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.
Yep. Consider the shortage of (for example) HVAC technicians. Someone entering the field at this point could easily go from entry level to running their own successful shop in a handful of years...while their peers are still racking up higher ed debt to get the terminal PhD and end up making less. The trades are a prime example of an area where someone can aim high without mortgaging their financial future. The only stigma in those areas is an artificial one created by some parents and the higher ed business model (I used to work in a university system, and the hostility we saw directed at any form of vocational or trades education was unbelievable).
We also need to understand how higher ed degrees have snuck into areas that didn't used to require them (accounting used to be an apprenticeship career, for one example).
I agree with you. It's unfortunate that the trades have fallen out of favor. I spent 10 years of my life as a silver and goldsmith in between academic careers. My brother was a master carpenter. There is little that is more satisfying than working with your hands which, by the way, also requires you to work with your brain!
That, too, is very true. There are a lot of wonderful alternatives to getting a traditional college degree. And everyone would be better served if they were pursuing a future for which they were realistically prepared.
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.'
Yes, it is completely bizarre and nonsensical. All the worse when this persists in departments like biology or in STEM more broadly. It's an abandonment of basic principles in a university setting. Like teaching astrology instead of astronomy. The "problem" goes beyond most AA being "mixed race". Everyone is. There is no blood purity. The boundaries of race have changed over time (Irish, Italians) and vary massively country by country. It is an invented fiction for malicious purposes, and every time we associate with it we give it further credence as some sort of fundamental truth.
I suspect at some point they'll trot out their own version of the Nuremberg Laws with tables determining what percentage is needed to be considered of X race. Of course they won't necessarily realize they're mimicking National Socialist methods and theories.
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.
Fundamentally, I agree with your point. Genetics are important for a lot of reasons including therapeutic medicine. However, as you point out, there is a dynamic interplay between genes and environment that gives rise to a level of variability that can be quite nuanced and doesn't map easily onto our colloquial use of the word race.
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.
But is there any real value in doing so, aside from proving that you could? And given that race as it's currently bundled includes a number of factors that are more social and (possibly) historical than scientific, I don't see any point in the exercise. If we're going to do that, we might as well go back to the measuring calipers and hair shade cards.
I don't dispute that it's possible, I just don't see any real value in doing it.
I understand that as well, but again we're looking at today's climate surrounding the construct of race. If you find anything that might be considered even remotely negative, it will be held up as proof that science is systemically racist.
I was just responding to your query whether there were any real value in doing so. - humans are still bound by Natural Law (physical and biological) no matter how many pretty words are penned in ivory towers.
The trick is to express results in a neutral form that does not lend itself easily to fanning the flames. As long as authors write in a clinical manner the 'racism-hunters' will probably not be able to understand it.
They don't need to understand it to level accusations, though. That's part of the magic of their approach. They'll just claim you're using the language of White Supremacy to hide the systemic racism in both your methods and your results...unless they agree with what you find. In that world neutrality just doesn't exist.
I do understand and agree there's value in digging into the kind of things you mention, and it's quite possible the current climate will work to prevent that kind of research. I also agree with the concept of Natural Law as you express it, but to some that's simply the language of colonialism and white supremacy designed to keep the huddled masses huddled.
Conceptually, you are correct. I think, however, that the gross morphological characteristics don't have much importance. Clearly, in the field of physiology and medicine, there are genetically similar groups of people that, for instance, may be more or less susceptible to a particular disease, or more or less responsive to a particular medication. However these more subtle genetic variations don't map easily onto the gross morphological characteristics of human beings. It's also the case that many morphological characteristics are not determined by specific genes but rather by the interplay of varying numbers of genetic characteristics. For instance, height is affected by thousands of individual gene loci. The situation is really no different than it is for any other biological organisms. Often, grouping organisms by molecular genetics yields very different phylogeny then grouping them by gross morphological characteristics. Thank you for your thoughtful comment!
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.
And/or recognize that not everyone is cut out for a career that requires college and then post-graduate studies. Destigmatize the alternatives.
Yep. Consider the shortage of (for example) HVAC technicians. Someone entering the field at this point could easily go from entry level to running their own successful shop in a handful of years...while their peers are still racking up higher ed debt to get the terminal PhD and end up making less. The trades are a prime example of an area where someone can aim high without mortgaging their financial future. The only stigma in those areas is an artificial one created by some parents and the higher ed business model (I used to work in a university system, and the hostility we saw directed at any form of vocational or trades education was unbelievable).
