Chaos Headed for Minnesota Classrooms

[SilverBear]

An explicit example with a similar situation might help you understand.

Take the issue of chess. Chess grandmasters are overwhelmingly male. That's a fact that no one disputes. But what is this evidence of? In fact it could be used either as evidence supporting the idea that chess clubs are definitely sexist, or that they are definitely not sexist. For example, suppose that someone complained that a local chess club was entirely full of men and said that this could only have happened because the club is actively excluding women. That person could give as evidence of this that chess grandmasters are overwhelmingly male, which proves that this sort of sexism is common to chess at even the highest and most professional levels, so that surely lower level clubs must also be hopelessly sexist. But someone claiming that the chess club isn't acting in a sexist way could also make the argument that men are generally better at chess and more interested in pursuing it at a deep level, so that likely the club's membership is all male simply because those are the only people interested in the game, and the fact that chess grandmasters are overwhelmingly male could also be used as evidence of this position.

In this situation the evidence alone clearly doesn't favor either position absent interpretation. So there's no use appealing to the evidence to get either side to change their minds; after all, both of them view the evidence as strong proof that their positions are correct, even though those positions are completely opposed to each other.

Those viewing chess clubs as not sexist would not present your argument which is in itself sexist. First they would likely ask if there was anything barring women form joining said chess club. Of course there isn't. second they might point out any number of female chess grandmasters and the fact that women now account for about a third of all ranked players.

that aside to address your first response you said "Many people have as an axiom that if different groups do not do equally well, then explicit oppression must be to blame. Since this is an axiom there is no assortment of evidence which could get them to change their minds"

However there is a great deal of evidence of systemic racism in our society. Meaning you haven't presented an axiom because it s not just accepted as true but backed up.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The truly silly thing here, is that you apparently don’t have any understanding of how statistics work.

No..I think I do.

Yes if you compare two cases you certainly can have disparities, which is why we don’t compare two cases and draw inferences, we compare the outcomes of many thousands of cases. When you do that the likelihood of small differences affecting the outcome becomes less and less likely.

Or to try and put it slightly more simply, what do you think the odds are that in a thousand black crimes and a thousand white crimes the black perpetrator just happened by chance to have committed a more serious version of that same crime?

If on average they get 20% longer sentences...then perhaps it's 20% of the time. Your problem is you think that across racial lines, all crimes are the same...they aren't. Think back to the recent shooting in Parkland, were you surprised at all that the shooter was a young white man? I wasn't...when we're talking about mass shootings at schools, it's a pretty safe bet. When we're talking about airplane hijackings it's almost always a muslim. When we're talking about bombings...I'd say it's 50/50 between a white guy and a muslim. When we're talking about drive-by shootings, it's overwhelmingly black men and Latinos.

So while you may think that if we take thousands and thousands of cases it's eventually going to even out, in reality it doesn't....even common sense tells us that.

The reason I took your answer as a racist one is because is sounded like you were saying perhaps black people just commit worse crimes. That would indeed have been a vile and extremely racist thing to say if you were talking on a community wide scale.

Is it? Is it racist to say the muslim community commits a disproportionate number of terrorist attacks?

An extra resume or two? Extremely minor? I mentioned this study in the first place because it shows starkly that there are implicit biases against black people in society, something you seemed unable to admit. They face a harder challenge to finding employment, face unduly severe penalties in court, are far more likely to be harassed by the police etc etc.

You clearly didn't read the study I posted.

 

[Kentonio]

No..I think I do.

Then respectfully, you’re not doing a very good job of showing that.

If on average they get 20% longer sentences...then perhaps it's 20% of the time. Your problem is you think that across racial lines, all crimes are the same...they aren't. Think back to the recent shooting in Parkland, were you surprised at all that the shooter was a young white man? I wasn't...when we're talking about mass shootings at schools, it's a pretty safe bet. When we're talking about airplane hijackings it's almost always a muslim. When we're talking about bombings...I'd say it's 50/50 between a white guy and a muslim. When we're talking about drive-by shootings, it's overwhelmingly black men and Latinos.

