Race politics scenario: which option would you pick?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Last time: I did not write anything about stress, you did.

Where did the 3.7 come from???

Here is what I wrote:

Example: the average black student dropping out may have 3.7 of these factors but the average white student may have 2.9.

Try Reading Comprehension 101.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You are asserting that there are more such stressors in the black community, something I will agree with. That's why there are more dropouts! It doesn't mean the average dropout is under more stress at the time they drop out, though.

Let's go back to this post you made.

Let's suppose that for both blacks and whites, they begin to think of dropping out when their factors are >=N. For EXAMPLE (notice this is an EXAMPLE), if N is 2.7, then at the time both blacks and whites will have 3, 4, 5, or ... factors. It depends on the person and situation but they may have had a major life change so that they went from 2 factors to 5. Since blacks do have more factors (your concession), on average they may jump a little bit more from 2 to 4 than whites jump from 2 to 4. Further down the line if a white person and a black person are both prevented from dropping out, then a year later there is a bigger probability that the black person will again need prevention but not the white person. This all follows reasonably from blacks having a higher proportion of dropouts than whites (i.e. THE OP). So, yes, you'd expect blacks to have more factors and as such if you were to address the root causes, you'd be spending more money on blacks than on whites per person (most likely).

All this is to say that if you have a real race blind policy that is there to address root causes of issues, you may indeed be spending more money per black than per white--that is, you may meet the criteria of Option2. You just didn't intend to do so as it was an indirect consequence of going after root causes of problems.

 

[fromderinside]

If race enters into the decision it's racist, period.

Did you miss my lecture where I explained racism can only come from power and in 'merica power is the law and the law is written by and for whites?

So taking an asymmetrical set of propositions and saying from whence any decision comes it is racist can only be true if all the whences are white.

That is not the case here.

 

[ronburgundy]

You are asserting that there are more such stressors in the black community, something I will agree with. That's why there are more dropouts! It doesn't mean the average dropout is under more stress at the time they drop out, though.

Let's go back to this post you made.

Let's suppose that for both blacks and whites, they begin to think of dropping out when their factors are >=N. For EXAMPLE (notice this is an EXAMPLE), if N is 2.7, then at the time both blacks and whites will have 3, 4, 5, or ... factors. It depends on the person and situation but they may have had a major life change so that they went from 2 factors to 5. Since blacks do have more factors (your concession), on average they may jump a little bit more from 2 to 4 than whites jump from 2 to 4. Further down the line if a white person and a black person are both prevented from dropping out, then a year later there is a bigger probability that the black person will again need prevention but not the white person. This all follows reasonably from blacks having a higher proportion of dropouts than whites (i.e. THE OP). So, yes, you'd expect blacks to have more factors and as such if you were to address the root causes, you'd be spending more money on blacks than on whites per person (most likely).

All this is to say that if you have a real race blind policy that is there to address root causes of issues, you may indeed be spending more money per black than per white--that is, you may meet the criteria of Option2. You just didn't intend to do so as it was an indirect consequence of going after root causes of problems.

All of that is true, only if the extra root causes that blacks deal with are things that any school policy could address. They are not. Especially since we are talking about a single school district here, the school context is far more similar between blacks and whites that all the other factors that impact dropouts. Thus, odds are that most of the extra dropouts among blacks are due to the extra non-school factors. Thus, money spent (as it should be) on addressing factors that its plausible for the school to address would not be spent more on blacks and would not close the graduation gap, despite reducing dropout rates for both groups.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Where did the 3.7 come from???

Here is what I wrote:

Example: the average black student dropping out may have 3.7 of these factors but the average white student may have 2.9.

Try Reading Comprehension 101.

I understood the original, I realize it's a hypothetical number. You're still providing no basis for choosing it, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are asserting that there are more such stressors in the black community, something I will agree with. That's why there are more dropouts! It doesn't mean the average dropout is under more stress at the time they drop out, though.

