Is this racist? (obviously I can't tell)

[hadespussercats]

What about the medical and health issues surrounding race?
Those are more than superficial.

What this means is that race is deeper than skin.

Yeah, I'm muddling through on what that means.

wd wrote

hadespussercats wrote:
You're right. At least from what I've understood of what I've read, genes don't show racial difference-- race is a cultural and social construct. (Though I'm a little unclear on how to resolve that with things like sickle-cell anemia or certain congenital disorders that seem to occur in a race-specific way.)

There's a graph that may help illuminate the issue here:

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/08/connect-dots.html

Whether that graph shows races or just continuous geographic variation is probably in the eye of the beholder.

But does it make any difference? If race has a genetic component rather than being purely a cultural and social construct, does that suddenly make it okay to be racially bigoted? I would think not.

[Warren Dew]

But does it make any difference? If race has a genetic component rather than being purely a cultural and social construct, does that suddenly make it okay to be racially bigoted? I would think not.

Of course not. But the lack of genetic difference makes clear that racial difference is not inherent, or an insurmountable barrier to harmony between different groups.

I disagree. Back in the "democracy vs. communism" depths of the 1950s Cold War, no one claimed the differences were genetic, but they were definitely seen as insurmountable. And indeed, ultimately, they were never surmounted, and what ultimately happened was the collapse of one of them.

I'm thinking of The Bell Curve controversy, and the like.

Did you read The Bell Curve? The authors explicitly refused to make any claims about genetics. It was only the subconscious bigotry of liberal reviewers that perpetuated the assumption that any racial differences must be genetic.

Now, the authors did claim that the known ways of ameliorating racial average IQ differences had been implemented and had not eliminated such differences - which was true at the time. However, science has progressed since then; we now know a lot more about the specific environmental causes of IQ differences, including some that are racially aligned. Unfortunately, the myth that no such differences exist prevents us from implementing policies that could actually help close such differences, by improving the intelligence of the less well off children of all races.

[hadespussercats]

But does it make any difference? If race has a genetic component rather than being purely a cultural and social construct, does that suddenly make it okay to be racially bigoted? I would think not.

Of course not. But the lack of genetic difference makes clear that racial difference is not inherent, or an insurmountable barrier to harmony between different groups.

I disagree. Back in the "democracy vs. communism" depths of the 1950s Cold War, no one claimed the differences were genetic, but they were definitely seen as insurmountable. And indeed, ultimately, they were never surmounted, and what ultimately happened was the collapse of one of them.

I'm thinking of The Bell Curve controversy, and the like.

Did you read The Bell Curve? The authors explicitly refused to make any claims about genetics. It was only the subconscious bigotry of liberal reviewers that perpetuated the assumption that any racial differences must be genetic.

Now, the authors did claim that the known ways of ameliorating racial average IQ differences had been implemented and had not eliminated such differences - which was true at the time. However, science has progressed since then; we now know a lot more about the specific environmental causes of IQ differences, including some that are racially aligned. Unfortunately, the myth that no such differences exist prevents us from implementing policies that could actually help close such differences, by improving the intelligence of the less well off children of all races.

I'll cite The Mismeasure of Man, then.

[hadespussercats]

But does it make any difference? If race has a genetic component rather than being purely a cultural and social construct, does that suddenly make it okay to be racially bigoted? I would think not.

Of course not. But the lack of genetic difference makes clear that racial difference is not inherent, or an insurmountable barrier to harmony between different groups.

I disagree. Back in the "democracy vs. communism" depths of the 1950s Cold War, no one claimed the differences were genetic, but they were definitely seen as insurmountable. And indeed, ultimately, they were never surmounted, and what ultimately happened was the collapse of one of them.

I'm thinking of The Bell Curve controversy, and the like.

Did you read The Bell Curve? The authors explicitly refused to make any claims about genetics. It was only the subconscious bigotry of liberal reviewers that perpetuated the assumption that any racial differences must be genetic.

Now, the authors did claim that the known ways of ameliorating racial average IQ differences had been implemented and had not eliminated such differences - which was true at the time. However, science has progressed since then; we now know a lot more about the specific environmental causes of IQ differences, including some that are racially aligned. Unfortunately, the myth that no such differences exist prevents us from implementing policies that could actually help close such differences, by improving the intelligence of the less well off children of all races.