So while you may think that if we take thousands and thousands of cases it's eventually going to even out, in reality it doesn't....even common sense tells us that.

‘Common sense’ is apparently leading you astray here. When you compare thousand of shoplifting offenses for instance, or thousands of drug possession charges, there is nothing there that suggests that across thousands of cases, black people would be committing more serious versions of the same offense. Especially when you look at offenses committed in the same areas.

Is it? Is it racist to say the muslim community commits a disproportionate number of terrorist attacks?

That’s not what you’re doing though, you're saying that when the same crimes are committed by black and white perpetrators, the crimes committed by blacks must be magically more serious and worthy of harsher punishment, which is nonsense.

 

[rambot]

It's absolutely true...but that's not the only thing being claimed. It's claimed racism is the reason why.

IS that being claimed by the authors of the report or people who are presenting or reporting that study?

All I wanted to show was that it's a non-issue. If you think people should be concerned about systemic racism...then bring up an issue that has higher stakes than someone with an unusual name needing to send out an extra resume or two.

Well, I don't think twice as many resumes is really an extra resume or two. Also, higher stakes or not, there is no justifiable reason for it and it is a fine example of systemic racism; though perhaps not as sexy, or gigantic in its outcomes.

The reason I took your answer as a racist one is because is sounded like you were saying perhaps black people just commit worse crimes. That would indeed have been a vile and extremely racist thing to say if you were talking on a community wide scale.

Well, to be fair that is, in fact exactly what he said. But he didn't know that to be true, he offered it as a possible excuse. Sort of like how humans being can't fly on our own power just because we don't try hard enough. It is a possible reason; it's just a reason that isn't born out in any kind of evidence.

 

[rambot]

Is it? Is it racist to say the muslim community commits a disproportionate number of terrorist attacks?

When you refer to "community" I would think you are referring only to US numbers yes?
What the data shows on domestic terrorism perpetrators

I don't know how many "far right violent extremists" there are in the US but there are 3.3 million muslims ALL TOGETHER How many radical islamists though? That number is probably closer to thousands or hundreds.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Then respectfully, you’re not doing a very good job of showing that.

I could say the same.

‘Common sense’ is apparently leading you astray here. When you compare thousand of shoplifting offenses for instance,

I seriously doubt there's thousands of shoplifters doing time lol.

or thousands of drug possession charges, there is nothing there that suggests that across thousands of cases, black people would be committing more serious versions of the same offense. Especially when you look at offenses committed in the same areas.

Well...as far as drug possession goes, different races do different drugs at different rates. Possession of one thing isn't the same as another. Moreover, you have different mandatory minimums for different things.

That’s not what you’re doing though, you're saying that when the same crimes are committed by black and white perpetrators, the crimes committed by blacks must be magically more serious and worthy of harsher punishment, which is nonsense.

There's no such thing as "the same crime ".

 

[Ana the Ist]

When you refer to "community" I would think you are referring only to US numbers yes?
What the data shows on domestic terrorism perpetrators

I don't know how many "far right violent extremists" there are in the US but there are 3.3 million muslims ALL TOGETHER How many radical islamists though? That number is probably closer to thousands or hundreds.

Yeah...and why does your chart start keeping track after Sept 12th 2001? What are they calling a terror attack?

 

[Ana the Ist]

IS that being claimed by the authors of the report or people who are presenting or reporting that study?

Both in many cases.

Well, I don't think twice as many resumes is really an extra resume or two. Also, higher stakes or not, there is no justifiable reason for it and it is a fine example of systemic racism; though perhaps not as sexy, or gigantic in its outcomes.

Twice as many? I thought it was only 33% less callbacks...

