Black Adversity: The Opposite of White Privilege

[michaelintp]

Wise Son, yep, liked your "door" stuff. 

I believe that were I black and pursued the same education and career, and put in the same amount of work, I would be just about as well off if not better off. Recall that I "came up" in the 1970's and beyond, during the era of affirmative action, which continues today in the pursuit of diversity.  

As to the "white privilege" thing, I'm tired of talkin' about it already. Enough is enough.

Regarding the impact of slavery ... it would be interesting to know what was the illegitimate birth rate among African-Americans in, say 1955, vs. that of the general population, and what that birthrate is today.  It would be interesting to see the rate of employment in, say, 1955 vs. the rate of employment today, and similar statistics as well. In terms of measuring increase in college degrees and professional careers, my guess is the numbers are improved. In terms of the marriage issue and working folks at the blue collar level, probably worse.

It is interesting that while we differ on a number of matters, we have reached some areas of common understanding. Cool.

[Curtis Metcalf]

There still exists racial discrimination, and some people do harbor attitudes of bigotry, though clearly nothing near what existed 50 or 100 years ago. Though there is of course still fallout from past discrimination as well. Many folks have done well to overcome those past effects, others have a harder time.

People's bigotry focuses on a variety of things, including race, religion, nation of origin, and so forth. That evil should be the focus. That does not mean that the vast majority of persons (of several racial, national and religious backgrounds) who do not benefit from this mistreatment of others and who have not been significantly discriminated against themselves in their lives are enjoying a "privilege" ... rather, they are just being treated normally, as all persons should be treated. With or without that discrimination directed at others their lives would not not one jot different (and as I've argued above, they would probably on average be better off themselves absent bigotry).

I'm not going around and around on this with you any more, Curtis. I'm not making a mere rhetorical point. I am attempting to fight against bigotry, resentment, divisiveness, and hatred ... and the misplaced assumptions and distorted focus that foster these destructive attitudes.

And ... to have a reasoned discussion of the broader issues.

Michael, if you will check my last post, I responded by providing a definition of the term white privilege as I mean it, asking if you recognized the phenomenon and inviting you to suggest an alternative term for it. I'm still waiting.

So based on your last answer, that's a no. You don't acknowledge the phenomenon I defined as "white privilege" and so you decline to offer another term for it that you find less objectionable. If I misunderstood your answer, I'm still waiting but I'm not holding my breath.

I wonder if you acknowledge the disparities between whites and others in the USA in terms of wealth, health, justice, etc. If so, how do you explain the gaps? Do you find them inequitable?

Believe it or not, Michael, the effects of racism are far more widespread and insidious than straightforward bigotry.

[michaelintp]

Silly. I did answer your question. Absent racial discrimination, none of what you describe would exist (or at least would not exist by reason of racism and bigotry; whether some disparities might exist between different sub-populations for other reasons is theoretically possible, I suppose). In terms of what we are discussing, the problem is the effect of racial discrimination, past and present. That is the proper term. Or the phrase, "The effects of discrimination."  You just don't like that answer. It doesn't foster the same attitudes. The condemnation of past and present racial discrimination actually has the effect of bringing people together.

[michaelintp]

Oh, Wise Son, one quick thing, regarding the Princeton Study and your comments on "peer" review. I saw no discussion of controls in the study. If there were, I would like to know what they were.The best control is where the persons being sent out for interviews, as well as the persons doing the interview, have no idea that a study exists at all. However, my understanding of the "agents" sent out on interviews did know of the existence of the study. A person can blow an interview even while following a script generally comparable to another person; much of what takes place in an interview is non-verbal. The candidate doesn't even need to fart or belch to blow the interview. As to your confidence in "peer" review, I have to wonder as to the value of that review when the peers share the same biases as the researchers. Furthermore, were a peer to attack the study, the "peer" might be flushing his or her academic career down the toilet, being accused of racism or supporting racism or advocating the cover-up of racism, etc. Particularly in this field of study, a smart peer might realize that a strong critique would be imprudent. I'm not willing to take on faith that an unbiased methodology was employed just because the study has the name of a left-leaning organization and a left-leaning academic department slapped on it. If effective controls were used, I would like to know what they were.

[Wise Son]

Wise Son, yep, liked your "door" stuff. 

Phew!

I believe that were I black and pursued the same education and career, and put in the same amount of work, I would be just about as well off if not better off. Recall that I "came up" in the 1970's and beyond, during the era of affirmative action, which continues today in the pursuit of diversity.

 
Hurm. In pursuit of diversity? I would say more in pursuit of equality, and the fact that we still have it is an indicator that we don't have that equality. Imagine how much worse it would have been when you were coming up in the 70s. Do you really think you would have got as far as you havem having put in exactly the same amount of effort? Your post seems to suggest that you think it has been effectively easier for Blacks in that period, which is the opposite of what most of the research says.