Let's go back to this post you made.

Let's suppose that for both blacks and whites, they begin to think of dropping out when their factors are >=N. For EXAMPLE (notice this is an EXAMPLE), if N is 2.7, then at the time both blacks and whites will have 3, 4, 5, or ... factors. It depends on the person and situation but they may have had a major life change so that they went from 2 factors to 5. Since blacks do have more factors (your concession), on average they may jump a little bit more from 2 to 4 than whites jump from 2 to 4. Further down the line if a white person and a black person are both prevented from dropping out, then a year later there is a bigger probability that the black person will again need prevention but not the white person. This all follows reasonably from blacks having a higher proportion of dropouts than whites (i.e. THE OP). So, yes, you'd expect blacks to have more factors and as such if you were to address the root causes, you'd be spending more money on blacks than on whites per person (most likely).

All this is to say that if you have a real race blind policy that is there to address root causes of issues, you may indeed be spending more money per black than per white--that is, you may meet the criteria of Option2. You just didn't intend to do so as it was an indirect consequence of going after root causes of problems.

You're still not showing any reason to assume blacks don't drop out until the stress level is higher.

Showing that they currently have more factors from the list proves nothing--you need to show they had more factors when they dropped out.

- - - Updated - - -

If race enters into the decision it's racist, period.

Did you miss my lecture where I explained racism can only come from power and in 'merica power is the law and the law is written by and for whites?

So taking an asymmetrical set of propositions and saying from whence any decision comes it is racist can only be true if all the whences are white.

That is not the case here.

Even if true (something I disagree with--you only need power to act on racism, not to be racist) this proves nothing as we are talking about things the government is doing. If a white government does things to favor blacks that's still racist.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Let's go back to this post you made.

Let's suppose that for both blacks and whites, they begin to think of dropping out when their factors are >=N. For EXAMPLE (notice this is an EXAMPLE), if N is 2.7, then at the time both blacks and whites will have 3, 4, 5, or ... factors. It depends on the person and situation but they may have had a major life change so that they went from 2 factors to 5. Since blacks do have more factors (your concession), on average they may jump a little bit more from 2 to 4 than whites jump from 2 to 4. Further down the line if a white person and a black person are both prevented from dropping out, then a year later there is a bigger probability that the black person will again need prevention but not the white person. This all follows reasonably from blacks having a higher proportion of dropouts than whites (i.e. THE OP). So, yes, you'd expect blacks to have more factors and as such if you were to address the root causes, you'd be spending more money on blacks than on whites per person (most likely).

All this is to say that if you have a real race blind policy that is there to address root causes of issues, you may indeed be spending more money per black than per white--that is, you may meet the criteria of Option2. You just didn't intend to do so as it was an indirect consequence of going after root causes of problems.

You're still not showing any reason to assume blacks don't drop out until the stress level is higher.

Showing that they currently have more factors from the list proves nothing--you need to show they had more factors when they dropped out.

No, I don't. Even if you ignore logic you don't like, as I wrote before, you still encounter the problem that once you prevent someone from dropping out, additional factors come up risking them dropping out once again. Since blacks on average have more factors, it means they would be more likely than whites to drop out after being prevented from dropping out.

- - - Updated - - -

Let's go back to this post you made.

Let's suppose that for both blacks and whites, they begin to think of dropping out when their factors are >=N. For EXAMPLE (notice this is an EXAMPLE), if N is 2.7, then at the time both blacks and whites will have 3, 4, 5, or ... factors. It depends on the person and situation but they may have had a major life change so that they went from 2 factors to 5. Since blacks do have more factors (your concession), on average they may jump a little bit more from 2 to 4 than whites jump from 2 to 4. Further down the line if a white person and a black person are both prevented from dropping out, then a year later there is a bigger probability that the black person will again need prevention but not the white person. This all follows reasonably from blacks having a higher proportion of dropouts than whites (i.e. THE OP). So, yes, you'd expect blacks to have more factors and as such if you were to address the root causes, you'd be spending more money on blacks than on whites per person (most likely).