I'll cite The Mismeasure of Man, then.

Unfortunately, the myth that no such differences exist prevents us from implementing policies that could actually help close such differences, by improving the intelligence of the less well off children of all races.

Sounds like you're saying the differences have their root in socio-economic status (read: poverty), which actually proves my point.

[Warren Dew]

I'll cite The Mismeasure of Man, then.

Sorry. Turns out Gould was the one who faked his data, not Morton.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/meta ... -2011.html
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info ... io.1001071

Sounds like you're saying the differences have their root in socio-economic status (read: poverty), which actually proves my point.

Not socioeconomic status, which is the main factor that The Bell Curve argued was already corrected for through needs based financial aid and the like. I'm talking about things like breastfeeding, which has now been demonstrated to improve intelligence in controlled trials. In the U.S., it's true that breastfeeding is currently associated with higher socioeconomic status, but the reverse is true in other countries - I believe the UK is one of them. You don't need to fix socioeconomic status issues first to fix that difference; you just need to get rid of government policies that encourage the poor to use formula instead of breastfeeding. In fact, fixing the breastfeeding issue without worrying about socioeconomic status would probably indirectly help fix the socioeconomic issues down the line.

I would agree that doesn't disprove your point, though it doesn't really prove it either. There are plenty of other racial differences that are genetic - skin color, adaptations to malaria like the sickle cell gene and thalassemia, maybe even the differences in humerus to femur ratios that make blacks better wide receivers and whites better quarterbacks. None of those are reasons to believe there are insurmountable barriers; since individual differences are larger than average racial differences, it's still correct to treat people as individuals rather than as racial stereotypes. Indeed, in the case of wide receivers and quarterbacks, it might be an argument for greater interracial cooperation, rather than less, since every football team needs both types of players.

[Azathoth]

But socially and culturally, brunettes and gingers both count as white.
.

Gingers don't even count as people. Weird freckly daywalkers. They need rounding up and putting in camps

[charlou]

I think not

[amok]

I'll go back and read the follow-up posts, but... don't those two individual men look similar? They do, to me.

How acknowledging that would be racist, I can't even imagine. I've also seen two individual white people who look alike (to me). There's a whole entertainment sub-group based on lookalike-ness.

If there's more information about the nature of the comment or other extenuating circumstances, I'll reconsider. But on the face of it, the faces of those two men are quite similar. Aren't they?

[Gallstones]

The shape of the face and the hair line are similar, but otherwise I don't see much of a likeness.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

But socially and culturally, brunettes and gingers both count as white.
.

Gingers don't even count as people. Weird freckly daywalkers. They need rounding up and putting in camps

Could my bedroom be one of these 'camps' (for the females of the Ginger species only)?

[hadespussercats]

I'll cite The Mismeasure of Man, then.

Sorry. Turns out Gould was the one who faked his data, not Morton.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/meta ... -2011.html
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info ... io.1001071

Sounds like you're saying the differences have their root in socio-economic status (read: poverty), which actually proves my point.

Not socioeconomic status, which is the main factor that The Bell Curve argued was already corrected for through needs based financial aid and the like. I'm talking about things like breastfeeding, which has now been demonstrated to improve intelligence in controlled trials. In the U.S., it's true that breastfeeding is currently associated with higher socioeconomic status, but the reverse is true in other countries - I believe the UK is one of them. You don't need to fix socioeconomic status issues first to fix that difference; you just need to get rid of government policies that encourage the poor to use formula instead of breastfeeding. In fact, fixing the breastfeeding issue without worrying about socioeconomic status would probably indirectly help fix the socioeconomic issues down the line.

I would agree that doesn't disprove your point, though it doesn't really prove it either. There are plenty of other racial differences that are genetic - skin color, adaptations to malaria like the sickle cell gene and thalassemia, maybe even the differences in humerus to femur ratios that make blacks better wide receivers and whites better quarterbacks. None of those are reasons to believe there are insurmountable barriers; since individual differences are larger than average racial differences, it's still correct to treat people as individuals rather than as racial stereotypes. Indeed, in the case of wide receivers and quarterbacks, it might be an argument for greater interracial cooperation, rather than less, since every football team needs both types of players.