Regarding the impact of slavery ... it would be interesting to know what was the illegitimate birth rate among African-Americans in, say 1955, vs. that of the general population, and what that birthrate is today.  It would be interesting to see the rate of employment in, say, 1955 vs. the rate of employment today, and similar statistics as well. In terms of measuring increase in college degrees and professional careers, my guess is the numbers are improved. In terms of the marriage issue and working folks at the blue collar level, probably worse.

 
Well, I'd be hesitant on making exactly those kind of assumptions without seeing those kind of statistics.

It is interesting that while we differ on a number of matters, we have reached some areas of common understanding. Cool.

Definitely, that's been one of those things I've always enjoyed about the HEF.

[Wise Son]

I saw no discussion of controls in the study. If there were, I would like to know what they were.

Here they are, in the paper you linked to:

Using an experimental audit methodology, we sent teams of male testers with equivalent resumes to apply for entry level jobs in New York City. Testers were matched on the basis of age and appearance; after selection, they participated in extensive training to ensure consistency in their interactions with employers. The testers used fictitious matched resumes reflecting equal levels of education and work experience.

The best control is where the persons being sent out for interviews, as well as the persons doing the interview, have no idea that a study exists at all.

That would have made the training impossible, which would have invalidated the test, as they could have had wildly different interview techniques.

A person can blow an interview even while following a script generally comparable to another person; much of what takes place in an interview is non-verbal.

I did assume that 'extensive training' covered that, as it certainly sounds like more than just following a script.

As to your confidence in "peer" review, I have to wonder as to the value of that review when the peers share the same biases as the researchers.

Well, what you're getting into there is criticising the basis of the entire scientific process. Same as the climate change deniers. Peer review works because scientists recognise that if they don't keep it objective, every study is automatically called into question. You really need to have solid evidence to call the peer review into question, especially as psychology and sociology are viewed as 'softer' scientists, and so know they have to be especially stringent in applying controls (granted I'm basing that on my A-Level, equivalent to senior High School over there, I think).

Furthermore, were a peer to attack the study, the "peer" might be flushing his or her academic career down the toilet, being accused of racism or supporting racism or advocating the cover-up of racism, etc.

That's an awful lot of "mights" Mike. I'm just saying.

I'm not willing to take on faith that an unbiased methodology was employed just because the study has the name of a left-leaning organization and a left-leaning academic department slapped on it. If effective controls were used, I would like to know what they were.

No one's asking you to take anything on faith. You also shouldn't distrust it purely because it has a left-leaning organization attached to it. It seems a pretty solid study based on what I have seen so far, and again, from what I know of the fields of psychology and sociology, I actually think that you're being overly sceptical, without a clear reason to be.

[michaelintp]

Ha, ha, Wise Son, the "mights" that I posited, in my view, accurately reflect the climate of much of the academic community, certainly in the social sciences, and certainly in this field of study. (Indeed, in recent years we've even seen some of this corruption infect the "hard" sciences). I imagine we disagree regarding the extent that the "scientific method" used in the pursuit of truth has been largely supplanted by politics and agendas (with an increasing leftward tilt since the 1960s). Nor do we agree on the extent that this affects the "peer review" (you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours) process. However, this should not surprise anyone, as we are talking about the soft "social" sciences -- and almost always the researchers are trying to develop ammunition to advance their point of view and social policy agenda. The studies I am most inclined to believe in the social sciences are the ones that, despite the researchers' biases, actually produce outcomes that contradict what the researcher is trying to prove. Because there the researcher bias did not affect the ultimate outcome (and may have understated it).

Given the agenda of the researchers, I do not have the same confidence that you do that, consciously or more likely unconsciously, the "actors" (who shared the researchers' agenda, no doubt) didn't skew the results. Or at least there is a very real possibility that they did so. Notwithstanding the so-called "extensive training."  Because, as a person who has conducted job interviews, I can tell you that the interactions between persons are subtle, and cannot be readily controlled to the extent that you think they can -- without the candidates coming across as robots. Indeed, one thing that the researchers were not in control of were the interview techniques of the employers conducting the interviews, nor could they possibly anticipate every response to those differing techniques. This is just way tooooo fuzzy to create a lot of comfort in the conclusion. This is compounded by the strange disparity in the results of the different experiments, results that one would have expected to be more consistent (regarding white and black non-offenders in the various experiments).

Blind studies are not invalid. In a case such as this, I will agree that isolating the variables is difficult if you are dealing with general statistical data where both the interviewer and the candidate don't know they are part of a study (as each candidate may differ in other respects, though I would think that in theory one could attempt to isolate data on similarly situated candidates in the real world, were that data available). Such an approach would eliminate the possibility of the experimenters and their "actors" affecting the outcome. However, the rub is that it may be that the actual real-world data is not readily available, or it may not be possible to isolate a single variable (such as race) because of a number of other intertwined variables.

