Thursday, October 31st, 2024
 
 
 
Updates automatically
Twitter Link
CHN iOS App
 
NCAA
1967 1970

ECAC
1967 1968 1969 1970 1973 1980 1986 1996 1997 2003 2005 2010

IVY
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1977 1978 1983 1984 1985 1996 1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2012 2014

Cleary Bedpan
2002 2003 2005

Ned Harkness Cup
2003 2005 2008 2013
 
Brendon
Iles
Pokulok
Schafer
Syphilis

[OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames

Posted by Beeeej 
[OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Beeeej (---.rapiddevelopers.com)
Date: May 18, 2005 12:39PM

From the article at [www.uscho.com] :

"What could be done — and has been done in other situations — is to impose a ban on hosting NCAA championships for violations of NCAA rules. Two states, South Carolina and Mississippi, are currently banned from hosting NCAA championships due to official uses of the Confederate 'Southern Cross' battle flag or elements of it."

Well, so much for Biloxi's Frozen Four bid.

Beeeej

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Kyle Rose (---.akamai.com)
Date: May 18, 2005 05:01PM

Is it just me, or does anyone else think the NCAA should shut its cornhole about various politically-correct causes and concentrate on effectively managing intercollegiate athletic events? These jackasses with a cause and a little bit of power just end up making life more difficult for everyone, instead of doing their job and providing a service that provides enjoyment for millions of student athletes and spectators.

Okay, rant off. :)

Kyle
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Roy 82 (---.SRI.COM)
Date: May 18, 2005 05:13PM

I think that it is OK for the NCAA to limit their championships to those states that chose to be a part of the Union.
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: May 18, 2005 05:16PM

Agree completely.

How the heck can the name "Warriors" (as in Merrimack) possibly offend anyone, particularly when they've changed the mascot so it has absolutely no reference to anything Indian?
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.airproducts.com)
Date: May 18, 2005 06:22PM

Kind of like Marquette did? rolleyes

I'm with krose, the NCAA has better things to do that be the PC police.
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Trotsky (---.cust-rtr.swbell.net)
Date: May 18, 2005 09:01PM

Yeah. And stop playing that stupid US anthem before games. That's just the sort of politically correct garbage we can do without.

When you're against it, it's "PC." When your for it, it's virtuous or good manners.

Turn your outrage down a tad, please... it's boring.
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Kyle Rose (---.krose.org)
Date: May 18, 2005 10:15PM

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:

Turn your outrage down a tad, please... it's boring.[/q]

Hmm. Just what I was thinking. Ironic. ;-)

Kyle
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: May 18, 2005 11:51PM

I agree in some cases it seems like there's a search for demons, however, that far from means I approve of the names that still exist, and I certainly don't mind it being discouraged. I'm with Greg there, undoubtedly.

But you don't need to go to Merrimack to get an example of possible issue where none exists. Rather, how about the closer-to-home (or closer-to-Ithaca) Colgate Raiders, formerly Red Raiders. Which not only didn't actively have anything to do with native americans, but *never* had anything to do with, association with, or roots in native american culture, rather just referring to the school colors. Watch our, we're next ;)

But hey, if it eliminates home regionals, I wouldn't mind men's hockey barring schools with native american nicknames from hosting in their home rink, and while we're at it, lets add furry creatures to the banded list (say gophers and wolverines, just as random examples).
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Greenberg '97 (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: May 19, 2005 01:21AM

I'll take the NCAA seriously when it considers banning the most offensive nickname in all of sports. But as long as Notre Dame can sign billion-dollar TV contracts, that's not going to happen.
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: May 19, 2005 05:35AM

[Q]Greenberg '97 Wrote: I'll take the NCAA seriously when it considers banning the most offensive nickname in all of sports. But as long as Notre Dame can sign billion-dollar TV contracts, that's not going to happen.[/q]Offensive? How abouut misleading in other directions. Look at the team photo or check the surnames. The old joke:

Q: What do you call 11 guys with Polish last names?
A: The Fighting Irish of Notre Dame

OTOH, "the Fighting Melting Pot" doesn't sound so good in a team song.





 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Kyle Rose (---.krose.org)
Date: May 19, 2005 07:31AM

How about people stop looking for ways to be offended, and just live their lives? Myopic Americans, not everything is about you. screwy

Kyle
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Jacob 03 (---.carlsl01.pa.comcast.net)
Date: May 19, 2005 07:38AM

[Q]krose Wrote:

How about people stop looking for ways to be offended, and just live their lives? Myopic Americans, not everything is about you.

Kyle[/q]

Yes, because those two sentences aren't myopic in three different ways...rolleyes

[Q]Greenberg '97 Wrote:

I'll take the NCAA seriously when it considers banning the most offensive nickname in all of sports. But as long as Notre Dame can sign billion-dollar TV contracts, that's not going to happen.
[/q]


I understand the desire for prioritization, but do you honestly think "Fighting Irish" (even WITH the deplorable caricature) is really worse than "Redskins?"
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.airproducts.com)
Date: May 19, 2005 08:10AM

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:

Yeah. And stop playing that stupid US anthem before games. That's just the sort of politically correct garbage we can do without.

[/q]

Can't do that. We need an excuse to shout "Red!" :-P
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Kyle Rose (---.krose.org)
Date: May 19, 2005 09:09AM

[Q]Jacob 03 Wrote:

krose Wrote:

How about people stop looking for ways to be offended, and just live their lives? Myopic Americans, not everything is about you.

Kyle[/Q]
Yes, because those two sentences aren't myopic in three different ways...
[/q]
Touche. But there are different types of myopia, and I'd argue that committing one's self to personal productivity is a virtue, while narcissism is clearly not.

Kyle
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: May 19, 2005 11:25AM

I agree with Kyle. While I can understand native Americans protesting perjorative nicknames such as the Redskins, they need to turn down their outrage over all the other native American team names. Schools chose names such as the Fighting Sioux, Seminoles, Warriors, Braves, etc. because they admired their battle skill, not because they're putting them down. I've never heard of a European American protest over the use of the Celtics, Fighting Irish, or Vikings for sports teams, but could understand it if people got upset if someone wanted to name a team the Crackers or the Honkeys.
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Greenberg '97 (146.203.15.---)
Date: May 19, 2005 11:36AM

[Q]Jacob 03 Wrote:

Greenberg '97 Wrote:

I'll take the NCAA seriously when it considers banning the most offensive nickname in all of sports. But as long as Notre Dame can sign billion-dollar TV contracts, that's not going to happen.
[/Q]
I understand the desire for prioritization, but do you honestly think "Fighting Irish" (even WITH the deplorable caricature) is really worse than "Redskins?"[/q]


For the record, I don't find words to be offensive. I'm just pointing out inconsistencies in what the NCAA is choosing to target.

But if "Fighting Irish" isn't derogatory, it's at least referring to a classic, and possibly offensive to some, stereotype -- that Irish people like to fight. Remember, newspapers can no longer use the term "Paddy Wagon," for precisely the same reason.