Well, to be fair that is, in fact exactly what he said. But he didn't know that to be true, he offered it as a possible excuse. Sort of like how humans being can't fly on our own power just because we don't try hard enough. It is a possible reason; it's just a reason that isn't born out in any kind of evidence.

Wow...ok...it doesn't take a genius to figure this stuff out. Different sentence ranges are available for different offenses. It's common sense. A guy who mugs another guy on the street will probably get less time than a 18yo who kicks a wheelchair bound old lady and steals her purse. They may both face assault and robbery charges...but that fact that one got a longer sentence isn't because of racism.

 

[rambot]

Both in many cases.




Twice as many? I thought it was only 33% less callbacks...





Wow...ok...it doesn't take a genius to figure this stuff out. Different sentence ranges are available for different offenses. It's common sense. A guy who mugs another guy on the street will probably get less time than a 18yo who kicks a wheelchair bound old lady and steals her purse. They may both face assault and robbery charges...but that fact that one got a longer sentence isn't because of racism.

No but when your argument is "that race is prone to worse crimes (paraphrase)" without data to back it up, well that could be racist.

 

[rambot]

Yeah...and why does your chart start keeping track after Sept 12th 2001? What are they calling a terror attack?

I would image it would count as 1 to 5 or 6 attacks i guess though a lot more deaths for sure.
Honestly every source i found had the same headline. I have never read the opposite.

 

[SilverBear]

Why do you think that's a racist statement?

Let's imagine two cases of assault. In one case, an 18yo guy learns his friend is sleeping with his girlfriend and attacks him...beats him up.

In another case, an 18yo guy gets into an argument with his 68yo female neighbor. He gets angry, kicks her to the ground, and punches her a few times before fleeing the scene.

Both of these men are facing the same assault charges. Let's imagine they both have the same record...no previous charges or convictions...and they never had a run-in with the police either.

Now, even though they're facing the same charges, they are the same age, and they have the same records...they're probably going to receive different sentences, right? You can also understand that those sentences won't have anything to do with the race of the offender....right?

If you feel a little silly agreeing with those two questions, believe me, it's not as silly as I feel having to explain it.

the problem here is that you don't have the same crime. You avoided using the same crime so you can pretend that racism in sentencing doesn't exist.

If you want to claim it is the same crime:
Let's imagine two cases of assault. In one case, a white 18yo guy learns his friend is sleeping with his girlfriend and attacks him...beats him up.

in Another case a black 18yo guy learns his friend is sleeping with his girlfriend and attacks him...beats him up.

Both of these men are facing the same assault charges. Let's imagine they both have the same record...no previous charges or convictions...and they never had a run-in with the police either.

what happens next is that the black man is more likely to be prosecuted than the white man for the same crime
if bother are prosecuted the black man is likely to receive a sentence that is 20% than the white man.


The crimes are the same as is the criminal record for both but the sentencing is vastly different and that difference is attributable to race

 

[keith99]

Oh I've seen the study...did you see the one where they used uncommon and difficult to pronounce white names like zybrowski and cuievan?

I have not. I have not even seen one where they use white but not American names like Paddy, Ian and Gareth.

 

[Ana the Ist]

the problem here is that you don't have the same crime. You avoided using the same crime so you can pretend that racism in sentencing doesn't exist.

If you want to claim it is the same crime:
Let's imagine two cases of assault. In one case, a white 18yo guy learns his friend is sleeping with his girlfriend and attacks him...beats him up.

in Another case a black 18yo guy learns his friend is sleeping with his girlfriend and attacks him...beats him up.

Both of these men are facing the same assault charges. Let's imagine they both have the same record...no previous charges or convictions...and they never had a run-in with the police either.

what happens next is that the black man is more likely to be prosecuted than the white man for the same crime
if bother are prosecuted the black man is likely to receive a sentence that is 20% than the white man.


