I really want it to be the Pennsylvania primary already. As predicted, the six weeks since Texas and Ohio have been brutal as the campaigns hack away at each other and yet we don't get any real results from either side. At least when there's the occasional round of voting there's something to report on other than who's spinning what about who said what to who when. Because I'm getting a little bored with that story.
Even when something seemingly big happens, it isn't really that big. Case in point here is Clinton strategist Mark Penn's resignation.
In the first place, he's really just saying he's resigning. He's still going to act in an advisory role. Which is pretty much what he's been doing the whole time anyway. He's like a guy who says, "Okay, I should really get going now," but then stays for another hour anyway.
Secondly, it just plain doesn't matter much what happens in the Clinton campaign right now. This isn't like when Clinton's campaign manager resigned while the heat was still on. At this point the race is functionally over and both sides are trying to run out the clock by hurting each other and building themselves up while they wait for the superdelegates to pick someone. A big strategy shakeup (even assuming this was one) doesn't much matter when you've fully committed yourself to a campaign course the way Clinton has.
So the slog continues. Thank god there's only two weeks left.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
School Choice Isn't the Answer
Well, the school choice debate seems is still with us. Months after Sol Stern (a longtime advocate of school choice) published a piece in City Journal saying that he'd pretty much changed his mind on the issue, the Wall Street Journal ran a piece saying that Stern is wrong.
Here's the argument boiled down: Stern used to say that he supported school choice (charter schools, private school vouchers, etc.) because they allowed poor kids to escape their failing schools. In doing so, this would also bring market forces to bear on the education system which would improve all schools. Now, he says that the evidence doesn't support his position. He says that in cities like Milwaukee that have introduced major voucher programs there has not been a similar upturn in the quality of education as a whole. Therefore, he concludes, school choice doesn't provide the market incentives that he thought they did and the program isn't as successful as he thought it would be.
The Wall Street Journal says he should have stuck with his original position.
I tend to agree with the new Sol Stern, at least on this issue. His position on changing pedagogy is for another post.
As I've written before and will probably write again (no link yet), free public education is one of the essential preparations for living in a democratic society. As such, I'm deeply suspicious of any attempts to begin to privatize that system, which is exactly what happens with charter schools and vouchers for private schools. Even with that, I'm not opposed to reforms that will improve public education for all students.
For the sake of argument, let's assume (as Stern and the WSJ do) that charter and private schools will always serve children better than traditional public schools do. This is a slightly dubious argument and one that is hard to prove given the lack of apples to apples comparisons that can be made. Even with this assumption, the only thing proven by a successful charter or private school is that good schools produce good results. This would apply equally to public or private schools.
Put another way, if a charter school truly works, it's because that school is doing something effective, not because it calls itself a charter school. If something is effective it can be copied by other schools, be they public or private. The argument, then, is really just that we should have good schools. Seems obvious enough.
The way see that charter schools/private school vouchers can be really justified and defended is that the competition from these programs will cause the public schools to improve. The thinking here is that competition will breed success. But empirically, that's not the case. As Stern notes, there was no "Miwaukee miracle." Public schools across the city didn't improve just because there was competition. There is a lack of evidence to show that privatizing education has any widespread positive impact on a school system. As such, the argument that privitization for some kids will create better results for all kids simply doesn't stand up.
What you're left with is an argument that schools can be made better than they are and a failed argument about competition and market forces. That's a pretty weak leg to stand on while making an argument about undermining something as important as public education.
Here's the argument boiled down: Stern used to say that he supported school choice (charter schools, private school vouchers, etc.) because they allowed poor kids to escape their failing schools. In doing so, this would also bring market forces to bear on the education system which would improve all schools. Now, he says that the evidence doesn't support his position. He says that in cities like Milwaukee that have introduced major voucher programs there has not been a similar upturn in the quality of education as a whole. Therefore, he concludes, school choice doesn't provide the market incentives that he thought they did and the program isn't as successful as he thought it would be.
The Wall Street Journal says he should have stuck with his original position.