I guess my point is that the NCAA should just mind its P's and Q's...
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Ken '70 (---.town.ipswich.ma.us)
Date: May 19, 2005 11:53AM

[Q]krose Wrote:

How about people stop looking for ways to be offended, and just live their lives?

Kyle[/q]

This would leave Jesse Jackson, the NAACP, the ACLU, Bill Moyers, and the rest of the thought police without anything to do. (But only for about 12 seconds)
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: May 19, 2005 12:36PM

[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:

krose Wrote:

How about people stop looking for ways to be offended, and just live their lives?

Kyle[/Q]
This would leave Jesse Jackson, the NAACP, the ACLU, Bill Moyers, and the rest of the thought police without anything to do. (But only for about 12 seconds) [/q]I always find it interesting when people not directly bothered by something try to tell those that are to get over it. I would hope that first we all try and understand the feelings of others, then try and help each other to work to a common understanding. I actually think Bill Moyers is quite good at that.

I don't really understand the comment (But only for about 12 seconds) in refence to the rest of Ken's post. Help?


 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.airproducts.com)
Date: May 19, 2005 12:55PM

I can handle it if someone wants to address something that's clearly offensive to an oppressed minority or has racial overtones. Redskins screams of this. Indians or Braves less so, but I'll accept the need for the change. Celtics and Fighting Irish would have 70 years ago, except now that the Irish are not an oppressed minority, the names aren't really offensive and the issue goes away.

But to take names like "Warriors" or "Redmen" and say they're insulting to Native Americans when there's nothing left associated with Native Americans to the name is over-reaching, IMHO. That's when I start getting upset at political correctness.

My favorite example is that of a type of common bird seed, Niger thistle. The name comes from a plant that was initially found in the area of the Niger River in Africa. However, some people misread/mispronounced the name and got upset. The marketing people now sell it as nyjer, so as to be politically correct. help
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: min (---.hsd1.ga.comcast.net)
Date: May 19, 2005 01:43PM

[Q]Jim Hyla Wrote:

I don't really understand the comment (But only for about 12 seconds) in refence to the rest of Ken's post. Help?[/q]

please add me to the list... i also didn't get the comment.
additionally, why are jesse jackson, aclu, naacp and bill moyers equated to "the rest of the thought police"?
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: May 19, 2005 03:07PM

Not trying to put words in Ken's mouth, but I assume he meant that it would only take 12 seconds before these people would find something else to complain about.
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Greenberg '97 (146.203.15.---)
Date: May 19, 2005 04:01PM

[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:

I can handle it if someone wants to address something that's clearly offensive to an oppressed minority or has racial overtones. Redskins screams of this. Indians or Braves less so, but I'll accept the need for the change. Celtics and Fighting Irish would have 70 years ago, except now that the Irish are not an oppressed minority, the names aren't really offensive and the issue goes away.

[/q]

Now you bring up a whole different issue. Just because a group isn't an oppressed minority doesn't mean they can't be offended by a label.

Conversely (or reversely -- I forget logic), this reminds me of a (brief) conversation I had years ago back on the hill... From what I remember, I was pointing out to a black classmate of mine that I viewed a prominent black person's comments as racist. He said that the oppressed minority, by definition, cannot be considered racist.rolleyes
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: May 19, 2005 04:20PM

And if you disagree with a prominent person from an oppressed minority you are, of course, a racist. screwy
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Ken '70 (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: May 19, 2005 10:37PM

[Q]Jim Hyla Wrote:

Ken '70 Wrote:

krose Wrote:

How about people stop looking for ways to be offended, and just live their lives?

Kyle[/Q]
I would hope that first we all try and understand the feelings of others, then try and help each other to work to a common understanding. I actually think Bill Moyers is quite good at that. [/q]

You're kidding, right?

 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Kyle Rose (---.krose.org)
Date: May 19, 2005 11:36PM

[Q]
I always find it interesting when people not directly bothered by something try to tell those that are to get over it. I would hope that first we all try and understand the feelings of others, then try and help each other to work to a common understanding.[/q]

Pfft. I never get offended by anything. Think up a label that applies (geek, nerd, 98-pound weakling, etc.) and I guarantee you I just don't care. Others should learn from me not to let their feelings be dictated by the words of others. Perpetual victimhood doesn't correlate well with success; nor is it particularly attractive.

Kyle
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Beeeej (---.cable.mindspring.com)
Date: May 20, 2005 12:36AM

[Q]Steve M Wrote:
I've never heard of a European American protest over the use of the Celtics, Fighting Irish, or Vikings for sports teams, but could understand it if people got upset if someone wanted to name a team the Crackers or the Honkeys.[/q]

==================================================================
          TOPFIVE.COM'S LITTLE FIVERS  --  COLLEGE LIFE
               [www.topfive.com]
==================================================================

                GET A NEXTCARD VISA in 30 seconds!
 Get APR as low as 2.99% Intro or 9.99% Ongoing and No Annual Fee!
                    Apply for a NextCard now!
        [www.nextcard.com]

==================================================================


                          August 6, 2001


                 The Top 8 Ways to Annoy Townies


 8> "Hi, we're going door-to-door collecting beer... for the,
    uh, homeless kids.  Yeah." 

 7> Get them to roll the window of their '72 Pacer, then ask,
    "Pardon me, do you have any Grey Poupon?" 

 6> They're OK with cow tipping and wild orgies, but combine
    the two and they get really steamed. 

 5> "Shakespeare -- y'know, Shakespeare... he's a writer?" 

 4> Cleverly name your college after a town a few miles away 
    and create mass confusion on move-in day. 

 3> Only tip 11%. 

 2> "University Center for Bestiality Studies" T-shirt is 
    preferred attire whenever off-campus. 


    and the Number 1 Way to Annoy Townies...


 1> Rename your sports teams the "Inbred, Backwater, Redneck 
    Hicks." 



             [   Copyright 2001 by Chris White    ]
             [       [www.topfive.com]       ]



==================================================================

                            Amazon.com
            Been to the world's largest store lately?
     [www.amazon.com]

==================================================================
Selected from 19 submissions from 7 contributors.
Today's Top 5 List authors are:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Anbinder, Cornell University    -- 1, 5 (Woo-hoo!)
Ed Smith, UT Chattanooga                -- 2
Craig D. Barker, University of Michigan -- 3
Mike Budzinski, Purdue University       -- 4, Topic
Brent McDaniel, Georgia Tech            -- 6, 7
Carrie Stevens, Concordia University    -- 8
Laurie Northrup, Hamilton College       -- Resident Advisor

Beeeej

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.airproducts.com)
Date: May 20, 2005 08:11AM

You're misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say that because the Irish are not an oppressed minority they can't be offended. I said that because they are no longer an oppressed minority, the majority of them do not feel offended because there's no "threat" in the nickname.

And I'm with you completely on your second point. Racist is in the eyes of the offended, not the offender.

