Of course there are wealthy black students, and poor white students, but the achievement gap isn't based in particulars, but in aggregates and statistics.
Side note: I do realize that your alias is a play on Andrew Anglin, creator of neo-nazi website Daily Stormer. Very clever. You could do with being more subtle in your framing of these posts though.
Are you sure you aren't the one misunderstanding or being intentionally obtuse?
It's called the black-white achievement gap.
It is deliberately and for good reason not called the rich-poor achievement gap.
There is a significant gap after adjusting for wealth and parents education levels.
What's the alternative? That the black children are inherently less smart? The same used to be said of Asian kids, and that achievement gap persists for Asian kids who grow up in neighborhoods of other poor uneducated Asians. Meanwhile, Shanghai and Korea have shown that these kids can learn.
I have never heard anyone express any prejudice toward "Asians" regarding a lack of intelligence. In fact, the usual stereotype is precisely the opposite.
Children usually can't choose their parents. The point of public school services like those described in the study is to lower the burden on disadvantaged children.
Privilege: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.
The children of educated parents have many advantages, some of which I have enumerated. Black children are born disproportionately to uneducated parents due to generations of denying blacks education followed by generations of denying them good education in an environment that is conducive to education (where there are multiple parents at home who can help, for example).
> Again, as the students in The Promise School not only enjoyed these "privileges" but also twice as much schooling, what would happen if all students received twice as much schooling?
As I already stated, white students in aggregate are already receiving more extracurricular educational enrichment. Adding more schooling would be substitutive with that additional education.
> In terms of resource allocation, why should some populations be excluded from receiving this additional benefit?
Excluded from what? This should be an option to anybody. White students in Harlem had the same access to these programs.
> I have never heard anyone express any prejudice toward "Asians" regarding a lack of intelligence.
The literacy rate in Korea was 22% at the conclusion of WW2, but Korea now performs near the top in international exams. Descendants of Chinese who arrived in the 19th century continue to perform poorly on intelligence tests, yet we see Hong Kong and Shanghai perform very well on those same tests.
The 19th century stereotype of Chinese was of opium-addled superstitious barbarians.
Not long ago the average white American had only a basic formal education.
My father left school when he was 12 and over half his class left at that age.
My grandfather left school when he was 10.
If that was a key reason then we would only have to have waited a generation.
HN is being trolled by a polite racist. It's important that people know this, so they can avoid being trolled.
Surprisingly some elements of what Hitler said on education made sense.
Someone can be a racist bigot and still have a good idea in another field.
I do not want to get into a legal argument of if CloudFlare is allowed to discriminate (they likely are). But I do want to live in a world where they are not allowed to.
First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out because I hate Nazis.
Then, they came for me, and there were no institutional protections, because they would have protected those damn Nazis.
In the case under discussion, Cloudflare established the president that they could terminate service to customers based on what they say. We have already decided as a society that we do not want the government to have that sort of power. Why are we now insisting that private companies must have and use that power?
Freedom is not defended by defending people that we like. It is defended at the periphery; by defending people that most of us do not like.
Cloudflare didn't establish a precedent. It's standard boilerplate for any web service to reserve the right to terminate any account any time for any reason, as well as to alter their terms of service in any way at any time, for any reason, without notice.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not Cloudflare should have exercised their rights in this case, but they didn't upset the applecart of free speech by doing so.
>We have already decided as a society that we do not want the government to have that sort of power. Why are we now insisting that private companies must have and use that power?
As a society, we believe that government should be limited in scope to only those powers explicitly granted to it by the people. The people meanwhile enjoy the full scope of rights not granted to government, and those rights are considered inalienable and irrevocable.
Private entities like Cloudflare have and have always had greater power than governments to choose what to publish, and what not to publish, with whom to associate and not, merely by virtue of being private entities.
Cloudflare did reserve the right to do so in their ToS; but they had a precedent of not using that right to police speach (and activly argued that it was not their place to do so). While they did not establish any legal precedent here, they still established a social precedent.
>They didn't upset applecart of free speech by doing so.
Yes they did. Just because private companies are not subject to the first amendment does not mean that they are not arbiters of free speech.
>As a society, we believe that government should be limited in scope to only those powers explicitly granted to it by the people.
And we have already decided that one of those powers is to prevent private companies from discriminating. See the Civil Rights, which defined the notion of public accommodations. Despite being (potentially) privately owned, these public accommodations are not allowed to discriminate based on protected classes.
I would also like to point out that, in the course of this thread, we have gone from 'Andre_Wanglin should not be listened to because his defense of Cloudflare demonstrates that he is an impassioned Nazi sympathizer' to 'reasonable people can disagree, but Cloudflare's behavior did not violate the constitution or break any law'.
By your reductionist logic, we shouldn't jail pedophiles who have abused children. Those pedophiles, like the Nazi radicalizers are harming other people through their actions.
When the Nazis escalate to actual violence, I have no problem with taking legal action against them. (Although I do still have a problem with private companies bowing to public pressure to act against them in a vigilante manner. ) If you want to propose a specific rule/law you would like to see applied, you can do so and we can debate the merrits of that rule/law.
You should not get to decide on a specific group that the rules/laws should or should not get applied to.
[0] We do make illegal specific incitements to violence. But not the mere advocacy of violence.
But we should (and do) applaud when companies remove a platform for people who incite others to pedophilic abuses, and we should (and do) applaud when companies remove platforms for people inciting others to violent acts against groups.
In fact, your comment is a lie as my first "contribution" was a simple one-line assertion based on information I happened to be aware of.[0] It was only after being prodded for substantiation that I bothered to type a whopping 3+ paragraphs of facts relating to the matter under discussion.
And it's well established that parents income and education level has a strong correlation with children's education and outcomes [1].
Of course, it's confusing to bring that into a discussion of this article, as the article says "Even accounting for a host of background factors, the achievement gap [between white and black students] remains large and statistically significant"
[1] http://educationnext.org/how-family-background-influences-st...