I tend to agree with the new Sol Stern, at least on this issue. His position on changing pedagogy is for another post.
As I've written before and will probably write again (no link yet), free public education is one of the essential preparations for living in a democratic society. As such, I'm deeply suspicious of any attempts to begin to privatize that system, which is exactly what happens with charter schools and vouchers for private schools. Even with that, I'm not opposed to reforms that will improve public education for all students.
For the sake of argument, let's assume (as Stern and the WSJ do) that charter and private schools will always serve children better than traditional public schools do. This is a slightly dubious argument and one that is hard to prove given the lack of apples to apples comparisons that can be made. Even with this assumption, the only thing proven by a successful charter or private school is that good schools produce good results. This would apply equally to public or private schools.
Put another way, if a charter school truly works, it's because that school is doing something effective, not because it calls itself a charter school. If something is effective it can be copied by other schools, be they public or private. The argument, then, is really just that we should have good schools. Seems obvious enough.
The way see that charter schools/private school vouchers can be really justified and defended is that the competition from these programs will cause the public schools to improve. The thinking here is that competition will breed success. But empirically, that's not the case. As Stern notes, there was no "Miwaukee miracle." Public schools across the city didn't improve just because there was competition. There is a lack of evidence to show that privatizing education has any widespread positive impact on a school system. As such, the argument that privitization for some kids will create better results for all kids simply doesn't stand up.
What you're left with is an argument that schools can be made better than they are and a failed argument about competition and market forces. That's a pretty weak leg to stand on while making an argument about undermining something as important as public education.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Spun Out
There's something more than a little pathetic about attempts to make the election numbers look better for Hillary and worse for Obama. Every day I get an e-mail from an ardent Hillary supporter explaining why, despite appearances, Hillary is winning the race and Barack Obama should just get out. The level of delusion would be funny if this didn't have real impacts on the race and our country.
First, I'm sick of the argument that the whole delegate system is bizarre and unrepresentative of the country. That argument only really makes sense if your candidate is losing. And even then you kind of have to work up to it. This also, totally overlooks the fact that, in addition to leading in the delegate count, Obama is leading in the popular vote. So no matter which you count, Obama is indisputably winning.
So imagine my surprise to read a column by Bonnie Erbe who seeks to make "the point that spinning the math in Hillary Clinton's favor is just about as plausible as spinning it in Obama's favor." What? Hillary can be plausibly considered to be winning based on the numbers? She has figures that are just as plausible as leads in the delegate and popular vote? This should be worth reading.
It turns out that Erbe either defines plausible differently than I do or she just doesn't think things out before she writes them.
She says that the states that Hillary has won have more electoral college votes than the states that Obama has won. This means that she has a better chance of winning the general election. Right. Never mind that this is like trying to use the rules of Monopoly to play Clue, it also ignores the reality of the general election. Yes, Hillary won many of the big states like California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. But does anyone really think that these deep blue states are really going to go for a right-of-Bush Republican come the general election? Those states are Democrat through and through. Losing Massachusetts in the primary certainly doesn't mean it'll go Republican in November if Obama is the nominee. That argument is rather, well, implausible.
Erbe goes on to write that the states Hillary has won have a greater population than the states Obama has won. Therefore... well ... I don't really know where we're going with that one. First, it's kind of a repetition of the point about the electoral college because electoral votes are awarded to states in proportion to their population. So of course the states with more electoral votes have a higher population. It's double dipping to try to count this as two arguments. Second, this argument also seems to ask us to count all of the people who didn't vote for Hillary (either because they didn't vote, voted for Obama, or voted for a Republican) in the Hillary column. Even for the say-anything-to-get-elected Clinton camp, saying they should get credit for people who didn't vote for them is pretty out there.
Last, Erbe says that if everything breaks down and blacks refuse to vote for Hillary and women refuse to vote for Obama the party would lose more by nominating Obama because there are more women than blacks in the country. I don't know what to say other than to refer Erbe to a dictionary to seriously look up what plausible means. And this time really do it.