 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: May 20, 2005 08:14AM

[Q]krose Wrote:
Pfft. I never get offended by anything. Think up a label that applies (geek, nerd, 98-pound weakling, etc.) and I guarantee you I just don't care. Others should learn from me not to let their feelings be dictated by the words of others. Perpetual victimhood doesn't correlate well with success; nor is it particularly attractive.[/q]
Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Yeah... right.
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: ugarte (---.axiomlegal.com)
Date: May 20, 2005 10:49AM

[Q]krose Wrote:

I always find it interesting when people not directly bothered by something try to tell those that are to get over it. I would hope that first we all try and understand the feelings of others, then try and help each other to work to a common understanding.[/Q]
Pfft. I never get offended by anything. Think up a label that applies (geek, nerd, 98-pound weakling, etc.) and I guarantee you I just don't care. Others should learn from me not to let their feelings be dictated by the words of others. Perpetual victimhood doesn't correlate well with success; nor is it particularly attractive.[/q]Kyle won't date mopey Indian chicks. Noted. But totally besides the point.

The issue is complicated because even within the Native American community there is debate of the appropriateness of the symbols. I'm pretty sure that the Seminole Tribe (Nation?) supports FSU's use of Chief Osceola and I think Illiniwek is tribe-approved as well. But still, there is legitimate grounds for offense. Whatever a mascot is, it is something other than "person." I don't get particularly offended by the use of names like Warrior or Raider because I never interpreted them as Native Americans; I understand if those that do see the connection are offended.

Notre Dame is always brought up, but it is a particularly silly example. The school may be named after a French cathedral, but it is a Roman Catholic institution that has always had a lot of Irishmen in charge. Notre Dame is saying "this is who we are," not "this is a symbol of fierceness that we wish our players to emulate." Big difference. It would be a controversy if Notre Dame was called the "Maccabees;" not so much when it's Yeshiva.

 

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/20/2005 10:50AM by ugarte.
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: KeithK (---.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
Date: May 20, 2005 12:01PM

Likewise, I belive the Fighting Sioux nickname is approved by the local Sioux tribe in North Dakota.
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: David Grassi '02 (---.equifirst.com)
Date: May 20, 2005 12:23PM

If a team is named after a particular group (exapmple: Fighting Sioux) then by all means the name should be changed if that group is offended. I don't think, however, that it should be changed because outsiders are offended "on behalf of" the group (as appears to be the case here, if previous postings are correct.)
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: ugarte (---.cisco.com)
Date: May 20, 2005 01:05PM

[Q]David Grassi '02 Wrote:

If a team is named after a particular group (exapmple: Fighting Sioux) then by all means the name should be changed if that group is offended. I don't think, however, that it should be changed because outsiders are offended "on behalf of" the group (as appears to be the case here, if previous postings are correct.)
[/q]I agree that the Native American team names should not be changed because I find them offensive. On the other hand, I didn't start the protests. They were started by Native American groups and I certainly think that I have the right to join them in calling for name changes. Support of people from outside the directly affected community is important for any change to occur. The assistance of sympathetic whites certainly played a substantial role in the civil rights movement.


 
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Mike Nevin (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: May 20, 2005 08:24PM

One very real question here is whether there is a group which is truly offended. I was skating some this winter at the Onondaga Nation Arena in Syracuse. Several of the Native kids were wearing Fighting Souix jerseys. I thought that was kind of interesting and cool.

What about the "Fighting Irish" -- Would they have to change their name too ?
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: May 20, 2005 08:53PM

[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:

Jim Hyla Wrote:

Ken '70 Wrote:

krose Wrote:

How about people stop looking for ways to be offended, and just live their lives?

Kyle[/Q]
I would hope that first we all try and understand the feelings of others, then try and help each other to work to a common understanding. I actually think Bill Moyers is quite good at that. [/Q]
You're kidding, right?

[/Q][/Q]Just in case anyone misunderstands this quote:-}as it wasn't formatted correctly, I wrote that "I would hope that we first all try and understand...". I assume Ken was replying "You're kidding, right?"

The Preview pane is a good way to prevent these problems. The problem was there were not enough end quotes to separate the quotes from Ken's statement.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Tub(a) (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: May 21, 2005 11:27AM

[Q]krose Wrote:


Perpetual victimhood doesn't correlate well with success; nor is it particularly attractive.

Kyle[/q]

Which is exactly why stereotypes and offensive team names are wrong. Minority groups are victims specifically because people discount their beliefs or struggles (oh, get over it, it's just a name) and prevent them from attaining any real equality with the dominantly white male power structure.

What happens when a white businessman is caught with cocaine? He spends far less time in jail than a poor black man with a joint, if he is even prosecuted to begin with.

What happens if a minority group wants a name changed because it is offensive and racist? The white men say that it isn't offensive to them, and that the minority group should suck it up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2005 11:28AM by Tub(a).
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Kyle Rose (---.krose.org)
Date: May 21, 2005 02:24PM

[Q]Tub(a) Wrote:
Which is exactly why stereotypes and offensive team names are wrong. Minority groups are victims specifically because people discount their beliefs or struggles (oh, get over it, it's just a name) and prevent them from attaining any real equality with the dominantly white male power structure.
[/q]
I'm sorry, but this doesn't follow from the existence of teams called "Indians" or "Braves" or "Red Raiders" or "Fighting Irish" or whatever. I admit that real racism still exists, but (a) I assert without proof or evidence that actual racism is responsible for very little of the existing disparities between the achievements of white males and the achievements of minorities (that is: disparity in connections, bootstrap capital, educational opportunity, attitude of surrounding culture toward learning and achievement, etc. *are not racism* and are a much better explanation for this, especially when you take into account the fact that most colleges and businesses bend over backward to attract minority candidates) and (b) some teams names may have racist origins, but the names themselves are not racist (i.e., no one thinks of the origins of these names except the people complaining about how racist they are: they are simply labels associated with an evolving tradition).
[q]What happens when a white businessman is caught with cocaine? He spends far less time in jail than a poor black man with a joint, if he is even prosecuted to begin with.[/q]
What exactly does this have to do with a team named "The Red Raiders"? Maybe if there were a team called "The Niggas" you'd have a case, but to reverse course and use an example actually related to this thread, I don't think the existence of a team with a name related to American Indians has any causal effect on the habits of prosecutors or the attitudes of individuals: it can easily be argued to be the result of racism (as I said above), but to argue that it feeds back into the persecution of minorities is completely unsubstantiated and, I would argue, hysterical.
[q]What happens if a minority group wants a name changed because it is offensive and racist? The white men say that it isn't offensive to them, and that the minority group should suck it up. [/q]
I fail to see the point you're making: this isn't an argument. This is just a restatement of the discussion we're having. But I don't think I'm being particuarly clear, so let me try a little harder.

