[OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames

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 quoteas 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

 

Reply•Quote

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).

 

Reply•Quote

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

 

Reply•Quote

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.

 

Reply•Quote

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.

 

Reply•Quote

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.

 

Reply•Quote

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).

 

Reply•Quote

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

 

Reply•Quote

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.

 

___________________________
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing

 

Reply•Quote

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

 

Reply•Quote

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.

 

Reply•Quote

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.

 

Reply•Quote

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.

 

Reply•Quote

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

 

Reply•Quote

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.

 

Reply•Quote

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

 

Reply•Quote

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.

 

Reply•Quote

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.

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.

Cheers,
Kyle

 

Reply•Quote

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.

 

Reply•Quote

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...

 

Reply•Quote

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.

 

___________________________
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing

 

Reply•Quote

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

 

Reply•Quote

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

 

Reply•Quote

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?

 

Reply•Quote

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)

 

Reply•Quote

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 ).

 

Reply•Quote

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.

 

Reply•Quote

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)

 

Reply•Quote

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.

 

Reply•Quote

Forum List•Message List•New Topic•Search

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

© 2024 SalsaShark Design