All this is to say that if you have a real race blind policy that is there to address root causes of issues, you may indeed be spending more money per black than per white--that is, you may meet the criteria of Option2. You just didn't intend to do so as it was an indirect consequence of going after root causes of problems.

All of that is true, only if the extra root causes that blacks deal with are things that any school policy could address. They are not. Especially since we are talking about a single school district here, the school context is far more similar between blacks and whites that all the other factors that impact dropouts. Thus, odds are that most of the extra dropouts among blacks are due to the extra non-school factors. Thus, money spent (as it should be) on addressing factors that its plausible for the school to address would not be spent more on blacks and would not close the graduation gap, despite reducing dropout rates for both groups.

Nope, see previous post.

 

[ronburgundy]

You're still not showing any reason to assume blacks don't drop out until the stress level is higher.

Showing that they currently have more factors from the list proves nothing--you need to show they had more factors when they dropped out.

No, I don't. Even if you ignore logic you don't like, as I wrote before, you still encounter the problem that once you prevent someone from dropping out, additional factors come up risking them dropping out once again. Since blacks on average have more factors, it means they would be more likely than whites to drop out after being prevented from dropping out.

- - - Updated - - -

Let's go back to this post you made.

Let's suppose that for both blacks and whites, they begin to think of dropping out when their factors are >=N. For EXAMPLE (notice this is an EXAMPLE), if N is 2.7, then at the time both blacks and whites will have 3, 4, 5, or ... factors. It depends on the person and situation but they may have had a major life change so that they went from 2 factors to 5. Since blacks do have more factors (your concession), on average they may jump a little bit more from 2 to 4 than whites jump from 2 to 4. Further down the line if a white person and a black person are both prevented from dropping out, then a year later there is a bigger probability that the black person will again need prevention but not the white person. This all follows reasonably from blacks having a higher proportion of dropouts than whites (i.e. THE OP). So, yes, you'd expect blacks to have more factors and as such if you were to address the root causes, you'd be spending more money on blacks than on whites per person (most likely).

All this is to say that if you have a real race blind policy that is there to address root causes of issues, you may indeed be spending more money per black than per white--that is, you may meet the criteria of Option2. You just didn't intend to do so as it was an indirect consequence of going after root causes of problems.

All of that is true, only if the extra root causes that blacks deal with are things that any school policy could address. They are not. Especially since we are talking about a single school district here, the school context is far more similar between blacks and whites that all the other factors that impact dropouts. Thus, odds are that most of the extra dropouts among blacks are due to the extra non-school factors. Thus, money spent (as it should be) on addressing factors that its plausible for the school to address would not be spent more on blacks and would not close the graduation gap, despite reducing dropout rates for both groups.

Nope, see previous post.

Yep, your prior post doesn't address this issue at all. Unless we assume that blacks are just less intellectually capable of school work, then the majority of the factors that lead to their extra dropout rate are non-scholastic, and thus not correctable by school-based programs. Thus, even the most ideal school-based program that prevents all dropouts that are due to factors that the school can address would actually increase the gap in dropouts between blacks and whites, even though it reduces the number of dropouts among all groups.

For example, imagine that all students who fail courses A, B, and C wind up dropout out, but only half of those drop out solely for that reason.
Because blacks must deal with more other factors, they are more likely to be among the students that actually dropped out for a different reason, regardless of whether they failed those courses.
Thus, create a very ideal program that prevents all those students from failing those courses. The students that now don't drop out because of this are mostly white, because they are less likely to be dropping out for other reasons. Thus, this ideal program that reduces dropout among all groups and helps students in the best way schools are capable of helping them, winds up increasing the gap in dropout rates.

Good school-based programs that do what schools can do to help are at least as or more likely to increase racial gaps in rates as to decrease them, despite helping all students as much as school programs are capable of doing.