Of course these names aren't offensive to white men. That's not the point. And I never said they weren't offensive to members of the associated race or culture: that's besides the point as well. What I am saying is that (a) teams should have the liberty of using whatever name they see fit, no matter how offensive it is to others (modulo of course their ability to exist given potential damage to their profitability resulting from the choice of a name that is offensive to lots and lots of people) and (b) those who are offended can continue to bitch all they want, but should stop short of abusing what is essentially monopoly power (the NCAA's fairly impenetrable monopoly over management of intercollegiate athletics) to force a change in an unrelated area (a school's autonomy in choosing its teams' name and mascot).

(Just to be clear on my actual opinion: the NCAA should have the power to impose whatever stupid rules they want on their member schools regardless of their status as a monopoly, but technically having the power and using that power are two entirely different things, especially when this is clearly not a settled ethical question. Calling people names (e.g., "racist!";) is the fastest way to get them to dig in their heels and oppose your every move. It's not a particularly good way to make friends or influence people.)

Kyle
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Tom Lento (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: May 21, 2005 03:47PM

[Q]krose Wrote:

(a) I assert without proof or evidence that actual racism is responsible for very little of the existing disparities between the achievements of white males and the achievements of minorities (that is: disparity in connections, bootstrap capital, educational opportunity, attitude of surrounding culture toward learning and achievement, etc. *are not racism* and are a much better explanation for this, especially when you take into account the fact that most colleges and businesses bend over backward to attract minority candidates)[/q]

There's a lot of debate about this one in the social inequality literature. The available evidence indicates that racism is probably responsible for the existing disparities between whites and African-Americans. Check out Massey and Denton's _American Apartheid_ for an example of such an argument. William Julius Wilson's _Declining Significance of Race_, on the other hand, presents a controversial argument that race is no longer a *limiting* factor in socio-economic advancement. He has since revised his position, but even in the original work he argues that racism has a lot to do with existing inequality. It's not a limiting factor now (i.e. blacks do not get passed over for jobs etc. due to race), but it did lead to the structural disadvantages, including lack of educational opportunities and lack of available capital, facing certain minority groups. It is these structural factors, which are the legacy of racism, that explain much of the inequalities between blacks and whites (e.g. less educational opportunity in poor inner-city neighborhoods, where blacks were concentrated due to racial tension, white flight, etc results in lower earning potential for blacks). In short, the evidence indicates that your assertion, at best, fails to account for historical circumstances, and at worst is simply flat wrong.

Now, what this has to do with team names, I don't know. I do agree that calling a team the Fighting Sioux or the Braves does not, in and of itself, reproduce social inequality. If the team was called the Alcoholic Reservation Bums he might have a point - that's a name that is both *extremely* offensive and ties into stereotypes with the potential to affect socio-economic performance - but with the current team names I don't think you can make this argument.

The real argument is cultural - are these names reinforcing inaccurate cultural stereotypes, or are they celebrating the culture of the people represented by the names? The NoDak folks, and many of the Sioux in that area, will tell you that the Fighting Sioux fits into the latter category - their mascots, logos, etc. are tasteful, and the school is respectful of the Sioux heritage. But other teams do not fit into that category, and the line is far from clear. If the teams were all named the Bloodthirsty Indian Savages or something like that, then it would be easy, but that just isn't the case for the NCAA schools in question.

Maybe the problem with this whole debate is that it originated in an era when naming a team Bloodthirsty Indian Savages wasn't that far out of the realm of acceptable practice, and as a reaction to that era many people seem to think it's impossible to name a team after a Native American group while maintaining respect and admiration for the culture and history of the people represented on the jersey.
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: May 21, 2005 06:31PM

I'm not gonna be nearly as long winded, but I will say, krose, look at your first quote of Tuba's there and your first response. You went off about how racism isn't responsible for all the problems. But Tuba never once in his quote said anything about racism. You attacked a point he wasn't making.

[Q]Minority groups are victims specifically because people discount their beliefs or struggles (oh, get over it, it's just a name) and prevent them from attaining any real equality with the dominantly white male power structure.[/Q]

While nothing in this topic is obvious, undebateable or universally agreed upon, but that quote says nothing about racism. It talks about how people discount the struggles of other people that they don't understand. People don't understand the true barriers and therefore oppose anything to help knock down barriers they don't admit exists. I, well, I wouldn't really know personally, but I did take a class which talked about the social structure in corporations and the unintentional bias and problems it presents (and many other aspects of corporate and social culture), so I am familar with the topics, theories, and discussions.

Anyway, my point is that no one is saying that this is from modern racism, or that modern level racism is causing the problems, which you so strongly argued against. But he was saying that we should try to consider the impact and barriers that people have before we tell them how to feel about things. And we should be sensitive to the point of view of others and not expect their life experiences and sensiblities to always be in line with ours.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2005 08:31PM by DeltaOne81.
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: marty (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: May 21, 2005 06:48PM

[Q]David Grassi '02 Wrote:

If a team is named after a particular group (exapmple: Fighting Sioux) then by all means the name should be changed if that group is offended. I don't think, however, that it should be changed because outsiders are offended "on behalf of" the group (as appears to be the case here, if previous postings are correct.)
[/q]

What does this mean? Who are the Sioux in 2005? Will we have a vote based on the heritage of every person of Sioux descent that can be tracked down? What if only 1/16th Sioux, do I still get a vote? Suppose 30% of the Sioux are upset - what will we do? How about 20%, 10%, etc.

There is an unknown here with regard to whether these nicknames really offend Native Americans or if this debate is manufactured by professional trouble makers. Some people make careers out of whining and this debate strikes me as such.

I'd rather see the NCAA worry about running their regionals in such a way that the Big Red isn’t punished for using the damn cowbell.
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Tub(a) (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: May 21, 2005 08:20PM

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

I'm not gonna be nearly as long winded, but I will say, krose, look at your first quote of Tuba's there and your first response. You went off about how racism isn't responsible for all the problems. But Tuba never once in his quote said anything about racism. You attacked a point he wasn't making.

[Q]Minority groups are victims specifically because people discount their beliefs or struggles (oh, get over it, it's just a name) and prevent them from attaining any real equality with the dominantly white male power structure.[/Q]
While nothing in this topic is obvious, undebateable or universally agreed upon, but that quote says nothing about racism. It talks about how people discount the struggles of other people that they don't understand. People don't understand the true barriers and therefore oppose anything to help knock down barriers they don't admit exists. I, well, I wouldn't really know personally, but I did take a class which talked about the social structure in corporations and the unintentional bias and problems it presents (and many other aspects of corporate and social culture), so I am familar with the topics, theories, and discussions.

Anyway, my point is that no one is saying that this is from modern racism, or that modern level racism is causing the problems, which you so strongly argued against. But he was saying that we should try to consider the impact and barriers that people have before we tell them how to feel about things. And we should be sensitive to the point of view of others and not expect their life experiences and sensiblities to always be in line with ours.[/q]


Thanks, you saved me a lot of writing ;-)

It's very difficult to tell someone not to worry about something when you don't have an idea or experience of what they are worrying about.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2005 08:23PM by Tub(a).
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: May 21, 2005 08:34PM

[Q]marty Wrote:
There is an unknown here with regard to whether these nicknames really offend Native Americans or if this debate is manufactured by professional trouble makers. Some people make careers out of whining and this debate strikes me as such.