The bottom line is that it doesn't take much spin to show you're winning when you have more delegates and more popular votes. It's when you get losing and desperate that the arguments stop making sense.
First, I'm sick of the argument that the whole delegate system is bizarre and unrepresentative of the country. That argument only really makes sense if your candidate is losing. And even then you kind of have to work up to it. This also, totally overlooks the fact that, in addition to leading in the delegate count, Obama is leading in the popular vote. So no matter which you count, Obama is indisputably winning.
So imagine my surprise to read a column by Bonnie Erbe who seeks to make "the point that spinning the math in Hillary Clinton's favor is just about as plausible as spinning it in Obama's favor." What? Hillary can be plausibly considered to be winning based on the numbers? She has figures that are just as plausible as leads in the delegate and popular vote? This should be worth reading.
It turns out that Erbe either defines plausible differently than I do or she just doesn't think things out before she writes them.
She says that the states that Hillary has won have more electoral college votes than the states that Obama has won. This means that she has a better chance of winning the general election. Right. Never mind that this is like trying to use the rules of Monopoly to play Clue, it also ignores the reality of the general election. Yes, Hillary won many of the big states like California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. But does anyone really think that these deep blue states are really going to go for a right-of-Bush Republican come the general election? Those states are Democrat through and through. Losing Massachusetts in the primary certainly doesn't mean it'll go Republican in November if Obama is the nominee. That argument is rather, well, implausible.
Erbe goes on to write that the states Hillary has won have a greater population than the states Obama has won. Therefore... well ... I don't really know where we're going with that one. First, it's kind of a repetition of the point about the electoral college because electoral votes are awarded to states in proportion to their population. So of course the states with more electoral votes have a higher population. It's double dipping to try to count this as two arguments. Second, this argument also seems to ask us to count all of the people who didn't vote for Hillary (either because they didn't vote, voted for Obama, or voted for a Republican) in the Hillary column. Even for the say-anything-to-get-elected Clinton camp, saying they should get credit for people who didn't vote for them is pretty out there.
Last, Erbe says that if everything breaks down and blacks refuse to vote for Hillary and women refuse to vote for Obama the party would lose more by nominating Obama because there are more women than blacks in the country. I don't know what to say other than to refer Erbe to a dictionary to seriously look up what plausible means. And this time really do it.
The bottom line is that it doesn't take much spin to show you're winning when you have more delegates and more popular votes. It's when you get losing and desperate that the arguments stop making sense.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Mind the Gaps
The notion of the achievement gap in education has become a pretty ingrained part of our understanding about education in America. It's widely known and indisputable that white children in America do better in school and receive a better education than black children. This is the ground from which we get No Child Left Behind and all sorts of other good and bad reform ideas.
Now, as I've written earlier, I'm not sure if the gap is a racial one. I don't think that there is something that makes white kids do better than black kids. I do think that the gap is one of classes. Kids who are well off do better in school than those who are poor, regardless of race. That poverty overlaps so much with race makes it hard to separate. What seems beyond question, though, is that there is an achievement gap in the country. About 30 seconds of looking at the data shows that.
So then imagine my surprise when I got an e-mail from the Educator Roundtable saying that they were exposing the "bogus" achievement gap. They even sent me a link to a video that you can check out here (it's only 45 seconds long).
If I can sum up the video, it's that there's a lot of things that happen outside of school that affect what goes on inside the school. With poverty, unemployment, homelessness, and murder rates relatively sky high in black communities, it's no wonder that the kids aren't doing well in school, the video holds. This makes perfect sense to me. However, this obviously doesn't mean the achievement gap is bogus. It just provides context for it.
For the sake of argument, if nothing else, I'm going to accept that all the statistics in the video are accurate. I also agree that all of the statistics cited certainly come to bear on children as they enter the school. You can't leave abuse or homelessness or dangerous communities outside the school house gate. People just don't work that way. Every kid comes into school carrying a combination of all the things that happened outside of school. And yeah, trying to get a kid to learn algebra when his dad is in jail and he didn't have breakfast is hard. So in a sense, the Educator Roundtable is right that the problems don't lie squarely on the backs of schools and teachers.