The crimes are the same as is the criminal record for both but the sentencing is vastly different and that difference is attributable to race

For starters....that's not how they do those studies, and that's my point. All these sentencing studies do is look at charges. If two different subjects are being charged with assault, they consider it the same crime...and it doesn't matter if the circumstances of the assaults are wildly different.

Furthermore, if you think that a 20% longerr sentence for blacks means this...

5 white subjects and five black, and years sentenced...

1W-5. 1B-6
2W-5. 2B-6
3W-5. 3B-6
4W-5. 4B-6
5W-5. 5B-6

Then you're forgetting it could also just as easily be this....

1W-5. 1B-5
2W-5. 2B-5
3W-5. 3B-5
4W-5. 4B-5
5W-5. 5B-10

Both of those would average out to a 20% longer sentence for blacks...and while the first group looks pretty suspicious, the second group looks more like there was something unique about subject 5B. It's not like you know which is the actual scenario when a study says "blacks get an average 20% longer sentence".

As for blacks being more likely to be convicted...that's a completely different claim. Is it because juries are usually racist? Or is it because blacks plead guilty less often?

One thing I do know is that if a white man commits a violent crime....he's more likely to be arrested and convicted than when a black man commits a violent crime.

 

[Liza B.]

Thanks Rion.

I think one of the more ridiculous aspects of the left's narrative on this is the idea that by suspending or expelling these students...they're being turned into criminals. It's literally blaming teachers for behavior problems that exist before these kids ever get into the classrooms of the teachers who suspend them.

The idea that they were a bunch of saints, then they got detention from a racist teacher...and then they go onto a life of crime because of that is astonishingly dumb.

Ana this is just one in a long, long list of things that cannot be said. I mean in education. Since teachers can't say them, they're just quitting and telling their kids not to think about going in to education, as I have said.

The Left will look at the already-here, and soon-to-be-gripping teacher shortage and make up some reason it's not their fault. It, too, will be the teachers' fault.

PS No doubt about it, many of my teacher colleagues need to wake up to Leftist tactics too. Being assaulted, however, usually does that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ana this is just one in a long, long list of things that cannot be said. I mean in education. Since teachers can't say them, they're just quitting and telling their kids not to think about going in to education, as I have said.

The Left will look at the already-here, and soon-to-be-gripping teacher shortage and make up some reason it's not their fault. It, too, will be the teachers' fault.

PS No doubt about it, many of my teacher colleagues need to wake up to Leftist tactics too. Being assaulted, however, usually does that.

Frankly, I feel bad for teachers. They got caught up in the whole "blame everything on racism" trend unwittingly. The right kept pointing out inconvenient facts about the black community...and one of those was education levels/graduation rates. So the left tried to figure out how they could explain those away with racism...saw that black students got punished more often....so they blamed it all in racist teachers.

Doctors, judges, teachers, police...pretty much anyone who works for the benefit of the public must be racist according to the left. It's lazy thinking...but it's popular...so they're running with it.

 

[Kentonio]

Well...as far as drug possession goes, different races do different drugs at different rates. Possession of one thing isn't the same as another. Moreover, you have different mandatory minimums for different things.

Ok, let's look at some statistics (2012)..

38.8% of White young adults 18 to 25 years of age in the U.S. reported any illicit drug use in the past year.
38.0% of Black young adults 18 to 25 years of age in the U.S. reported any illicit drug use in the past year.

6.6 percent of white adolescents and young adults (aged 12 to 25) sold drugs
5.0 percent of black adolescents and young adults (aged 12 to 25) sold drugs

And yet..

As to your point that blacks are supposedly using different drugs to whites:

Nationally the one difference people generally point to is between cocaine use and crack cocaine use. Crack cocaine use during lifetime is 5.2% for blacks and 4.0% for whites. Here's an interesting thing you might not know though, when you look only at the 18-25 bracket for 2012, the ages when people are most likely to be taking drugs, the number of whites doing crack is 2.6% and blacks? Just 0.2%. In the 12-17 bracket its even lower.