I'd rather see the NCAA worry about running their regionals in such a way that the Big Red isn’t punished for using the damn cowbell.
[/q]
Funny, seems to me there's a whole lot more whining going on here about the supposed 'whiners' than there was on the original topic. Things that make you go hmmmmm ;)

I think we can all agree that the latter point should be the NCAAs priority though :-D
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: ugarte (---.ny325.east.verizon.net)
Date: May 22, 2005 12:22PM

[Q]krose Wrote: (b) some teams names may have racist origins, but the names themselves are not racist (i.e., no one thinks of the origins of these names except the people complaining about how racist they are: they are simply labels associated with an evolving tradition).[/q]So my gay friends shouldn't be upset with the way "fag" is now a catchall derogatory remark because the person using it isn't implying actual homosexuality, just a general undesirability? Or because it is just a joke? "But I don't mean it that way" isn't an excuse when people will reasonably hear it that way for valid historical reasons.

You can't separate action from context. Even though I'm sure the antebellum South was full of constitutional scholars with a uniform belief in the importance of a federalist system of government, and therefore were steadfast in their defense of states' rights, the confederate flag is a symbol of slavery.

[q]What I am saying is that (a) teams should have the liberty of using whatever name they see fit, no matter how offensive it is to others[/q]This is not a serious argument. Nobody is opposing the use of Native American team names on grounds that require a First Amendment defense. Everyone knows that they should be allowed to use any name (in a legal sense); the question is whether demanding a change on moral grounds is reasonable. [q](modulo of course their ability to exist given potential damage to their profitability resulting from the choice of a name that is offensive to lots and lots of people)[/q]We'll get back to this and I forgive the pretentious use of "modulo." [q](b) those who are offended can continue to bitch all they want, but should stop short of abusing what is essentially monopoly power (the NCAA's fairly impenetrable monopoly over management of intercollegiate athletics) to force a change in an unrelated area (a school's autonomy in choosing its teams' name and mascot). ... (Just to be clear on my actual opinion: the NCAA should have the power to impose whatever stupid rules they want on their member schools regardless of their status as a monopoly, but technically having the power and using that power are two entirely different things, especially when this is clearly not a settled ethical question.[/q]You are wrong structurally and economically. First, the NCAA doesn't impose most of its rules from on high through representative government. They typically come from referenda voted on by all of the institutions. The NCAA may have a monopoly, but it is something of a participatory monopoly. In that circumstance, it isn't necessarily just Colgate who gets to look at economic or social effects. The entire institution gets to say "How does it reflect on us if Colgate uses a name that many consider racist."

[q]Calling people names (e.g., "racist!";) is the fastest way to get them to dig in their heels and oppose your every move. It's not a particularly good way to make friends or influence people.)[/q]Nice answer. "Even if you think it is racist, you shouldn't call me a racist because people will be offended." Why should I care if you are offended? Suck it up.

 
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: May 22, 2005 12:33PM

[Q]ugarte Wrote:
Nice answer. "Even if you think it is racist, you shouldn't call me a racist because people will be offended." Why should I care if you are offended? Suck it up.[/q]
lol :)
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: David Grassi '02 (---.equifirst.com)
Date: May 22, 2005 03:20PM

[Q]marty Wrote:

David Grassi '02 Wrote:

If a team is named after a particular group (exapmple: Fighting Sioux) then by all means the name should be changed if that group is offended. I don't think, however, that it should be changed because outsiders are offended "on behalf of" the group (as appears to be the case here, if previous postings are correct.)
[/Q]
What does this mean? Who are the Sioux in 2005? Will we have a vote based on the heritage of every person of Sioux descent that can be tracked down? What if only 1/16th Sioux, do I still get a vote? Suppose 30% of the Sioux are upset - what will we do? How about 20%, 10%, etc.

There is an unknown here with regard to whether these nicknames really offend Native Americans or if this debate is manufactured by professional trouble makers. Some people make careers out of whining and this debate strikes me as such.

I'd rather see the NCAA worry about running their regionals in such a way that the Big Red isn’t punished for using the damn cowbell.
[/q]

Keith K mentioned that he thought the Fighting Sioux nickname was approved by the local Sioux tribe, that is what I was referring to. I doubt every Sioux has the same opinion but if the tribe's official stance is supportive of the nickname, then I think it is okay to retain it.

 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Kyle Rose (---.krose.org)
Date: May 22, 2005 04:43PM

[Q]ugarte Wrote:

So my gay friends shouldn't be upset with the way "fag" is now a catchall derogatory remark[/q]
You cann't even go 20 words without setting up a straw man. Bzzt. I don't think "Red Raiders" or "Redskins" are used derogatively at games involving those teams, at least outside of "Redskins.... SUCK!" :) Next.
[q]You can't separate action from context. Even though I'm sure the antebellum South was full of constitutional scholars with a uniform belief in the importance of a federalist system of government, and therefore were steadfast in their defense of states' rights, the confederate flag is a symbol of slavery. [/q]
In the case of existing teams with American Indian names or states with the confederate flag as part of their shield/flag/whatever, they should change only if that change comes from within, and they shouldn't be forced (coerced, blackmailed) into doing so by outside forces. Given the furor over these things, I don't think there will be many *new* team names/flags that incorporate these elements.
[q]This is not a serious argument. Nobody is opposing the use of Native American team names on grounds that require a First Amendment defense. Everyone knows that they should be allowed to use any name (in a legal sense); the question is whether demanding a change on moral grounds is reasonable.[/q]
Demanding a change because you find it offensive is perfectly fine. Getting the NCAA to do your dirty work for you by implementing what amounts to sanctions is not, especially since there is another constituency here that has more at stake than the groups who (falsely, IMO) claim damage from these names.
[q]You are wrong structurally and economically. First, the NCAA doesn't impose most of its rules from on high through representative government. They typically come from referenda voted on by all of the institutions. The NCAA may have a monopoly, but it is something of a participatory monopoly.[/q]
Sounds suspiciously like democracy, which Ben Franklin described as "Two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
[q]In that circumstance, it isn't necessarily just Colgate who gets to look at economic or social effects. The entire institution gets to say "How does it reflect on us if Colgate uses a name that many consider racist."[/q]
Sorry, but this is just crap. No reasonable person is going to blame Stanford because Colgate has a name some people consider offensive. Sure, lots of people will make this leap; but they are unreasonable, so IMO the rest of us shouldn't really care what they think.