Yeah, I know, my bottle-fed baby is going to grow up fat, retarded, and unable to love, while breastfed children can all levitate unicorns with their mind.

I kid. This is a sore point for me, since I can't breastfeed. But my understanding of the BF/intelligence studies is that it's unclear where the intelligence boost is coming from-- if it's purely nutritional, or if it's that women who breastfeed needs must spend a lot of time interacting with their children, and that women who choose to breastfeed often are better educated themselves.

As for the obvious physical differences that define race-- I've never denied their existence. I am of the brunette race, and am much better at sunbathing than those of the ginger race.

As for sports, well, poor people often focus on athletic excellence as a possible ticket out of poverty. You're sounding a lot like, who was it, Jimmy the Greek? with your talk about football and femurs.

[amok]

The shape of the face and the hair line are similar, but otherwise I don't see much of a likeness.

Their eyebrows, chins and ears look similar to me, as well. Not identical, of course, but relatively similar. I see differences in cheekbones and eyes, but on a first glance thing, to me they look similar enough to make a comparison that wouldn't involve a "they all look alike" thing. For goodness sake, even in my small city there's another woman who looks enough like me that I've had a half-dozen remarks over the last few years in terms of, "I saw you at X location on Saturday" when I wasn't there. A person I work with day in and day out remarked that they saw me selling flowers at a charity event, which would have been nice of me, but it wasn't me.

[Warren Dew]

Yeah, I know, my bottle-fed baby is going to grow up fat, retarded, and unable to love, while breastfed children can all levitate unicorns with their mind.

I kid. This is a sore point for me, since I can't breastfeed. But my understanding of the BF/intelligence studies is that it's unclear where the intelligence boost is coming from-- if it's purely nutritional, or if it's that women who breastfeed needs must spend a lot of time interacting with their children, and that women who choose to breastfeed often are better educated themselves.

it's known that the the breastfeeding effect is separate from the educational level of the mother, since the Byelorussian study was a randomized trial where women were assigned to the breastfeeding group or the non-breastfeeding group without regard to education.

The effect might have to do with the time interacting with the children, yes; as far as I know, no experiments have been done isolating that issue from the nutritional issue. If the effect is nutritional, there's some evidence that use of the right formula can provide it too:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract

And of course, the education or intelligence of the mother likely has an effect as well, but it's separate from the breastfeeding effect.

The part about levitating unicorns is definitely true, though - not that that does any good for babies whose parents can't get them unicorns as a result of not being virgins.

As for sports, well, poor people often focus on athletic excellence as a possible ticket out of poverty.

That theory may explain why there are more blacks in sports generally, but fails to explain why the majority of quarterbacks and offensive linemen are white rather than black.

You're sounding a lot like, who was it, Jimmy the Greek? with your talk about football and femurs.

This was interesting enough I had to google Jimmy the Greek. He has the right general idea although he seems to have an unrealistic view of how fast evolution can act on genetics. He appears to believe the issue only applies to American blacks, but in fact international Olympic results indicate it applies around the world, with subsaharan Africans generally being the fastest in track events, and caucasians generally lifting the most in weightlifting events.

[charlou]

I'll cite The Mismeasure of Man, then.

Sorry. Turns out Gould was the one who faked his data, not Morton.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/meta ... -2011.html
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info ... io.1001071

Sounds like you're saying the differences have their root in socio-economic status (read: poverty), which actually proves my point.

Not socioeconomic status, which is the main factor that The Bell Curve argued was already corrected for through needs based financial aid and the like. I'm talking about things like breastfeeding, which has now been demonstrated to improve intelligence in controlled trials. In the U.S., it's true that breastfeeding is currently associated with higher socioeconomic status, but the reverse is true in other countries - I believe the UK is one of them. You don't need to fix socioeconomic status issues first to fix that difference; you just need to get rid of government policies that encourage the poor to use formula instead of breastfeeding. In fact, fixing the breastfeeding issue without worrying about socioeconomic status would probably indirectly help fix the socioeconomic issues down the line.