2012 Tables: Illicit Drug Use - 1.1 to 1.46 (PE), SAMHSA, CBHSQ

So why exactly when young blacks are doing are now actually doing LESS crack than young whites, are they still being sentenced more harshly?

For cocaine by the way those numbers are 18.3% for whites and 10.9% for blacks.

And heroin?

So tell me, what are these drugs that blacks are using more than whites, which justify longer sentencing?

 

[SilverBear]

For starters....that's not how they do those studies, and that's my point. All these sentencing studies do is look at charges. If two different subjects are being charged with assault, they consider it the same crime...and it doesn't matter if the circumstances of the assaults are wildly different.

you are quite wrong on this point. The crimes are matched for demographics on the criminal, victim as well as demographic educational and socioeconomic variables Eactly how perpetrators are matched is something every study will detail in the paper's methodologies sections.

THE INTERACTION OF RACE, GENDER, AND AGE IN CRIMINAL SENTENCING by Steffenmeiser, Ulmar and Kramer list that crime convictions controlled for gender, age, crime specifics and criminal record.
While T. Schlesinger's Racial discrepancies in sentencing controls for the same variables and adds demographic controls for the crimes victim(s)

Furthermore, if you think that a 20% longerr sentence for blacks means this...

5 white subjects and five black, and years sentenced...

1W-5. 1B-6
2W-5. 2B-6
3W-5. 3B-6
4W-5. 4B-6
5W-5. 5B-6

Then you're forgetting it could also just as easily be this....

1W-5. 1B-5
2W-5. 2B-5
3W-5. 3B-5
4W-5. 4B-5
5W-5. 5B-10

conflating the first with the second would ensure that the study never got past peer review.
5b in your example is what would be referred to as an outlier and would show up as such in any casual reading of a study's statistics.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ok, let's look at some statistics (2012)..

38.8% of White young adults 18 to 25 years of age in the U.S. reported any illicit drug use in the past year.
38.0% of Black young adults 18 to 25 years of age in the U.S. reported any illicit drug use in the past year.

6.6 percent of white adolescents and young adults (aged 12 to 25) sold drugs
5.0 percent of black adolescents and young adults (aged 12 to 25) sold drugs

And yet..

As to your point that blacks are supposedly using different drugs to whites:

Nationally the one difference people generally point to is between cocaine use and crack cocaine use. Crack cocaine use during lifetime is 5.2% for blacks and 4.0% for whites. Here's an interesting thing you might not know though, when you look only at the 18-25 bracket for 2012, the ages when people are most likely to be taking drugs, the number of whites doing crack is 2.6% and blacks? Just 0.2%. In the 12-17 bracket its even lower.

2012 Tables: Illicit Drug Use - 1.1 to 1.46 (PE), SAMHSA, CBHSQ

So why exactly when young blacks are doing are now actually doing LESS crack than young whites, are they still being sentenced more harshly?

For cocaine by the way those numbers are 18.3% for whites and 10.9% for blacks.

And heroin?

So tell me, what are these drugs that blacks are using more than whites, which justify longer sentencing?

Your link doesn't work.

 

[Kentonio]

Your link doesn't work.

Works fine for me, I just tried it again.

 

[whatbogsends]

Why is it expected by some that outcomes should be the same for whatever demographic split we choose (for example, different racial groups), when the behavior and characteristics of these racial groups differ?

Is the fact that academic outcomes for Asians being higher than academic outcomes for whites imply that there is a pro-Asian/anti-white racist bias? Or is it possible that Asians have a higher prioritization of education culturally?

Do the racial differences in the NBA imply that there is a pro-black/anti-white/anti-Asian bias that yields this distribution? Or is it possible that there are genetic differences which lead some groups to outperform others?

I do not doubt that there is some racial bias which gets applied in law enforcement and/or educational discipline. That being said, the expected outcomes absent of any biases should not be "equal results" for all races.