The attitude more likely responsible for these decisions is, "I don't want to look like a racist, and I couldn't give two shits if the jackasses from Colgate or NoDak have to rename their team."
[q]Nice answer. "Even if you think it is racist, you shouldn't call me a racist because people will be offended." Why should I care if you are offended? Suck it up.[/q]
Just offering a little advice. If you care about this issue (I honestly couldn't care less whether these teams change their names or not; I'm only interested in the reasons for the change) then you should go about it in the most productive way possible, instead of issuing sanctimonious pronouncements from atop Mount Olympus that make everyone roll their eyes and go about their business.

Reading some of the earlier replies to my postings, I've actually gotten quite a lot of insightful feedback (Tom's reply stands out) even if most of it seems to be arguing points I'm not making; but honestly, you've got nothing. Then again, this is hardly the first time you've demonstrated yourself to be an empty suit, so I don't expect anything to change soon.

Cheers,
Kyle
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2005 04:45PM by krose.
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: May 22, 2005 04:50PM

[Q]krose Wrote:

Reading some of the earlier replies to my postings, I've actually gotten quite a lot of insightful feedback (Tom's reply stands out) even if most of it seems to be arguing points I'm not making; but honestly, you've got nothing. Then again, this is hardly the first time you've demonstrated yourself to be an empty suit, so I don't expect anything to change soon.[/q]
Do we really need to go to personal attacks here? I think that's entirely uncalled for.
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Kyle Rose (---.krose.org)
Date: May 22, 2005 05:09PM

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
Do we really need to go to personal attacks here? I think that's entirely uncalled for.
[/q]
Whatever. If I can tell that his shit doesn't stink from 300 miles away, then I'm only responding in kind.

Kyle
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: May 22, 2005 05:11PM

[Q]krose Wrote:

DeltaOne81 Wrote:
Do we really need to go to personal attacks here? I think that's entirely uncalled for.
[/Q]
Whatever. If I can tell that his shit doesn't stink from 300 miles away, then I'm only responding in kind.[/q]
He's entitled to make his arguments and you're entitled to disagree, but it can stay civil. No need to insult anyone's intelligence here. We're all pretty intelligent people here, no reason to act like a superior ass.
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Kyle Rose (---.krose.org)
Date: May 22, 2005 10:01PM

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

He's entitled to make his arguments and you're entitled to disagree, but it can stay civil. No need to insult anyone's intelligence here. We're all pretty intelligent people here, no reason to act like a superior ass.[/q]
But if I'm acting like an ass of the same level, that's ok, right? :)

Kyle
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Tom Lento (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: May 22, 2005 10:44PM

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

He's entitled to make his arguments and you're entitled to disagree, but it can stay civil. No need to insult anyone's intelligence here. We're all pretty intelligent people here, no reason to act like a superior ass.[/q]

Kyle has always acted superior, and often acts like an ass. Or maybe I got that backwards. Either way, that's why we love him so. :-}
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Kyle Rose (---.krose.org)
Date: May 22, 2005 10:48PM

[Q]Tom Lento Wrote:

Kyle has always acted superior, and often acts like an ass. Or maybe I got that backwards. Either way, that's why we love him so. [/q]
Thanks, Tom. I love you too. ;-) You know, this August it'll be 9 years since you enrolled. I think there's a door prize for 10 years. bang

Seriously, I went from being one of the most elitist people I know to being one of the least elitist people I know. I guess I've retained intact the ability to be an asshole through the transition. doh

Cheers,
Kyle
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Tom Lento (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: May 23, 2005 01:46AM

[Q]krose Wrote:

Tom Lento Wrote:

Kyle has always acted superior, and often acts like an ass. Or maybe I got that backwards. Either way, that's why we love him so. [/Q]
Thanks, Tom. I love you too. You know, this August it'll be 9 years since you enrolled. I think there's a door prize for 10 years. [/q]

Touché. I guess I deserved that. :)

And I think the door prize is a rather large bill and a lack of gainful employment. help
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: KeithK (---.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
Date: May 23, 2005 02:32AM

Damn, there's a prize after 10 years? I should've waited the extra year...
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: ugarte (---.ny325.east.verizon.net)
Date: May 23, 2005 05:25AM

[Q]krose Wrote:

ugarte Wrote:

So my gay friends shouldn't be upset with the way "fag" is now a catchall derogatory remark[/Q]
You cann't even go 20 words without setting up a straw man.[/q]That you don't see the analogy to your distinction between "offensive origins" and "theoretically inoffensive present usage" is hardly my fault or problem.

[q]In the case of existing teams with American Indian names or states with the confederate flag as part of their shield/flag/whatever, they should change only if that change comes from within, and they shouldn't be forced (coerced, blackmailed) into doing so by outside forces.[/q]Ah yes, the "leave me alone in my bubble" defense. Very noble.

[q]Demanding a change because you find it offensive is perfectly fine. Getting the NCAA to do your dirty work for you by implementing what amounts to sanctions is not, especially since there is another constituency here that has more at stake than the groups who (falsely, IMO) claim damage from these names.[/q]I didn't realize that "IMO" was actually considered a rhetorical counterpoint. It sure is an easy way to claim victory on a point without actually proving anything, IMO.

[Q]Sounds suspiciously like democracy, which Ben Franklin described as "Two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."[/q]Kudos to you for knocking democracy, when it is used to benefit the weak, as the government of wolves. Didn't think it could be done. I particularly like the way you replaced it with a Me-ocracy. Very efficient.

[q]Sorry, but this is just crap. No reasonable person is going to blame Stanford because Colgate has a name some people consider offensive. Sure, lots of people will make this leap; but they are unreasonable, so IMO the rest of us shouldn't really care what they think.[/q]It doesn't tarnish Stanford, it tarnishes college athletics. That enough people might be willing to take a stand would speak well of the body.

[q]Then again, this is hardly the first time you've demonstrated yourself to be an empty suit, so I don't expect anything to change soon.[/q]Dude, I haven't worn a suit in years and I don't see a lot of substance filling out your linens. You offer a big heapin' helpin' of "fuck off" to anyone who disagrees with you and defend it with "didn't you hear me when I said fuck off?"

When can we get back to hockey?

Cheers.

 
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Kyle Rose (---.krose.org)
Date: May 23, 2005 08:03AM

[Q]ugarte Wrote:
When can we get back to hockey?
[/q]
Best thing I've heard on the entire thread. Strongly agreed. Bleh.

Kyle
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Kyle Rose (---.krose.org)
Date: May 23, 2005 08:13AM

[Q]Tom Lento Wrote:

Touché. I guess I deserved that.[/q]
It's an exclusive group, that's for sure. Not too many 20-somethings could stand to stay in Ithaca for nine years. But, kudos to you for surviving nine consecutive years of Cornell. I dropped out of a Ph.D. program precisely because I decided that 13 years of grade school followed by four years of undergrad (followed by two loooooong years of grad school) was enough school to last me a good long time. But I have enormous respect for anyone who can do more than that.

Being able to watch hockey every weekend probably made it a lot easier.

[q]And I think the door prize is a rather large bill and a lack of gainful employment. [/q]

As my adviser said, no one goes into a Ph.D. program to improve lifetime earning potential. You do it because you love it. I figure I'll probably get the itch to return when I'm around 35 years old or so.