In any event, my point is that this study appears to be suspect. I do not react the same way to studies that employ more objective methodologies. Whether be they based on objective statistical data or truly objective techniques where the researchers and they agents can't skew the results (for example, the study with the identical resumes with and without photographs, submitted, measuring positive responses and rejections, is not tainted with the same flaws as the study we have been discussing here, as there is no personal interaction involved that could affect the result).

As to whether I would be the same or better off were I black, assuming I had pursued the same education and career: I think to the schools that most likely would have admitted me had I been black, the greater financial aid I would have received had I been black, the reduced debt burden upon graduation from college and law school had I been black, as well as the additional doors that may have opened in my employer's pursuit of diversity had I been black. (That is what it is called here in the States, "diversity" as in "diversity programs"). I have seen it with my own eyes. Curtis once referenced an article in which the respected author stated that black professors earn more than their equally qualified white counterparts, on average. (This appears not to be the case with unskilled entry-level jobs). This is not, in fact, "equality" as you say; rather it reflects the recognition that many of our institutions do value ethnic diversity and are willing to pay a premium for it. It is on this basis that I stated that I would probably be just as well off, if not better off, were I black. I'm not saying with certainty I would be better off; because of other factors (most notably my personal lack of geographic mobility). However, I most certainly do not believe that I would be worse off.

[Curtis Metcalf]

Silly. I did answer your question. Absent racial discrimination, none of what you describe would exist (or at least would not exist by reason of racism and bigotry; whether some disparities might exist between different sub-populations for other reasons is theoretically possible, I suppose). In terms of what we are discussing, the problem is the effect of racial discrimination, past and present. That is the proper term. Or the phrase, "The effects of discrimination."  You just don't like that answer. It doesn't foster the same attitudes. The condemnation of past and present racial discrimination actually has the effect of bringing people together.

But why so antagonistic, Micheal? You said you didn't like the term white privilege so I asked you to suggest an alternative. You seem to have some imaginary movie playing in your head about what I like and why. Silly?

So, "the effects of discrimination". Is that the same as "the effects of racism"? The reason I ask is that you seem to want to focus exclusively on blatant bigotry and discrimination while downplaying more subtle forms of racism. I would argue that people and systems can be unintentionally, even unconsciously racist. Would you agree?

[Curtis Metcalf]

As to whether I would be the same or better off were I black, assuming I had pursued the same education and career: I think to the schools that most likely would have admitted me had I been black, the greater financial aid I would have received had I been black, the reduced debt burden upon graduation from college and law school had I been black, as well as the additional doors that may have opened in my employer's pursuit of diversity had I been black. (That is what it is called here in the States, "diversity" as in "diversity programs"). I have seen it with my own eyes. Curtis once referenced an article in which the respected author stated that black professors earn more than their equally qualified white counterparts, on average. (This appears not to be the case with unskilled entry-level jobs). This is not, in fact, "equality" as you say; rather it reflects the recognition that many of our institutions do value ethnic diversity and are willing to pay a premium for it. It is on this basis that I stated that I would probably be just as well off, if not better off, were I black. I'm not saying with certainty I would be better off; because of other factors (most notably my personal lack of geographic mobility). However, I most certainly do not believe that I would be worse off.

You know, I think this is the crux of the matter and I applaud your honesty. I think many, if not most, white people in America share your belief that they would be just as well off if not better off if they were black. Which just goes to show you how delusional people can be about race.

As Wise Son said, this belief flies in the face of the actual data. For the sake of argument, let's say you are right about your individual circumstances (although you might be defining better off in a fairly narrow way). The question is so what? You would have to admit that yours is not a typical situation, right? That would make your one data point a relative outlier telling us very little about the aggregate. Data is not the plural of anecdote.

If I am right about a large number of white people sharing the belief that they would be as well off or better off if they were black, what does that reveal about their attitudes? Doesn't that imply a belief that black people could do just fine if only they would work? In other words, if only they weren't lazy and/or dumb.

At the end of the day, there are only two explanations for the gaps observed in the US: white supremacy or white privilege the effects of racism. Me, I think the game is rigged. That is not to say that black people shouldn't work. Of course not. However, we should be rewarded equitably across the board for that work. Liberty, equality, and justice.

[Wise Son]

Ha, ha, Wise Son, the "mights" that I posited, in my view, accurately reflect the climate of much of the academic community, certainly in the social sciences, and certainly in this field of study.

The mights you were referring to were about whether a researcher would be dismissed out of hand as racist for bringing up serious objections to a study like this, and actually have their career in danger. To suggest that this is the case, basically suggests that this entire field of study is invalid, as it would call any similar study into question. It's no small accusation, and one I really think you should back up.

(Indeed, in recent years we've even seen some of this corruption infect the "hard" sciences).

In what cases? (Man, I'm really hoping this doesn't lead to another discussion of that 'Climategate' rubbish)

I imagine we disagree regarding the extent that the "scientific method" used in the pursuit of truth has been largely supplanted by politics and agendas (with an increasing leftward tilt since the 1960s). Nor do we agree on the extent that this affects the "peer review" (you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours) process.