So then what's the answer?
Emphatically, it's not to say that the achievement gap is bogus and that educators might as well throw their hands up in the air until society is fixed. That will never happen. Education is one of the keys to helping close all those other gaps the video highlights. The fact is that people with good educations are less likely to be homeless, unemployed, or incarcerated. Education is where that cycle can be broken and so as much attention as possible needs to be focused there.
But attention also needs to be focused on programs and policies that affect children outside of school. There needs to be better health care, nutrition, social services, parenting classes, and a host of other policies that make it so that when children come to school they are ready to learn.
The various gaps described in the video are chicken and egg. One causes the other, which causes the first. You can't end that vicious cycle by attacking only one side. You need both. That's the point that the Educator Roundtable seems to miss. And any real educator should know better.
Now, as I've written earlier, I'm not sure if the gap is a racial one. I don't think that there is something that makes white kids do better than black kids. I do think that the gap is one of classes. Kids who are well off do better in school than those who are poor, regardless of race. That poverty overlaps so much with race makes it hard to separate. What seems beyond question, though, is that there is an achievement gap in the country. About 30 seconds of looking at the data shows that.
So then imagine my surprise when I got an e-mail from the Educator Roundtable saying that they were exposing the "bogus" achievement gap. They even sent me a link to a video that you can check out here (it's only 45 seconds long).
If I can sum up the video, it's that there's a lot of things that happen outside of school that affect what goes on inside the school. With poverty, unemployment, homelessness, and murder rates relatively sky high in black communities, it's no wonder that the kids aren't doing well in school, the video holds. This makes perfect sense to me. However, this obviously doesn't mean the achievement gap is bogus. It just provides context for it.
For the sake of argument, if nothing else, I'm going to accept that all the statistics in the video are accurate. I also agree that all of the statistics cited certainly come to bear on children as they enter the school. You can't leave abuse or homelessness or dangerous communities outside the school house gate. People just don't work that way. Every kid comes into school carrying a combination of all the things that happened outside of school. And yeah, trying to get a kid to learn algebra when his dad is in jail and he didn't have breakfast is hard. So in a sense, the Educator Roundtable is right that the problems don't lie squarely on the backs of schools and teachers.
So then what's the answer?
Emphatically, it's not to say that the achievement gap is bogus and that educators might as well throw their hands up in the air until society is fixed. That will never happen. Education is one of the keys to helping close all those other gaps the video highlights. The fact is that people with good educations are less likely to be homeless, unemployed, or incarcerated. Education is where that cycle can be broken and so as much attention as possible needs to be focused there.
But attention also needs to be focused on programs and policies that affect children outside of school. There needs to be better health care, nutrition, social services, parenting classes, and a host of other policies that make it so that when children come to school they are ready to learn.
The various gaps described in the video are chicken and egg. One causes the other, which causes the first. You can't end that vicious cycle by attacking only one side. You need both. That's the point that the Educator Roundtable seems to miss. And any real educator should know better.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Homeschooling and Democratic Education
A California appeals court just agreed to revisit a decision rendered about a month ago that essentially said home schooling was illegal in the state unless the parent doing the schooling had a teaching credential.
Somewhat unsurprisingly, this sent some people through the roof.
Even less surprisingly, John Stossel (the mustachioed crusader behind the "Stupid in America" report) is unhappy. In an article published yesterday he rails against an overreaching court that's in the pocket of the teacher's union. He takes particular exception with one line from the court's ruling which read, "A primary purpose of the educational system is to train schoolchildren in good citizenship, patriotism, and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare."
Stossel hits the roof, but the fact is, the court is right.
Now, I don't really know if it truly makes sense to say that parents shouldn't be allowed to homeschool their kids. I would never homeschool my own children and I think that it's generally not a wise idea. But I also don't think I'm the boss of what everyone else does. So I don't think I'd have wanted the court to go as far as it did.
