Can Biology Class Reduce Racism?

[OldWiseGuy]

This is a marginalization of real racism - the type that, for example, disproportionately prosecutes and jails certain ethnic groups, or infiltrates every part of law enforcement to carry out their agenda on the objects of their disdain.

Perhaps if those certain ethnic groups would 'blink' first.

 

[grasping the after wind]

What are you all talking about? A study is not being conducted. Differences in outcomes between different ethnic and/racial groups are not because of biology. That is fact; however, the misconception that biology is related to these differences still exists.

Previously, people in the life sciences left clearing up those misconceptions to the social sciences, but given that people persistently hold racist views based on a false understanding of biology, there is now a push to counteract this. They counteract this by reviewing and amending their curriculum so that people do not mistakenly believe the science backs up their racist views.

A study is not being conducted.

Exactly so.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Is it "profound"?

I find the difference in external appearance to be trivial.

Its not like our type of people are bipedal hominids and people from "over there" are sea anenomies.

While I can certainly be friends with black, Latino, and Asian women they are not sexually attractive to me as are white women (with a few exceptions). That's a profound difference based on physical appearance.

 

[SummerMadness]

While I can certainly be friends with black, Latino, and Asian women they are not sexually attractive to me as are white women (with a few exceptions). That's a profound difference based on physical appearance.

Skin color is not a profound difference, it's about melanin level. People closer to the equator are darker in complexion. People further from the equator tend to be lighter, it's false to attribute this to race because there are not multiple races in human biologically.

 

[Hank77]

How the online world of white nationalists distorts population genetics

Racists are literally mischaracterizing genetic data to promote their racist ideology.

Q: Can scientists do anything to prevent their work from being misused by these groups?

A: I don’t think engaging them directly will work. In an argument between a logical person and illogical person, the logical person is always going to lose because the illogical person isn’t playing by the same rules. The misappropriations and misinterpretations run so deep that you’ll just get shouted down and personally attacked, and you’re not going to change anyone’s mind.

But I think there’s growing recognition that we as scientists bear some responsibility for guiding the public interpretation of our work. In the broad scheme of things, people are excited about the work we’re doing. The genomic revolution is still well underway. But I think because of precisely that, we need to think more carefully about not just our own interpretation of the work, but anticipating how our work might be misinterpreted and trying to preemptively patch up the holes in that logic.

The study in the OP is an attempt to address this issue.

I see what is being pointed out in the article but population genetics isn't something that is usually addressed in a junior high or high school biology class. I could be wrong but I've never seen it.
I'd really like to know what they are referring to at the this level of education.

 

[SummerMadness]

There is, but it is not about genetic differences among races. It is about finding the best way to dispel misinformation and pseudoscience.

From the OP: "But in a study starting this month, a group of biology teachers from across the country will address it head-on. They are testing the idea that the science classroom may be the best place to provide a buffer against the unfounded genetic rationales for human difference that often become the basis for racial intolerance."

They have not assumed any conclusions. They are putting the idea to a test.

I apologize, I was not clearer. A study on education being conducted, but I was responding to the question of "what if they do the study and find a genetic differenc?" and people discussing the topic as if this is a genetics or biology study, no such study is being conducted.

 

[Hank77]

While I can certainly be friends with black, Latino, and Asian women they are not sexually attractive to me as are white women (with a few exceptions). That's a profound difference based on physical appearance.

That's your personal preference for whatever reason and only 'profound' to you.
Did you have some other point you were making?

 

[durangodawood]

While I can certainly be friends with black, Latino, and Asian women they are not sexually attractive to me as are white women (with a few exceptions). That's a profound difference based on physical appearance.

Sex attraction really does make mountains out of molehills....er, so to speak.

The disposition of Mr Old Wise Guy's sexual attractions are probably more about you than about them.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I see what is being pointed out in the article but population genetics isn't something that is usually addressed in a junior high or high school biology class.

In some ways I think that is the point. There is racist pseudoscience floating around about who is 'genetically inferior'. There is currently no fact-based science instruction to dispel these myths. This is an attempt to do so.