Clearly, because I recognise that if your view is accurate, entire fields of scientific studies are rendered invalid, and need to be completely re-evaluated. These systems exist purely to prevent the kind of bias that you are describing.

However, this should not surprise anyone, as we are talking about the soft "social" sciences -- and almost always the researchers are trying to develop ammunition to advance their point of view and social policy agenda.

Again, is that your impression, an assumption, or a statement you feel there is concrete evidence to back up?

The studies I am most inclined to believe in the social sciences are the ones that, despite the researchers' biases, actually produce outcomes that contradict what the researcher is trying to prove.

That seems an unnecessarily contrarian position to take, Mike. I see what you mean, but frankly, if you automatically doubt studies purely for that reason, I can't really see how a serious discussion is possible.

I do not have the same confidence that...consciously or more likely unconsciously, the "actors" (who shared the researchers' agenda, no doubt) didn't skew the results. Or at least there is a very real possibility that they did so. Notwithstanding the so-called "extensive training." 

First of all, why do you say "no doubt"?
Second of all, why do you utterly disregard the training? I highlighted it because it specifically adressed the concerns you said had not been adressed in the methodology of the study, and you seem to be almost determined to maintain that it has not been addressed.
Mike, for professional sociologists to have overlooked the issues of bias that we, as laymen, are discussing, would not be a subconscious mistake, it would have to be a deliberate attempt to spend time carrying out a scientifically invalid study for purely political reasons. I do have confidence that such a blatant attempt would have been found out, if anything, it would never have been carried out, because you would never get funding for what would be such an invalid study.

This is compounded by the strange disparity in the results of the different experiments, results that one would have expected to be more consistent (regarding white and black non-offenders in the various experiments).

I really think you're overstating the disparity. The results are actually pretty statistically close, and are not actually producing data that lets you clearly make the cross-racial comparison that you are.
I do agree that blind studies are not invalid, but as you acknowledge, they are more difficult to control.

Such an approach would eliminate the possibility of the experimenters and their "actors" affecting the outcome.

It would, but it would also eliminate the control of variables that the training offered. The purpose of the training is to, as far as possible, leave race as the only differing variable, and I don't see another way of controlling that.

However, the rub is that it may be that the actual real-world data is not readily available, or it may not be possible to isolate a single variable (such as race) because of a number of other intertwined variables.

Now there's a point that can be discussed. Is it actually scientifically possible to study race? I think we have managed it pretty well in a lot of studies, but yes, maybe some aspects of it are too problematic. That, however, is a different matter to the ideas of experimentor and participant bias that you are raising.

In any event, my point is that this study appears to be suspect. I do not react the same way to studies that employ more objective methodologies. Whether be they based on objective statistical data or truly objective techniques where the researchers and they agents can't skew the results (for example, the study with the identical resumes with and without photographs, submitted, measuring positive responses and rejections, is not tainted with the same flaws as the study we have been discussing here, as there is no personal interaction involved that could affect the result).

Well, I guess what studies I have done in these fields are giving me a different personal perspective. I view it as a spectrum - the resumés only offers more control, but not as convincing a level of data, precisely because it avoids so many levels of interaction, so the two concerns have to be balanced.

With your assessment of how your life would have gone had you been black, I think you look at only the surface concerns, and ignore a lot of the social, institutional levels of discrimination which have really been the meat of this discussion. You might have been admitted to other schools, but have you considered the different expactations and attitudes to 'Black Mike' that the adults and your peers in school would be more likely to have had? You consider the financial aid, debt and diversity-related employment opportunities, but again, the reason there was the push for those opportunities is because Black Mike would have faced a labour market where his appearance would have closed many more doors than it opened; as I said, the reason we still have Affirmative Action is because the labour market is still biased against minorities, and an artificial counterbalancing force is still needed, and that inequality would have been even greater then than it is now.

I am not arguing with the facts behind what you said, but I think they are a very narrow and (no offense) shallow view, definitely not the whole picture. I definitely would like to echo what Curtis said about appreciating your honesty, though, and I think everyone is gaining some very fruitful insights in this discussion.

[michaelintp]

Curtis, I am not antagonistic.  I found your refusal to hear my answer to your question amusing. The answer is of course that the problems you describe are most accurately described as "the effects of racial discrimination."  I had said that multiple times, even underlined it, and you kept insisting I wasn't responding. When I again answered the question, I was just shaking my head and chuckling. That's why I wrote "silly."  

Wise Son, I believe we have identified fundamental disagreements regarding our faith (or lack thereof) in the "peer review" process (which has been subjected to criticism even in the hard sciences, for example there was a dramatic example in the field of genetic research), particularly the "peer review" process in the social sciences (which tend to be far more agenda driven), and even more so in this specific field (with virtually all of the academics and organizations sharing the same agenda), in the "expertise" of academics (turned advocates), and in the organizations and institutions conducting the research (which over the years have developed an exceeding leftist ideological bias particularly since the 1960s). It appears that your faith in these practices and institutions leads you to believe that every "successfully" peer reviewed sociological study is objective, producing valid data and sound analysis. I disagree. You dismiss the opportunity for conscious manipulation or unconscious distortion of the results. I do not. Not with this study. Others, like the resume/photograph experiment, I have far less problems with. But at this point we are starting to go around in circles. I believe you understand my perspective, even while disagreeing.