However, the unassailable point made in the court's ruling is that public education in this country is our means of socializing and democratizing our children. In addition to the three R's, school is where kids learn how to get along with other people, how to exist without being the constant center of attention, how to participate cooperatively with people for unlike backgrounds. In terms of living in the world, these skills are just as important as most of the academic skills that children can learn in school.
The reason I worry about charter schools, private school vouchers, and (to a lesser extent) home schooling is because I see those efforts as ways to fragment and detract from the public education system. In the interests of public welfare, we need to insure that all children are capable of living cooperatively in a democratic society. In terms of educating all children to live in a democratic society, nothing has yet been devised that can match free universal public schools. And without that education, America truly would be stupid.
Somewhat unsurprisingly, this sent some people through the roof.
Even less surprisingly, John Stossel (the mustachioed crusader behind the "Stupid in America" report) is unhappy. In an article published yesterday he rails against an overreaching court that's in the pocket of the teacher's union. He takes particular exception with one line from the court's ruling which read, "A primary purpose of the educational system is to train schoolchildren in good citizenship, patriotism, and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare."
Stossel hits the roof, but the fact is, the court is right.
Now, I don't really know if it truly makes sense to say that parents shouldn't be allowed to homeschool their kids. I would never homeschool my own children and I think that it's generally not a wise idea. But I also don't think I'm the boss of what everyone else does. So I don't think I'd have wanted the court to go as far as it did.
However, the unassailable point made in the court's ruling is that public education in this country is our means of socializing and democratizing our children. In addition to the three R's, school is where kids learn how to get along with other people, how to exist without being the constant center of attention, how to participate cooperatively with people for unlike backgrounds. In terms of living in the world, these skills are just as important as most of the academic skills that children can learn in school.
The reason I worry about charter schools, private school vouchers, and (to a lesser extent) home schooling is because I see those efforts as ways to fragment and detract from the public education system. In the interests of public welfare, we need to insure that all children are capable of living cooperatively in a democratic society. In terms of educating all children to live in a democratic society, nothing has yet been devised that can match free universal public schools. And without that education, America truly would be stupid.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
National Standards and NCLB
As the Bush administration stumbles through its final months in office, Slate has been going issue by issue and explaining how the next administration should fix all of the mistakes that this administration made. Yesterday's focus was education, particularly the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). (Nice to see that someone at the national level is paying attention to the subject.)
The article was quite good and I don't have a whole lot to add to it. Essentially, the suggestions boiled down to: test kids less, make the tests mean more, standardize standards, be good to teachers, and pay more attention to preschool. All of which I agree with. So rather than argue, I'll amplify here, especially on the issue of national education standards.
Perhaps the one thing on which I agree with the Bush administration is his stated challenge to lax educational standards. As he said, "We need to challenge the soft bigotry of low expectations. If you have low expectations, you're going to get lousy results." Not bad for a guy who can't pronounce nuclear.
The problem was that despite saying we need to challenge low expectations, Bush through NCLB did very little to actually challenge low expectations. Instead, he set that out for the states to do. As we've learned - somehwat predictably - in the intervening years, states want to look good and keep getting lots of federal money. That means making sure schools aren't failing. That means making sure kids aren't failing the tests. And that means making sure the tests are pretty darn easy. Already low expectations got even lower.
That's where national standards come in. We have standards for financial records, air quality, food quality, and a host of other things. It's about time that we had some national standards for education as well. The fact is, there are certain things that kids need to know in order to be successful in the world today. We need to set clear, rigorous, universal standards in this country. That's the only way to truly begin challenging the "soft bigotry" that's invaded our system.
A few caveats. First, while the federal government should set standards, they should not set curriculum in any way. Not even a little bit. What works in Biloxi may not work in Boise, let alone Boston. The feds should set the bar and let each state, city, school, and teacher decide how best to get their kids over that bar. In other words, the government should set the standards, give the money, and then get out of the way.
