USS Clueless - Working like it is supposed to: Harvard's researchers are cheating. They're using the patina of a scientific study to deliver political commentary.
If you look at the study itself, the Harvard researchers aren't quite cheating. (Not precisely, anyway.) They're quite explicit about the fact that they think the states have improper goals, and they're quite explicit that they're not examining the programs in the light of the state's goals, but in light of what they think the state should be doing. (And curse you for making me defend Orfield, even for one second! He was one of my professors, and I couldn't stand that class! I thought he was a yutz! Curse you, man!)
THAT said ... an income cap for such programs, regardless of race, does not strike me as unreasonable. Why on earth should the state pay people to go to college who can actually afford on their own? Making such programs scalar, a combination of merit and means, does not seem inequitable; equal opportunity does not mean paying someone who doesn't need the money. If people can actually afford the tuition, pay for their books as a way to day, "You done good this term, kid." Save the full tuition scholarships for those who need it due to lack of income; surely a great many of the dropouts the study decries aren't due to scholastic inability, but plain financial inability.
If you want more black kids to be awarded merit scholarships, go out into the cities and start encouraging those black kids to study harder while they're in high school so that they learn more, get better grades, and higher test scores. Tell them that studying is for their own benefit, and that it isn't "being white". But talk to them as individuals, don't talk to them as a group. Grouping someone is the worst thing you can do to them, no matter what color they are.
Enough, and more than enough.
Yes, there are cultural issues at work. Yes, people bear their own responsibility for what becomes of their lives. There are also issues of being poor, and of going to wretched schools, which do make a difference, and in which these children have no control. You can be as selfdirected, as ambitious as you like, and at that point in your life, if the people and information and other resources aren't there for you to build a proper educational base, you will struggle.
It is extraordinarily offensive to essentially state, "It's all black kids' fault that they're not better students." It is extraordinarily offensive to say, "Don't treat them as a group," when you're doing exactly that.
(For what it's worth, the New Mexico scholarships are doing exactly what they're designed to do, although they probably do need tweaking. New Mexico has a serious problem with losing all of its good students to other states -- the University of New Mexico and New Mexico State University, with the exception of certain -- generally graduate-level -- programs are not necessarily the best. Diplomas from better known universities can perhaps open different doors for the students. In any event, a principal goal of these programs -- oddly, no longer explicit, although it was way back in my day -- is simply to keep the better students in the state. Generally, people stay in the state from which they graduated college, at least in the near term. If the state can keep its best and brightest, it benefits. At least, that's the theory.)
STEVEN DEN BESTE RESPONDS: Update: Iain Jackson takes extreme exception to my opinion on this, but I think perhaps there's less disagreement between us than he thinks. First, I'm not saying that the opportunity for everyone is now already exactly equal; I'm well aware of the issue of substandard schools and other such barriers. Second, I'm not saying that no scholarship program anywhere should ever focus on the needy. What I am saying is that it is a good thing for some scholarship programs to not focus on the needy, even as others continue to do so. In that I disagree with the Harvard researchers, whose agenda apparently is that all scholarship programs must include a means test because it is always a waste to reward those who are not needy. (Complete response at the bottom of the same page.)
And that was not the substance to which I took offense, or at least not entirely. I'm not saying that there aren't some things which should be awarded purely on merit. I do not entirely disagree with the Harvard researchers that, given the extremely limited pool of state moneys, perhaps the states might be better served trying to help those with greater financial need rather than simply rewarding merit. But, again, that wasn't the part to which I took offense; it's a minor pont of disagreement, nothing more.
The qualification about opportunity is appreciated, and the lack of any such consideration is, in fact, a large part of what was so disturbing in the original piece. It read essentially as if the quality of schools, and the role they play in equality of opportunity, was not and should not be a relevant factor in how the states decide to disburse their money to students. There is also the fact, as I did state, that you say, in essence, Don't deal with black kids as a group, deal with them as individuals, which, in the midst of a paragraph of quite expansive generalization, is just bizarre.
And then there's this:
Don't teach them to be proud of being black, teach them to be proud of being themselves.
First, being black and being proud of yourself are not mutually exclusive.
Second, I truly cannot describe how profoundly and utterly offensive that statement appears. I do know that it isn't meant to sound the way it does; I do know know that offense is not intended. I do know, more or less, what was meant. Nonetheless, as a statement, and especially as the cap to a paragraph which essentially blames black kids themselves for underachieving ... I honestly did not and do not have the words to describe my reaction at the time. Which, unfortunately, led to some continued misunderstanding about where my objections actually lay.
Note that I am not now, and did not previously, disagree that the cultural factors you mention are a problem, or that they need to be fixed, somehow. My objection was to the bare statement which made it appear that only those cultural factors are at work ... and to that one unfortunate sentence.
(And I do know that as a debating tactic, bringing up what is technically a new argument is unfair. All I can say is that at the time, I truly did not know how to discuss it.)
Posted by iain at August 27, 2002 01:22 PMComments
But... y'know, you're taking those statements waaaay out of context. In the piece in general, he beats into the ground his point that everybody should be proud of being themselves, and not of being part of one group or another. The paragraph you take the most offense at specifically begins with "if you want more black kids to be awarded merit scholarships," which is clearly taking the "black kids" category from those he's taking issue with, and not actually accepting it as his perspective; it also seems clear that, on the whole, that paragraph would work as well if "black" were replaced by "Jewish," "Asian," "white," or whatever; the point is that all students, given proper attention and encouragement as individuals, will achieve better, and that those who are hung up on looking at groups are being terribly counterproductive. How this is supposed to equate to blaming students who (within the argument) don't get enough attention and encouragement is beyond me.
(I'm not expressing any opinion about the issue itself; I just don't see much in common between what he wrote and how you took it.)
Posted by Shmuel at August 28, 2002 02:22 AMI guess I'm blinded by my membership in the privileged White Club [/sarcasm], but that statement didn't "appear" offensive to me when taken in context with his previous statements on the danger of encouraging people to think of themselves as belonging to groups. He is not saying that it's all black kids' fault, and that they should not be proud of being black; he is saying that there has been too much emphasis placed on their being part of the Black Victim's group, and not enough on their own individuality. They are encouraged to do everything "for their people" -- a good idea that has been crippled by the idea that getting good grades is "acting white," among other things.
For what it's worth, "white" people are no longer encouraged to think of themselves as a group ranged against all the other groups on the planet. (It has become a rather shameful underground phenomenon, but with any luck the idea will wither away there.) Why do other racial or ethnic groups still get to play that game? It's not a turn-about-is-fair-play situation: if it's bad for one set of humans to do it, then it's bad for all. Tribalism holds people back.
Mea culpa. On re-reading the original piece, I see that I misinterpreted and took out of context large parts of it, and found offense where none was intended. I do apologize.
Posted by iain at August 28, 2002 12:58 PMWhen discussing subjects like this, miscommunication is nearly inevitable. I've made a further post addressing this specific issue where I think I do a better job of explaining what I meant in this regard.
The key point: Learn about your past. Treasure it. But don't let it rule you. Don't let your study of your past force your choices about the future. Let your knowledge of yourself liberate you, not bind you.
Posted by Steven Den Beste at August 28, 2002 06:43 PM