Wise Son and Curtis, as to whether I would be better of or the same, were I black, you asked me about me, based on my experience, which by definition pertains to my educational choices, and my career choices. I answered you honestly, and I believe accurately. I can't speak for others, in other parts of the country or working for other organizations (or for themselves). In the organization in which I work, African-Americans are well represented in very senior positions of management, and while I have not tallied up all the individuals by race, my impression is that their percentage exceeds the percentage of African-Americans in the general population.  Adding that to all the other factors I mentioned above, and the fact that I was not born with some privileged rich white man's silver spoon in my mouth (but rather achieved what I achieved on my own), I have no doubt that "black Mike" would certainly not be worse off than "white Mike."  You see, it really varies by education, profession (or job), region, and a number of other factors. For example, it seems to me that you both dismiss the comment of the respected expert (Curtis recalls him name, I'm sure) who stated that black professors on average are compensated at higher levels than equally qualified white professors. There is a significant disparity between the opportunities that exist for highly educated middle-class (or wealthier) African-Americans as opposed to the opportunities available to the uneducated unemployed and working class, and the sociological dynamics are very different for these two groups. I believe that both of you tend to mush everything together as though it were one simple picture, whereas I know (from our prior discussions, Curtis and Wise Son) that you know the real picture is far more complicated than the simplistic conclusion "black folk are always worse off than white folk."  And Curtis, I also believe you are being way too simplistic in positing that there are only two possible explanations for the problems that face the black urban poor: either that (1) their plight is unavoidable because blacks are inherently inferior (which we all reject) or (2) their plight is entirely caused by "white privilege" (a phrase that you are clearly wedded to, notwithstanding its race-baiting overtones). The picture, the real picture, is far more complex. We discussed some of it above, we've discussed a lot of it in the past (much of which, at the time Curtis, you refused to respond to), and I'll touch on a bit more of it below.

I now want to follow up on something we discussed above:

The Impact of Slavery on the Institution of Marriage:

In 1950, 88 percent of white families and 78 percent of black families consisted of a husband and wife in a traditional marriage. These numbers had not changed since the Great Depression. To me, this suggests that while slavery may have had some undermining effect on the institution of marriage, by 1950 these effects were significantly attenuated, as seen in the relatively high 78 percent black marriage statistic (though that statistic by itself doesn’t really tell us how vulnerable the institution of marriage was). In any event, given that the black marriage rate was pretty high through the 1950s and early 1960s, I really do wonder how realistic it is to project any hypothesized cultural/psychological consequences of slavery into generations who lived and continue to live long after emancipation. A part of me feels very uneasy with this extrapolation of the effects of slavery for generations and generations into the future. But the truth is I just don’t know.

The Effect of Welfare on Marriage

Turning our attention to the affect of welfare: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was a program originally established during the Roosevelt Administration to provide for poor widows with children.  Under the Johnson Administration’s Great Society legislation in the 1960s, Johnson and Congress changed the qualifications to include any household where there was no male family head present, a shift that made virtually any divorced or single mother of low income eligible.  Furthermore, in 1967 the courts ruled that a man in the house could not be used as a reason to deny a woman benefits. The incentives of the program made it financially more lucrative not to be married than to be married.

Something dramatic happened after the Great Society legislation: white percentages remained unchanged, but black families began to break up, beginning in 1967; then the percentage of intact black families began a steep slide.  Within twelve years, the proportion was down to 59 percent, compared to about 85 percent of whites.  Focusing just on the poor: Within this 15 to 20 year period, the percentage of black poor who lived in single-female households shot up from under 30 percent to nearly 70 percent. White poor in single-female households increased by about half, but black poor in single-female households more than doubled. One explanation for this disparate racial impact among the poor is that the black poor tended to be concentrated in urban inner-cities, and thus were easier for the government welfare workers to identify and reach out to. The white poor tended to be more rural, spread out, and more difficult to identify.

Other factors may have been at play as well, perhaps of a cultural or religious nature, perhaps surrounding issues of rural white mistrust of government, or perhaps with regard to adherence to “traditional” conservative values, but I don’t know how one would measure these things with statistics to determine what other factors might have been at play (perhaps data on affiliation with traditional churches and regular church attendance might be an indicator of adherence to “traditional” conservative values, but I don’t know if there was a difference between the largely urban black poor and the largely rural white poor in that regard; nor do I know if data is even available).