Second, accountability needs to be carefully reconsidered. I think it's clear that there should be some accountability, but I'm not sure exactly what form that accountability should take. Punishing failing schools by taking away support doesn't make any sense. That's like taking away the life jacket from a drowning person. On the other hand, giving them more money might just be more cash into an educational black hole. I also disagree with Jim Ryan who says that schools should be ranked on their quality, but not have any real consequences as a result. That doesn't make sense because ranking doesn't lead to improvement. The Tampa Bay Devil Rays have ranked near the bottom of the baseball standings for years now and they're not getting any better. Putting a name at the bottom of the list doesn't necessarily breed improvement. Rather, what's needed in failing schools is a massive infusion of aid, restructuring, and redesigning. But like with curriculum, the federal government and I are not in the position to say what that should be for each school.
Those caveats in place, national standards are the next big step in education reform. When those are in place we can compare apples to apples within states and across states. With a nationally-defined criteria for educational excellence, we can truly begin to combat the soft bigotry of low expectations.
The article was quite good and I don't have a whole lot to add to it. Essentially, the suggestions boiled down to: test kids less, make the tests mean more, standardize standards, be good to teachers, and pay more attention to preschool. All of which I agree with. So rather than argue, I'll amplify here, especially on the issue of national education standards.
Perhaps the one thing on which I agree with the Bush administration is his stated challenge to lax educational standards. As he said, "We need to challenge the soft bigotry of low expectations. If you have low expectations, you're going to get lousy results." Not bad for a guy who can't pronounce nuclear.
The problem was that despite saying we need to challenge low expectations, Bush through NCLB did very little to actually challenge low expectations. Instead, he set that out for the states to do. As we've learned - somehwat predictably - in the intervening years, states want to look good and keep getting lots of federal money. That means making sure schools aren't failing. That means making sure kids aren't failing the tests. And that means making sure the tests are pretty darn easy. Already low expectations got even lower.
That's where national standards come in. We have standards for financial records, air quality, food quality, and a host of other things. It's about time that we had some national standards for education as well. The fact is, there are certain things that kids need to know in order to be successful in the world today. We need to set clear, rigorous, universal standards in this country. That's the only way to truly begin challenging the "soft bigotry" that's invaded our system.
A few caveats. First, while the federal government should set standards, they should not set curriculum in any way. Not even a little bit. What works in Biloxi may not work in Boise, let alone Boston. The feds should set the bar and let each state, city, school, and teacher decide how best to get their kids over that bar. In other words, the government should set the standards, give the money, and then get out of the way.
Second, accountability needs to be carefully reconsidered. I think it's clear that there should be some accountability, but I'm not sure exactly what form that accountability should take. Punishing failing schools by taking away support doesn't make any sense. That's like taking away the life jacket from a drowning person. On the other hand, giving them more money might just be more cash into an educational black hole. I also disagree with Jim Ryan who says that schools should be ranked on their quality, but not have any real consequences as a result. That doesn't make sense because ranking doesn't lead to improvement. The Tampa Bay Devil Rays have ranked near the bottom of the baseball standings for years now and they're not getting any better. Putting a name at the bottom of the list doesn't necessarily breed improvement. Rather, what's needed in failing schools is a massive infusion of aid, restructuring, and redesigning. But like with curriculum, the federal government and I are not in the position to say what that should be for each school.
Those caveats in place, national standards are the next big step in education reform. When those are in place we can compare apples to apples within states and across states. With a nationally-defined criteria for educational excellence, we can truly begin to combat the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
The Murderous Fires of Race and Class
The facts are grim for black America. As Ralph Reiland highlights in his column yesterday, they are very grim indeed. Each year more blacks are killed in this country than soldiers have been killed in Iraq in over five years. While blacks make up only 12% of the country's population, they committed 52% of the murders and were victims of 47% of the murders in America. As the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education finds, blacks are three times more likely to live in prison than live in a college dorm.
Sobering facts all.