Kyle
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.airproducts.com)
Date: May 23, 2005 12:33PM

[Q]krose Wrote:

ugarte Wrote:
When can we get back to hockey?
[/Q]
Best thing I've heard on the entire thread. Strongly agreed. Bleh.

Kyle[/q]

Age,

Time to turn on the "only x days until the red-and-white game" clock?

 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Ken '70 (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: May 23, 2005 10:01PM

[Q]krose Wrote:

I admit that real racism still exists, but (a) I assert without proof or evidence that actual racism is responsible for very little of the existing disparities between the achievements of white males and the achievements of minorities (that is: disparity in connections, bootstrap capital, educational opportunity, attitude of surrounding culture toward learning and achievement, etc. *are not racism* and are a much better explanation for this, especially when you take into account the fact that most colleges and businesses bend over backward to attract minority candidates)
Kyle[/q]

Well, no need to go without proof any longer (but of course you won't learn these facts at Cornell or from the NY Times, so you're forgiven to a certain extent):

- The Black White Test Score Gap, Christopher Jencks. Mr. Jencks (a liberal) concludes that closing the test score gap is all that is needed to close the income gap that exists between whites and blacks (you can read the book online here [brookings.nap.edu])
- The Bell Curve, Charles Murray (a libertarian). National Longitudinal Survey of Youth data shows that when normed for cognitive ability blacks and whites earn the same.
- In a separate study, The Real Story of Black Progress - 1991, the Thernstroms (Abigale and Stephan) show that when normed for ability blacks earn 9% more than whites.

None of these results, that equally capable blacks and whites earn the same, would be true if racism determined outcomes. In fact they prove the criticism always leveled at corporate and money hungry America - all we care about is the financial bottom line (and not the color of the people who help to make us rich)
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: May 23, 2005 11:50PM

[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:
- In a separate study, The Real Story of Black Progress - 1991, the Thernstroms (Abigale and Stephan) show that when normed for ability blacks earn 9% more than whites.

None of these results, that equally capable blacks and whites earn the same, would be true if racism determined outcomes. In fact they prove the criticism always leveled at corporate and money hungry America - all we care about is the financial bottom line (and not the color of the people who help to make us rich)
[/q]
Not disagreeing really, if reliable, confirmable studies (I have no idea whether those you mentioned are considered so - not saying they're not, just saying I have no idea) say that "... when adjusted for x, y, and z" incomes are similar, then that's great. But before we have anything approaching equality in this country we need to adjust for x, y, and z. It's great that people with equivalent education/ability are paid equally, but the job is just beginning when the money, influence, connections, and communities to get the education that lead to that ability are so unequal.

It's great if a solid argument can be made that our intentional biases have faded to the point that they no longer have an overall effect on quality of life, but until we eliminate the unintentional biases and social equality that continue to keep non-adjusted averages so different, we can't pretend everything is hunky dory (not saying you are ).
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Tom Lento (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: May 24, 2005 12:05AM

[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:

- The Black White Test Score Gap, Christopher Jencks. Mr. Jencks (a liberal) concludes that closing the test score gap is all that is needed to close the income gap that exists between whites and blacks (you can read the book online here )
- The Bell Curve, Charles Murray (a libertarian). National Longitudinal Survey of Youth data shows that when normed for cognitive ability blacks and whites earn the same.
- In a separate study, The Real Story of Black Progress - 1991, the Thernstroms (Abigale and Stephan) show that when normed for ability blacks earn 9% more than whites.

None of these results, that equally capable blacks and whites earn the same, would be true if racism determined outcomes. In fact they prove the criticism always leveled at corporate and money hungry America - all we care about is the financial bottom line (and not the color of the people who help to make us rich)
[/q]

How is cognitive ability measured? With tests?

I suspect that what these studies show is something I could have told you - could have shown you using free online data. When you control for education, occupational prestige, parents' background, and other similar factors (which would be strongly _correlated_ with most measures of cognitive ability), the wage differences between blacks and whites are much smaller than people might expect. However, this does NOT indicate that racism has no effect on outcomes.

You can satisfy yourself on this with national survey data (check out webuse.umd.edu for handy, if limited, tools and complete access to general social survey data up to 2000). Here's what you'll find:

If you just compare income by race, you find whites earn more than blacks. The difference is substantial and significant. Why do whites earn more than blacks?

If you include the appropriate controls, you find that if all else is equal, race is not a particularly good predictor of income - it's still correlated, but not as much as you would find in, say, the early 70s. Run the numbers. I suspect you'll get similar results to those presented in the studies you cited above. Now, assuming you take these results at face value (and I'm sure you can find studies showing how these results are flawed), you still have to answer the question above.

Why do whites earn more on average?

Keep examining those numbers:

Whites are more likely to have higher educational attainment, higher occupational prestige, and better family backgrounds (parents' education and occupational prestige). A disproportionate number of blacks in the workforce are women, and women (of all races, but particularly black women) earn less than men. Consequently, a disproportionate number of blacks end up in low-paying jobs, while a disproportionate number of whites end up at the higher end of the salary structure.

The next question is why are THESE factors so different. And while I freely admit that the answer is not simply racism, many scholars contend that racism plays a role. See _Social Inequality_, edited by David Grusky, for a number of classic theoretical and empirical examples.

To claim that racism has no effect on outcomes is pretty dicey, especially based on the evidence you provide. Once you have a degree, and are offered a job, racism may have little effect on your salary, but it's getting to that point that's the important part. Do you have any handy studies showing that race is completely irrelevant in terms of educational attainment, social connections (see Granovetter 1973 for an example of the importance of social contacts in the job market) and access to capital? If not, you have a lot more work to do.
 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Ken '70 (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: May 24, 2005 12:40PM

[Q]Tom Lento Wrote:


If you include the appropriate controls, you find that if all else is equal, race is not a particularly good predictor of income - it's still correlated, but not as much as you would find in, say, the early 70s. [/q]

This is Jenck's conclusion. In the '70s he believed racism was the primary independent variable in outcome differences. He now believes it's the abilities measured by standardized tests (SAT, AFQT, WAIS, Raven Matrices, et. al.)

[Q]
Whites are more likely to have higher educational attainment, higher occupational prestige, and better family backgrounds (parents' education and occupational prestige). [/q]

Taken together these are what are known as "Socio-economic status" or SES. This factor can be normalized so that you're comparing blacks and whites with equal SES (both Jencks and Murray present evidence on this). When this is done it is shown that SES has a lower correlation to outcomes than test measured cognitive ability. Although SES and test scores are correlated the causality arrow shouldn't be thought to point from SES to ability: if you take a smart rich person and make him poor he doesn't suddenly become dumb, and a dullard who wins the lottery doesn't instantly become bright, but it's easy to understand that smarter people will create more value and duller people less.