An interesting side-note is that the disparate effect of AFDC on the black poor vs. the white poor had nothing to do with “white privilege” in the receipt of benefits.  If anything, the rural white poor were deprived of their “right” to “entitlements” to the extent they were not identified and approached by welfare workers.  

On the other hand, for blacks, there really was a double compounding of the problem. First, because of the history of slavery, Jim Crow and ongoing racial discrimination, a greater percentage of blacks than whites were poor. Second, for the poor of all races, these anti-marriage welfare programs had a greater destructive effect on black marriages than on white marriages (again, at least in significant part because the black poor tended to live in inner-cities and thus were more easily identified).

Anyway, Wise Son, you expressed interest in some statistics, so there you go. Now you can respond that correlation does not prove causation, and that is true, but there is logic to support the notion of causation here (as we have discussed in the past). While a person may be poor, that does not mean he or she is stupid, and that means that on average he or she will rationally respond to economic incentives and disincentives. It appears that people did exactly that.

Needless to say, this gross undermining of the family has had disastrous consequences, creating terrible problems that, at this point in time, are beyond easy solution. Women, saddled with kids, being stuck in poverty, is one consequence. The substantial elimination of positive male role models for black kids in the inner-city is another consequence, allowing gangs and gang leaders to fill that void as role models. It has gotten to the point over the last several years that some of these thugs are today even glorified by the music and entertainment industries and the Media, while successful black professionals and businesspeople are demeaned as "Uncle Toms" (or worse), and kids who try to buckle down and study hard are mocked by their peers (no doubt supported by the gang members and gang leaders, who have no vested interest in black kids finding alternative paths to success). This creates a whole host of other negative dynamics and negative perceptions.

We have also discussed how attitudes regarding hard work have been undermined, to the point that even black employers are more inclined to hire persons other than the black inner-city poor for unskilled jobs (as reflected in some studies we've discussed in the past) because on average such persons are not as hard working as others. Now, when talking about black employers, this does appear to be an example of "racial discrimination" in hiring that is not, in itself, motivated by racism or racial bigotry, since it is fair to assume that the black employers are not themselves anti-black racists. The problem is broader than just racism and bigotry.  It has become a problem of sub-cultural attitudes and misperceptions regarding opportunity.

In some ways, the issue of inner city gangs and crime may be related to the Princeton Study. It appears that the felony conviction used for the "offender" group was a fabricated felony drug conviction. This kind of conviction plays off different ethnic stereotypes, and the researchers must know this ... with white offenders being more associated with engaging in personal use or selling as individuals, while black offenders are more associated with some kind of gang activity. Admittedly, these are stereotypes, but they have some basis in fact (with drug arrests often used by police in going after gangs). I wonder if the felony conviction had been for armed robbery or assault or rape or murder if the results would have been different? Might the researchers have selected "felony drug conviction" for this very reason, knowing that the stereotypes differ? This too could have affected the results of the study.


Footnote:  The source of the statistics cited above is “A Patriot’s Guide to the United States” by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, at page 688. Larry Schweikart is a professor of history at the University of Dayton.  He has written more than 20 books on banking and financial history, and national defense. Michael Allen is a professor of history at the University of Washington, Tacoma.

[Battle]

Wise Son and Curtis, as to whether I would be better of or the same, were I black, you asked me about me, based on my experience, which by definition pertains to my educational choices, and my career choices. I answered you honestly, and I believe accurately. I can't speak for others, in other parts of the country or working for other organizations (or for themselves). In the organization in which I work, African-Americans are well represented in very senior positions of management, and while I have not tallied up all the individuals by race, my impression is that their percentage exceeds the percentage of African-Americans in the general population.  Adding that to all the other factors I mentioned above, and the fact that I was not born with some privileged rich white man's silver spoon in my mouth (but rather achieved what I achieved on my own), I have no doubt that "black Mike" would certainly not be worse off than "white Mike."  

Y'know, this comment would make for an interesting story and concept idea for a screenplay in Hollywood.   Seriously.

Black Mike, the movie and its sequel, White Mike.

[michaelintp]

Y'know, this comment would make for an interesting story and concept idea for a screenplay in Hollywood.   Seriously.
Black Mike, the movie and its sequel, White Mike.

Hahahahaha. I don't want to even think how the conservative "Black Mike" would be portrayed. A few race-based adjective-phrases we've heard come to mind.

[Wise Son]

Wise Son, I believe we have identified fundamental disagreements regarding our faith (or lack thereof) in the "peer review" process

Well, I guess so, as my feeling is that the system, as set up, does not require 'faith', regardless of an over-representation of liberals in the groups that make it up. But this looks like another point we're going to have to agree to disagree on - we both find our reasons for our viewpoints convincing, and the other's not so.