We teach comprehensive sex ed (or we should) so that kids don't get their sex 'education' from rumors on the playground. This is a similar attempt to fight bad information with good information.

 

[grasping the after wind]

While I can certainly be friends with black, Latino, and Asian women they are not sexually attractive to me as are white women (with a few exceptions). That's a profound difference based on physical appearance.

I don't share your view of what restricts sexual attractiveness. I also don't think your finding someone either sexually attractive or not is that profound a thing for society at large. It may be a profound difference for you who you find sexually attractive but probably not for very many others.

 

[Hank77]

In some ways I think that is the point. There is racist pseudoscience floating around about who is 'genetically inferior'. There is currently no fact-based science instruction to dispel these myths. This is an attempt to do so.

We teach comprehensive sex ed (or we should) so that kids don't get their sex 'education' from rumors on the playground. This is a similar attempt to fight bad information with good information.

It should be very easy to dispel myths by simply making the facts clear about genetics and what they do tell us and what they don't. That's not such a big deal.
But this sounds like it might go beyond biology and try to incorporate social issues.

 

[grasping the after wind]

In some ways I think that is the point. There is racist pseudoscience floating around about who is 'genetically inferior'. There is currently no fact-based science instruction to dispel these myths. This is an attempt to do so.

We teach comprehensive sex ed (or we should) so that kids don't get their sex 'education' from rumors on the playground. This is a similar attempt to fight bad information with good information.

I haven't heard of any schools teaching racist pseudoscience about who is "genetically inferior". Where are those schools and why have they been allowed to continue doing this?

 

[SummerMadness]

I haven't heard of any schools teaching racist pseudoscience about who is "genetically inferior". Where are those schools and why have they been allowed to continue doing this?

He never stated a school was teaching racist pseudoscience about genetic inferiority...

 

[Tigger45]

I think that education as a whole is a good thing. And it can help some people but of course there at least two other groups education won’t effect. First those who enjoy being racist and second those who can hypocritically hold two opposing concepts at the same time and never connect the dots. Being willfully blind to the fact in real life situations of subjectively being a racist and objectively knowing racism is based on biases and prejudices.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Skin color is not a profound difference, it's about melanin level. People closer to the equator are darker in complexion. People further from the equator tend to be lighter, it's false to attribute this to race because there are not multiple races in human biologically.

It's also body type and facial features as well.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's your personal preference for whatever reason and only 'profound' to you.
Did you have some other point you were making?

I think that's an important point in the overall discussion.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't share your view of what restricts sexual attractiveness. I also don't think your finding someone either sexually attractive or not is that profound a thing for society at large. It may be a profound difference for you who you find sexually attractive but probably not for very many others.

I can't speak for others but you can? (I'll have what he's having.)

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm uncomfortable with this approach. Since the beginning of the eugenics movement, biology has been used to justify racial discrimination. It was the excuse given for the WWII atrocities, and the attitude was even there during the first World War. Though I'm sure biological race doesn't play the big part that racists make it out to be, we do have to admit that different races do, in fact, have genetic differences (otherwise, they'd be the same race). Difference inherently means that one will be better in some ways than another. That's why I don't want to go down that road. It would be better for people to see each other the way God does, to value a person for their character and moral worth, to support them in their weakness and rely on them in their strength. Too much deference to biology is only going to lead to too much emphasis on race, which is what we need to get away from.

Yeesh. What genetic differences are you talking about? Blue eyes? Blonde hair?

 

[Ana the Ist]

It will certainly be a challenge to present the material accurately and diplomatically, but it's useful to fight misinformation with good information. Eugenics is pseudoscience; it and misinformation about race can be combatted with sound science.

I think it's not likely to work if one then turns around and reinforces stereotypes in social studies class.

 

[Ana the Ist]

People who have actual racist views should be forced to live as the racial object of demise for at least a year - in the same native environments

What's a "racial native environment"?

- as a public service and/or education program. It would be like serving in the military - especially since you could get seriously injured or die, and no one would care.

If only this had been tried before at some point in history....we could see if it worked out lol.