed to view their subject matter through an “ethnic studies”— rather than an “ethnic histories”— lens can be “reductive, tendentious, divisive, and doctrinaire.” He also pointed out that this narrow approach, which includes indiscriminate references to putative ‘racial’ groups (“black”, “Asian”, “white”, etc.), is antithetical to the ideal of bridging our “ethnic and religious differences in the service of forging a shared civic identity.”
A correlation between aspiration and achievement is not necessarily a causation. Indeed, there could be causation in the opposite direction--those who have achieved the best in elementary and high school are likely to have the highest aspirations for post-secondary education. (If you get Ds, are you going to want to go through 7, 8, or more years of school to become a doctor or lawyer, quite aside from the fact that everyone's going to tell you it's out of reach?)
So while it's great to encourage kids to aim high, we also have to give them the tools to make those aims achievable, though quality education and emphasizing that effort will be rewarded.
The author's most important point was that the same folks in Academia who point out that race is a 'social construct' use race as a basis for many programs which can have huge impacts on millions of lives.
Another complication for dealing with race in America: studies show that most African-Americans are, technically, mixed-race. For example, Sally Hemings was 3/4 white and her children (who were likely sired by T. Jefferson) were white enough that some 'passed.'
Apr 17, 2023·edited Apr 17, 2023Liked by Frederick R Prete
I think your approach of focusing on variables that might be amenable to action is the only thing that makes sense--- education, resilience, aspiration.
And to that end, I think you might want to skip the genetics arguments altogether. Arguments about genetic variability between races are always using DNA sequences as the definition of genetic variability. But this wildly oversimplifies the current science. The core concept is that phenotype doesn’t map directly onto genotype. To quote from Sonia E. Sultan, Organism and Environment: “Phenotypes emerge from the dynamic interplay of different types of regulatory elements and not simply from the presence or absence of particular DNA sequences.” “A number of developmental factors can be transmitted across generations.”
It remains an open question, but for sure it’s a vast oversimplification to look at the genome at the level of DNA sequences to argue for race as a purely social construct.
We all have SO MUCH more in common than apart. Always have. We can’t let fringe left Wokeism or extreme conservatives pull us apart. Critical thinking is paramount.
Since I went to college most social studies reports can be determined before reading. The various studies programs is even more aggressive in producing predetermined outcomes. They also provides careers for academics who might not otherwis ehave place.
I don't think that the fact that racial groups have more internal variation genetically means you can't genetically define races. It means that you have to define them using particular marker genetics. E.g. look at the genetics for skin color and a few other morphological characteristics. I'm not saying those are biologically useful genetic categories, I'm just saying I'll bet you could do it. I mean, sociologically, races are usually defined morphologically. And those morphological characteristics are the result of genetics. So if you pin down those genes responsible for the morphological difference, you could give a genetic definition.
My momma used to say to us, "If you think you can or think you can't, you are right." So much is based on what you believe yourself capable of doing and that starts and ends at home.
A correlation between aspiration and achievement is not necessarily a causation. Indeed, there could be causation in the opposite direction--those who have achieved the best in elementary and high school are likely to have the highest aspirations for post-secondary education. (If you get Ds, are you going to want to go through 7, 8, or more years of school to become a doctor or lawyer, quite aside from the fact that everyone's going to tell you it's out of reach?)
So while it's great to encourage kids to aim high, we also have to give them the tools to make those aims achievable, though quality education and emphasizing that effort will be rewarded.
The author's most important point was that the same folks in Academia who point out that race is a 'social construct' use race as a basis for many programs which can have huge impacts on millions of lives.
Another complication for dealing with race in America: studies show that most African-Americans are, technically, mixed-race. For example, Sally Hemings was 3/4 white and her children (who were likely sired by T. Jefferson) were white enough that some 'passed.'
"Race Divides Us, Aspirations Unite Us"
Amen.
Wonderful and fantastic!
I think your approach of focusing on variables that might be amenable to action is the only thing that makes sense--- education, resilience, aspiration.
And to that end, I think you might want to skip the genetics arguments altogether. Arguments about genetic variability between races are always using DNA sequences as the definition of genetic variability. But this wildly oversimplifies the current science. The core concept is that phenotype doesn’t map directly onto genotype. To quote from Sonia E. Sultan, Organism and Environment: “Phenotypes emerge from the dynamic interplay of different types of regulatory elements and not simply from the presence or absence of particular DNA sequences.” “A number of developmental factors can be transmitted across generations.”
It remains an open question, but for sure it’s a vast oversimplification to look at the genome at the level of DNA sequences to argue for race as a purely social construct.
Great opinion! And that's why I like dr. Mason's theory of racelessness. https://www.theoryofracelessness.org/
I'd love to see ACT score gridded against the household income of the test-taker. Bet it would explain away most of the racial stuff.
We all have SO MUCH more in common than apart. Always have. We can’t let fringe left Wokeism or extreme conservatives pull us apart. Critical thinking is paramount.
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/p/being-a-free-thinker
Since I went to college most social studies reports can be determined before reading. The various studies programs is even more aggressive in producing predetermined outcomes. They also provides careers for academics who might not otherwis ehave place.
Cart before the horse, once again, still, ever.
I don't think that the fact that racial groups have more internal variation genetically means you can't genetically define races. It means that you have to define them using particular marker genetics. E.g. look at the genetics for skin color and a few other morphological characteristics. I'm not saying those are biologically useful genetic categories, I'm just saying I'll bet you could do it. I mean, sociologically, races are usually defined morphologically. And those morphological characteristics are the result of genetics. So if you pin down those genes responsible for the morphological difference, you could give a genetic definition.
My momma used to say to us, "If you think you can or think you can't, you are right." So much is based on what you believe yourself capable of doing and that starts and ends at home.