(which has been subjected to criticism even in the hard sciences, for example there was a dramatic example in the field of genetic research)

I would be interested in hearing more about that, particularly how the 'drama' was discovered and addressed, as this is exactly the kind of thing the peer-review system is supposed to facilitate where appropriate.

particularly the "peer review" process in the social sciences (which tend to be far more agenda driven), and even more so in this specific field (with virtually all of the academics and organizations sharing the same agenda)

Again, I would seriously interested in reading some more on this, as I would have thought it would have been bigger news.

in the "expertise" of academics (turned advocates), and in the organizations and institutions conducting the research (which over the years have developed an exceeding leftist ideological bias particularly since the 1960s).

Or perhaps the evidence since then has supported more Left wing ideas than Right?

It appears that your faith in these practices and institutions leads you to believe that every "successfully" peer reviewed sociological study is objective, producing valid data and sound analysis.

You make me sound like more of a zealot than I am, but yes, I do believe that peer review of the methodology, results and conclusions of a study offers the most objective way of determining the validity of any given study, and I do believe it represents a system that effectively offers barriers to bias.

You dismiss the opportunity for conscious manipulation or unconscious distortion of the results.

I don't dismiss them, I just view them as a routine part of any sociological study, something that it anticipated and planned for as a matter of course, so if it has passed through the peer review process, I don't view it as a reason to challenge the study.

I believe you understand my perspective, even while disagreeing.

Agreed. 

Wise Son and Curtis, as to whether I would be better of or the same, were I black, you asked me about me, based on my experience, which by definition pertains to my educational choices, and my career choices.

Well, I certainly never suggested those were not valid, I simply tried to say that they were just the beginning, and that you were considering them in isolation of the social factors that would also interact with your decisions, which we have been touching on here.

I answered you honestly, and I believe accurately.

the fact that I was not born with some privileged rich white man's silver spoon in my mouth (but rather achieved what I achieved on my own)[/quote]
No one has suggested something like that. What we have said is that the societal issues which 'White Privelege' represent mean that White people can be rewarded fairly for their effort, as you have been, but that minorities have to put in more effort at each level, and at each stage of life, in order to achieve the same reward. This is aside from other issues specific to each culture and ethnicity.

You see, it really varies by education, profession (or job), region, and a number of other factors.

It certainly does. Like I said, we are discussing a number of interacting factors.

For example, it seems to me that you both dismiss the comment of the respected expert (Curtis recalls him name, I'm sure) who stated that black professors on average are compensated at higher levels than equally qualified white professors.

I don't dismiss its veracity, but I don't view it as a point that does not have a huge bearing on the wider issues.

There is a significant disparity between the opportunities that exist for highly educated middle-class (or wealthier) African-Americans as opposed to the opportunities available to the uneducated unemployed and working class, and the sociological dynamics are very different for these two groups.

I agree hugely with the importance of class. For instance, middle-class people are more able to access the means to combat discrimination (they are more aware of their rights, more aware of what anti-discrimination laws might be being violated, and more aware of how to discuss and negotiate these issues). I think you might also be suggesting that they will be helped by the people they are more likely to interact with, who may be more sensitive to the ongoing discussions and debates on race, which would be a factor, yes.

I believe that both of you tend to mush everything together as though it were one simple picture, whereas I know (from our prior discussions, Curtis and Wise Son) that you know the real picture is far more complicated than the simplistic conclusion "black folk are always worse off than white folk."

I guess this is an appropriate point to say that, while I do think that statement holds true, to varying degrees, and for a variety of reasons, I do think Western society is moving in the right direction, that it is less true than it once was, and that we may reach a point where it is no longer true. I do think that some people, because of the more subtle ways in which the effects of discrimination and / or white privelege are felt, underestimate teh degree to which they are still present.

And Curtis, I also believe you are being way too simplistic in positing that there are only two possible explanations for the problems that face the black urban poor: either that (1) their plight is unavoidable because blacks are inherently inferior (which we are reject) or (2) their plight is entirely caused by "white privilege" (a phrase that you are clearly wedded to, notwithstanding its race-baiting overtones).

Not to speak for Curtis, but he did acknowledge the alternative phrasing of 'the effects of discrimination'. I do think that Curtis is approaching the discussion with a broader interpretation of what 'White Privelege' means than you are.

On the studies, they are interesting, but you are quite right that I don't think they establish causality. I do agree that there may be no scientifically certain way of establishing exactly what those factors were, but I do think that a number of social, cultural or religious factors, as you mentioned, as well as economic factors will have been in play.

The link between conservative / religious values and marriage is interesting, as I view them as encouraging marriage, but not happy marriages. I think the increasing availability of divorce as a way out of unhappy marriages has been an effect across all levels of society, but maybe had an impact in groups where people had felt unable to leave marriages because of poverty, and the cost of doing so.

I guess what I'm saying is that the effect of welfare may not have been 'anti-marriage' as you put it (and I would certainly view it as more 'pro-single-parents' than an attack on marriage), but perhaps as 'anti-unhappy-marriage'. (I'm a bit tired, so may not be explaining this well).

If anything, the rural white poor were deprived of their “right” to “entitlements” to the extent they were not identified and approached by welfare workers.  

