[OT] NCAA Revisits Native American Team Nicknames

[DeltaOne81]

[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.

[Rosey]

[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

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]krose Wrote:

 [Q2]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.

[Rosey]

[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

[Tom Lento]

[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.  :-}

[Rosey]

[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

[Tom Lento]

[Q]krose Wrote:

 [Q2]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::

[KeithK]

Damn, there's a prize after 10 years?  I should've waited the extra year...

[ugarte]

[Q]krose Wrote:

 [Q2]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.

[Rosey]

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

Kyle

[Rosey]

[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

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

[Q]krose Wrote:

 [Q2]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?

[Ken \'70]

[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 http://brookings.nap.edu/books/0815746091/html/1.html#pagetop)
- 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)

[DeltaOne81]

[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 ).

[Tom Lento]

[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.