[q]
To claim that racism has no effect on outcomes is pretty dicey, especially based on the evidence you provide. Once you have a degree, and are offered a job, racism may have little effect on your salary, but it's getting to that point that's the important part. Do you have any handy studies showing that race is completely irrelevant in terms of educational attainment, social connections (see Granovetter 1973 for an example of the importance of social contacts in the job market) and access to capital? If not, you have a lot more work to do.[/q]

Race is obviously a factor in education. Look at Cornell, U Mich. and all competitive schools. In Grutter v. Bollinger U Mich. argued before the Supreme Court that if race preferences didn't exist their entering freshman class would be only 2% black instead of the 7% they obtained with their racial policies.

At Cornell, a 1992 Council on Financing Higher Education (COFHE) report showed that admitted whites have a 180 point higher SAT score than blacks and asians have a 220 point higher SAT score (that being almost 2 full standard deviations). You can look at these numbers as indicating that "affirmative action" is not simply a tie breaker for admissions, but a huge additional hurdle for asians and whites compared to blacks. So yes, race is a big factor in accessing higher ed. opportunities.

I think it's safe to say that when comparing racial groups normalized at a cognitive level, access to capital for black or white does not come into play when considering the broad population and average incomes.

Which is not to say environment isn't a significant factor in relative outcomes. Here's an excellent article from today's Boston Globe, for example: [www.boston.com]
His view is backed up by "Locus of Control" research in psychology which I'm sure some of you are familiar with.

(you can use Login: uscho@zudnic.net, Password: uschouscho if you need it)






 
Re: [OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames
Posted by: Tom Lento (---.soc.cornell.edu)
Date: May 24, 2005 04:54PM

[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:
Taken together these are what are known as "Socio-economic status" or SES. This factor can be normalized so that you're comparing blacks and whites with equal SES (both Jencks and Murray present evidence on this). When this is done it is shown that SES has a lower correlation to outcomes than test measured cognitive ability. Although SES and test scores are correlated the causality arrow shouldn't be thought to point from SES to ability: if you take a smart rich person and make him poor he doesn't suddenly become dumb, and a dullard who wins the lottery doesn't instantly become bright, but it's easy to understand that smarter people will create more value and duller people less.
[/Q]

It's not that simple. The arrow of causality does not go smart->higher SES, either. I'm sure you're familiar with studies of social reproduction. The best predictor of SES is parents' SES - where you come from matters.

If you take a smart person, and give that person a terrible education in a poor urban school, no social capital (contacts who can get you good jobs), and no financial advantages, that person will finish with a much lower SES than a person of average intelligence born into an upper-middle class family who is given an excellent education (from primary school on up) and has access to important job contacts. I'm sure I can dig up some studies if I felt so inclined, but this is a tricky thing to measure. I know Granovetter did work on contacts and job success. Check out his book _Getting a Job_ for more information, or his AJS paper "The Strength of Weak Ties" for a rundown on the theory.

Furthermore, test-based measures of cognitive ability are loaded - I guarantee you that people with a better education do better on these tests. If not, I'd really like to see the study, and the methods they used. When you use a test, you're basically using a proxy for cognitive ability, and while I agree intelligence is NOT related to SES I believe these proxies are related. Honestly, I can't think of any way to measure intelligence as wholly separate from individual and family SES, unless you find a reliable way to measure their ability as infants.

[Q]Race is obviously a factor in education. Look at Cornell, U Mich. and all competitive schools. In Grutter v. Bollinger U Mich. argued before the Supreme Court that if race preferences didn't exist their entering freshman class would be only 2% black instead of the 7% they obtained with their racial policies.

At Cornell, a 1992 Council on Financing Higher Education (COFHE) report showed that admitted whites have a 180 point higher SAT score than blacks and asians have a 220 point higher SAT score (that being almost 2 full standard deviations). You can look at these numbers as indicating that "affirmative action" is not simply a tie breaker for admissions, but a huge additional hurdle for asians and whites compared to blacks. So yes, race is a big factor in accessing higher ed. opportunities.[/Q]

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Are you suggesting that whites are at a disadvantage in terms of their access to higher education? If so, you're either making a spurious claim about the relative unimportance of access to education at the primary and secondary levels, you're suggesting that blacks are simply stupider than whites, or both.

Here's how I read your argument - the only reason access to higher education is even close for blacks and whites is affirmative action policies. Without such policies, blacks would NOT have the same access to higher education, by any means (see the UMich information you presented above). Why? Lots of reasons, which I addressed in an earlier post (family background, financial position, and most importantly parents' education). Social reproduction is a difficult thing to overcome, whether you're black or white. In the past, it was even more difficult for blacks, although affirmative action policies *may* tip the scales in the other direction. Certainly, at the moment of acceptance to college, blacks have a substantial advantage over whites, but it's not clear that this advantage outweighs the other disadvantages faced by blacks as a group.

[Q]I think it's safe to say that when comparing racial groups normalized at a cognitive level, access to capital for black or white does not come into play when considering the broad population and average incomes.

Which is not to say environment isn't a significant factor in relative outcomes. Here's an excellent article from today's Boston Globe, for example:
His view is backed up by "Locus of Control" research in psychology which I'm sure some of you are familiar with.

(you can use Login: uscho@zudnic.net, Password: uschouscho if you need it)[/Q]

So which is it? Access to capital does not come into play when considering average incomes, or environment is a factor?

This whole discussion boils down to a single point, and you can go to the GSS and satisfy yourself on its validity. Blacks are underrepresented in the higher levels of the SES scale, and are HEAVILY overrepresented at the lower levels. So if environment matters, then blacks are, on average, in a worse environment, and therefore, on average, do worse than whites. Sounds to me like access to capital - social and economic - has a substantial effect on average incomes by race. Again, you can go to the GSS and find evidence for this, although you'll probably need a better statistical package than the one at the UMaryland site.

To suggest that race is not a factor in this disparity is practically indefensible. You can claim that race is no longer a *direct* obstacle to socio-economic advancement, but you would have to admit that the initial disadvantages faced by the average black person in this country are a result of earlier racist practices. I'm not sure I believe this argument, as I think some of the obstacles facing the average black person in this country are maintained by latent racism, or at least awareness of race (housing distributions come to mind - see Thomas Schelling's segregation model for a theoretical explanation of the relationship between awareness of race and segregation, and Massey and Denton's _American Apartheid_ for an examination of the effects of residential segregation on the minority). However, this is a rather different debate from "race does not affect outcomes."

Incidentally, the article you cited above says nothing about socio-economic environment, rather it's invoking an important cultural argument about individual motivations. I'm equally suspicious of arguments based strictly on individual drive, and arguments built on purely structural factors - having middle class benefits won't make you successful if you're lazy and stupid, but being smart and hard-working will not be enough to overcome significant structural obstacles (there are exceptions in both cases, but on average I believe this is true).

Sorry, didn't mean to totally hijack the thread. I'll try to keep my coments to a more reasonable word count. And maybe on topic. :)
 

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login