Quite possibly, but as you point out, if they were it was more likely because of geographical and beauraucratic reasons, than on the basis of their being White, so it doesn't reflect the mirror image to what we've been discussing that it might at first appear to.

there is logic to support the notion of causation here (as we have discussed in the past). While a person may be poor, that does not mean he or she is stupid, and that means that on average he or she will rationally respond to economic incentives and disincentives. It appears that people did exactly that.

I agree with that as a logical conclusion, but I think we disagree on to what degree other factors were interacting with those economic incentives. I think you seem to over simplify it to a simple profit/loss calculation, and I think there was more to it than that.

Whatever the causes of these issues, I think we do all agree with what you say about the consequences and the cycle of negative dynamics of expectations and stereotypes they have led to.

Now, when talking about black employers, this does appear to be an example of "racial discrimination" in hiring that is not, in itself, motivated by racism or racial bigotry, since it is fair to assume that the black employers are not themselves anti-black racists.

Well, that is still an assumption. People are perfectly capable, as I've said before, of believing the stereotypes about their own group. I'm just saying.

The problem is broader than just racism and bigotry.  It has become a problem of sub-cultural attitudes and misperceptions regarding opportunity.

Well, they are all part of a spectrum of problems facing society today. After all, racism and bigotry have never existed in a pure isolation from issues of, say economics, class and religion.

In some ways, the issue of inner city gangs and crime may be related to the Princeton Study. It appears that the felony conviction used for the "offender" group was a fabricated felony drug conviction. This kind of conviction plays off different ethnic stereotypes, and the researchers must know this ... with white offenders being more associated with engaging in personal use or selling as individuals, while black offenders are more associated with some kind of gang activity.

Now that is a very interesting consideration. I don't think it's one that invalidates the study, as the employers' considerations of those stereotypes are part of the attitudes to race that this study was looking at. It would make a fascinating follow-up study, to maybe repeat the experiment with the same controls, and try to get more detailed feedback from the interviewers afterwards.

I wonder if the felony conviction had been for armed robbery or assault or rape or murder if the results would have been different?

Again, fascinating questions for further study, especially as it would be interesting to pin down whether there are race-related stereotypes relating to those crimes (I know from some of the racists I've been arguing with on a blog that some people follow a stereotype of Black men being overly sexually aggressive to White women, so in some cases rape might have been an even more provocative conviction).

Might the researchers have selected "felony drug conviction" for this very reason, knowing that the stereotypes differ? This too could have affected the results of the study.

See, this is an aspect of the study that we agree on. A follow-up study comparing the effect of different types of convictions would be brilliant. It would necessarily be a larger and more expensive study, as each new conviction would double or triple the size of the study, but I am happy to say that a study like that would give us even more reliable information than the one we have seen.

See, we can end on a point of massive agreement! Free exchange of ideas works! Hoorah! Now off to bed (I swear I've been writing this reply for more than an hour).

[michaelintp]

Wise Son, so ... do you agree that AFDC was one of the contributing factors to the dissolution of the black family among the urban poor? I agree that other factors, the liberalization of divorce laws, the general social decline in sexual  morality, also played a role. However, AFDC economically encouraged couples to live together rather than marry, because marriage would result in a loss of benefits, and the truth is that such less formal living arrangements are less stable than marriage. What AFDC and similar programs also produced was greater latitude for married women to get out of bad relationships and still have some source of support, as well as allowing men to do the same while avoiding responsibility with the rationalization that the women will get support from the government. Thus it was a factor in pushing up the divorce rate as well as the break up of unmarried couples, particularly in the inner-city.

One of my points in raising this is that well-meaning government programs can end up being destructive. However, more broadly, my purpose of raising these issues is simply to point out that the entire picture, particularly regarding the current circumstances in the "inner-city," are more complex than a simple charge of "white privilege" (a phrase that as well as fostering racial antagonism, also tends to push all blame to "the white man" and in so doing, if widely accepted, may tend to undermine the sense of personal responsibility in the individuals directly involved and actually foster attitudes of futility that reinforce a negative cycle).

Also, I have to disagree that all black people are worse off than all white people. For the several reasons I stated above, depending on circumstances, with the advent of affirmative action and institution of racial diversity programs, black applicants to high-prestige academic institutions and professional programs are favored, and black professionals who are equally qualified with their white counterparts may enjoy a competitive advantage in some circumstances. That is why, as an example, the disparity in professor's salaries, with the black professor on average earning more, is relevant. I am not objecting to this, as I understand the rationale for such programs. All I am saying is that one should not deny their existence or the fact that they do have some impact. This is why some scholars draw a distinction between the black middle-class and professionals, and the black urban poor, as facing very different circumstances.

Wise Son, thanks for your thoughts here. I think we've done a decent job of letting each other know where we stand, where we agree, and where we don't. While not wholly dismissing one another, hahaha. 

... and oh brrrrrooooother, leftward academic tilt because research supports a leftist interpretation? ... gimme a break Hahaha.