Reiland then follows this up with a bit of a non-sequiter. He says that this is all evidence that Barack Obama shouldn't have been listening to the sermons of Jeremiah Wright. That's the best lesson you can draw from this?
While I think Wright's comments were reprehensible and I agree that Obama probably shouldn't have tied himself so closely to the guy, this argument doesn't make sense. Reiland writes that the "murderous fires in the black community were being stoked from the pulpits of black churches." Murderous fires? Really? This strikes me as kind of like blaming the sinking of the Titanic on the people who said the ship was unsinkable. Yeah, you can probably make some sort of case for it. And yes, the remarks certainly didn't help matters very much. But the ship still had to hit an iceberg for it to go down.
So what's the iceberg that black America has hit?
Despite the apparent national imperative to talk about race, I can't help but think that race may be beside the point. At least, I don't think it's the main point right now. For that we have to look at class.
Forgive me a brief digression. Bill Cosby, after becoming famous as a great comedian, became infamous for excoriating the black community for spending money on flashy, big ticket items rather than investing in the future. Never mind that this really shouldn't have been controversial (investing in the future is obviously better than having $500 sneakers). What Cosby missed was that this wasn't a black problem. As this article from Slate points out, the issue is one of economics rather than race. It's not that black people spend more on conspicuous consumption, it's that poor people, economically segregated, spend more on conspicuous consumption.
So now back to murder. The question becomes, is this a black problem or is it a poor urban ghetto problem? Clearly, there is likely to be a significant amount of overlap between these fields. But drawing a distinct line between the two is still important if we want to find a solution. If the issue is poverty, that dictates a path of increased education, social services, and similar approaches. If the issue is race and only race, then, well, we may have a bigger problem on our hands than anyone realizes.
Where I'm going with this is that focusing on these problems as problems of race when they are actually problems of class is like taking pepto bismal of appendicitis. You might feel like you're taking strong action, but nothing's actually getting done. It's time to look at class in America. If we fix that, I think the racial issues will start to work themselves out. I don't see it happening the other way.
Sobering facts all.
Reiland then follows this up with a bit of a non-sequiter. He says that this is all evidence that Barack Obama shouldn't have been listening to the sermons of Jeremiah Wright. That's the best lesson you can draw from this?
While I think Wright's comments were reprehensible and I agree that Obama probably shouldn't have tied himself so closely to the guy, this argument doesn't make sense. Reiland writes that the "murderous fires in the black community were being stoked from the pulpits of black churches." Murderous fires? Really? This strikes me as kind of like blaming the sinking of the Titanic on the people who said the ship was unsinkable. Yeah, you can probably make some sort of case for it. And yes, the remarks certainly didn't help matters very much. But the ship still had to hit an iceberg for it to go down.
So what's the iceberg that black America has hit?
Despite the apparent national imperative to talk about race, I can't help but think that race may be beside the point. At least, I don't think it's the main point right now. For that we have to look at class.
Forgive me a brief digression. Bill Cosby, after becoming famous as a great comedian, became infamous for excoriating the black community for spending money on flashy, big ticket items rather than investing in the future. Never mind that this really shouldn't have been controversial (investing in the future is obviously better than having $500 sneakers). What Cosby missed was that this wasn't a black problem. As this article from Slate points out, the issue is one of economics rather than race. It's not that black people spend more on conspicuous consumption, it's that poor people, economically segregated, spend more on conspicuous consumption.
So now back to murder. The question becomes, is this a black problem or is it a poor urban ghetto problem? Clearly, there is likely to be a significant amount of overlap between these fields. But drawing a distinct line between the two is still important if we want to find a solution. If the issue is poverty, that dictates a path of increased education, social services, and similar approaches. If the issue is race and only race, then, well, we may have a bigger problem on our hands than anyone realizes.
Where I'm going with this is that focusing on these problems as problems of race when they are actually problems of class is like taking pepto bismal of appendicitis. You might feel like you're taking strong action, but nothing's actually getting done. It's time to look at class in America. If we fix that, I think the racial issues will start to work themselves out. I don't see it happening the other way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)