I would agree that doesn't disprove your point, though it doesn't really prove it either. There are plenty of other racial differences that are genetic - skin color, adaptations to malaria like the sickle cell gene and thalassemia, maybe even the differences in humerus to femur ratios that make blacks better wide receivers and whites better quarterbacks. None of those are reasons to believe there are insurmountable barriers; since individual differences are larger than average racial differences, it's still correct to treat people as individuals rather than as racial stereotypes. Indeed, in the case of wide receivers and quarterbacks, it might be an argument for greater interracial cooperation, rather than less, since every football team needs both types of players.

Yeah, I know, my bottle-fed baby is going to grow up fat, retarded, and unable to love, while breastfed children can all levitate unicorns with their mind.

I kid. This is a sore point for me, since I can't breastfeed. But my understanding of the BF/intelligence studies is that it's unclear where the intelligence boost is coming from-- if it's purely nutritional, or if it's that women who breastfeed needs must spend a lot of time interacting with their children, and that women who choose to breastfeed often are better educated themselves.

As for the obvious physical differences that define race-- I've never denied their existence. I am of the brunette race, and am much better at sunbathing than those of the ginger race.

I'm a member of the brown haired gang too

But I burn and freckle

Does that mean I'm a member of the fair skinned gang too?

I'm a member of the blue eyed gang as well ... as is my ex (the children's father) and as are three of our five children. The hazel eyed one is not in our little blue eyed gang, but he has curly hair like three of us blue eyed gang, but not like the others, who have straight hair ... and he tans easily, like their father, who has blue eyes and straight hair, then there's our son with central heterochromia, straight hair and fair skin ... then there are those who need glasses, and those who are better communicators ... those who are more interested in sport ... those who like to read, those who prefer other forms of entertainment, etc, etc, etc ... Faaaaaaaaark ... we are an interesting and motley crew ...

[Schneibster]

Not enough information to tell definitively.

Nor should there ever be. School discipline of a child should not appear in public in any context unless there is criminal activity involved, and then only if public safety information must be disseminated or there is a question of adult wrongdoing. That these people would violate that precept by disseminating pictures of their own child tells me everything I need to know.

Going public is one avenue for justice. I won't fault them for it.

Look real nice on his résumé, won't it? Office politics will bring it to the attention of his manager and the HR department the first time he puts a foot wrong. And into court if he's ever sued for harassment.

I'm sure that's a wonderful thing his parents have done for him using him to fight their bullshit fight for their right to be racists.

I am not convinced that the school was correct.

We will never know unless the school violates child confidentiality. I hope they don't.

Based solely on what was presented in the OP, my judgment is no, it is not racist.

Would you recommend that school officials not discipline?

No. Was there an offense that warranted discipline? There isn't enough information there for me to be able to tell.

We will never know unless the school violates child confidentiality.

Expulsion seems a bit extreme given that all that happened was a comparison between one notable person and another was made.
What makes that comparison racist?

A history of activities. Like it says in the article. Which you apparently didn't read. Again.

In the US, a person is not subject to persecution for holding bigoted views, or of expressing them as long as they aren't threats to do bodily harm or violate some Federal statute.

It's also not illegal for them to fire you from your job, nor for you to be suspended from school, if you do.

Or that they disseminate the details in public to defend themselves?

Minors get some protection from publicity of their alleged crimes.

Not this one. His parents published the details on the Internet.

If there is a lawsuit the school would get no automatic protection from details being made public.

The school doesn't care about it if his parents decide to bring suit. It's no longer their responsibility and they will dust off their hands, turn around, and walk away. If called they will testify about all the preceding stuff and we'll no doubt hear about it. I expect pictures of Obama with watermelon and fried chicken, possibly even with "nigger" written on them, posted on the little girl's locker.

Whether making the details known best serves the school or the child I can't say.

Unbelievable. And you spawned? What a shame.

But I am suspicious of those who make efforts to hide such details.

I haven't the least idea what to say to someone who thinks a child's school records should be made public for the protection of some official's reputation.