We also need to understand how higher ed degrees have snuck into areas that didn't used to require them (accounting used to be an apprenticeship career, for one example).
I agree with you. It's unfortunate that the trades have fallen out of favor. I spent 10 years of my life as a silver and goldsmith in between academic careers. My brother was a master carpenter. There is little that is more satisfying than working with your hands which, by the way, also requires you to work with your brain!
That, too, is very true. There are a lot of wonderful alternatives to getting a traditional college degree. And everyone would be better served if they were pursuing a future for which they were realistically prepared.
That is a very good point. I agree with you.
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.'
That is an irony, isn't it? I don't understand how the concept "race" can be dismissed on the one hand and then vehemently applied, on the other.
Yes, it is completely bizarre and nonsensical. All the worse when this persists in departments like biology or in STEM more broadly. It's an abandonment of basic principles in a university setting. Like teaching astrology instead of astronomy. The "problem" goes beyond most AA being "mixed race". Everyone is. There is no blood purity. The boundaries of race have changed over time (Irish, Italians) and vary massively country by country. It is an invented fiction for malicious purposes, and every time we associate with it we give it further credence as some sort of fundamental truth.
A very good point with which I fundamentally agree.
I suspect at some point they'll trot out their own version of the Nuremberg Laws with tables determining what percentage is needed to be considered of X race. Of course they won't necessarily realize they're mimicking National Socialist methods and theories.
"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.
Fundamentally, I agree with your point. Genetics are important for a lot of reasons including therapeutic medicine. However, as you point out, there is a dynamic interplay between genes and environment that gives rise to a level of variability that can be quite nuanced and doesn't map easily onto our colloquial use of the word race.
Great opinion! And that's why I like dr. Mason's theory of racelessness. https://www.theoryofracelessness.org/
Thank you for the link!
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.
A good point.
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
Agreed. And, thanks for the link!
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.
But is there any real value in doing so, aside from proving that you could? And given that race as it's currently bundled includes a number of factors that are more social and (possibly) historical than scientific, I don't see any point in the exercise. If we're going to do that, we might as well go back to the measuring calipers and hair shade cards.
I don't dispute that it's possible, I just don't see any real value in doing it.
There are reasons to consider genetics of human groups: it is well known that the prevalence of many diseases varies across subspecies of humans.
I understand that as well, but again we're looking at today's climate surrounding the construct of race. If you find anything that might be considered even remotely negative, it will be held up as proof that science is systemically racist.
I was just responding to your query whether there were any real value in doing so. - humans are still bound by Natural Law (physical and biological) no matter how many pretty words are penned in ivory towers.
The trick is to express results in a neutral form that does not lend itself easily to fanning the flames. As long as authors write in a clinical manner the 'racism-hunters' will probably not be able to understand it.
They don't need to understand it to level accusations, though. That's part of the magic of their approach. They'll just claim you're using the language of White Supremacy to hide the systemic racism in both your methods and your results...unless they agree with what you find. In that world neutrality just doesn't exist.
I do understand and agree there's value in digging into the kind of things you mention, and it's quite possible the current climate will work to prevent that kind of research. I also agree with the concept of Natural Law as you express it, but to some that's simply the language of colonialism and white supremacy designed to keep the huddled masses huddled.
We agree that there is value in digging into some of these things.
Regarding their rhetorical tricks - haters gonna hate. I will shake it off and spend my time on other things. Have a good one :)
Basically, I agree with you on this. However, it does have use in physiology and medicine, as others have pointed out.
Conceptually, you are correct. I think, however, that the gross morphological characteristics don't have much importance. Clearly, in the field of physiology and medicine, there are genetically similar groups of people that, for instance, may be more or less susceptible to a particular disease, or more or less responsive to a particular medication. However these more subtle genetic variations don't map easily onto the gross morphological characteristics of human beings. It's also the case that many morphological characteristics are not determined by specific genes but rather by the interplay of varying numbers of genetic characteristics. For instance, height is affected by thousands of individual gene loci. The situation is really no different than it is for any other biological organisms. Often, grouping organisms by molecular genetics yields very different phylogeny then grouping them by gross morphological characteristics. Thank you for your thoughtful comment!
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.