Hacker News Reader

> Interestingly, Black students in the United States are subject to disciplinary action at rates much higher than their white counterparts. These disciplinary actions put students at higher risk for negative life outcomes, including involvement in the criminal justice system.

This is NOT true.

This kind of misinformation is especially harmful to black kids in particular when you erase any real issues that they might be suffering from, and externalize it all as racism.

The fact that black kids are simply less likely to have parents that have free time to spend with them, and are less likely to have a nutritious breakfasts can go a long way to explaining their disciplinary and performance problems. Other factors are that parents are less trusting of social workers, and so learning problems go untreated longer. Black kids are less likely to get glasses, and less likely to get treated for things like dyslexia.

These are IMPORTANT issues, and by blaming any disparate outcomes on racism, you are completely erasing these very real problems that can be addressed, and getting in the way of actually helping.

It is egregious that when there are kids who have very visible health problems from malnutrition, there are these consultants who are blaming everything on their teachers "unconscious racism", and wanting to put their teachers through these laughable unconscious bias apparatuses.

> QUOTE: "Black children do not misbehave more than their White peers, rather they are punished more. In fact, Black students are more likely than their White peers to receive a disciplinary action for a discretionary offense like talking back, violating a dress code, or being defiant. Black children are also more likely to be suspended out of school for their first offense."

I don't think your sources are very relevant. your csgjusticecenter.org link is 404.

The very fact that black kids tend to come from a different socioeconomic background means that they will not have exactly the same needs and behaviors as other kids, so it is unreasonable to assume that they will be disciplined exactly the same.

Victim mentality is not helpful for anyone. Especially not if you train young people to assume they are a victim whenever something isn't good for them.

It's a damn sight better than teaching them to ignore what right in front of their noses.

Or doing that yourself.

Victim mentality leads to the ignore mentality. If a kid learns that there are different rules for different groups of people and that the only reason it is in the victim group is something they can not change (wealth, race, gender etc.) then you end up with ignorance. Eventually everything is rigged against them and the only way to fight the unfair rules is to not playing by the rules anymore. That's how you end up with people stealing from "the rich" but they feel like Robin Hood. Like they actually think it is right thing to do. While in reality they should not accept being in the victim group, they should learn that they can achieve the same as everyone else and if someone tries to stop them they should not accept that.

Could you explain how that quote was arrived at, specifically the "do not misbehave more than their White peers" part?

The article attributes it to https://web.archive.org/web/20200202151016/https://csgjustic..., but the closest I was able to find in that report was:

To address any suggestions that children of color in Texas simply are more likely to break school rules than their white counterparts, researchers included in their analyses a comparison between profiles for students whose behavior prompted a discretionary action and students who received a mandatory removal from school.

The "comparison between profiles" part is rather vague, so I can't figure out what exactly it is they did. As for the results of that comparison, I could only find the following:

While refuting some potential explanations why African-American students were particularly likely to be disciplined for lower-level violations of a school code of conduct, this analysis does not pinpoint the reasons for it.

And it might be more apt to compare vs. Hispanic students, since they are the largest demographic in Texas, as the report notes: the student population, which is 49 percent Hispanic, 33 percent white, and 14 percent African American, reflects a diversity that increasingly typifies many school systems in the United States.

https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Brea...

Would it even be acceptable to publish a study that says otherwise? Could even a contrary theory be presented in polite society?

This is going to seem rude but try reading more.

The Hoover Institution at Stanford has long supported the data-backed studies of conservative economists on disparities in schooling from Thomas Sowell, Mike Petrelli, Walter White and Chester E. Finn Jr among others.

The general conservative reaction to the mountain of data is that the studies are correct. The concern is in "what to do next?" or "Yes, the data is bad but it doesn't mean that racism lurks behind every tree."

A change in policy may result in even worse outcomes.

STUDIES & OPINION:

- https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/how-think-a...

- https://www.educationnext.org/disparate-impact-theory-bad-fi...

- https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/disparities...

To be fair, the fact that something happens to be true (which, I feel the need to point out, no one here is actually disputing in this case) doesn't have any direct bearing on the question of whether polite society, in the counterfactual case that it were not true, would allow studies to conclude accordingly.

Not understanding the point, unless your aim is to be conspiratorial in nature.

The Stanford/Hoover Institute studies are obviously the contrarian view so yes "society" allows an opposing viewpoint...backed by data.

Last I checked, you're free to conclude whatever you wish even when lacking verifiable data unless your actual goal is to be liked by some particular segment of "society."

Yes, if it were true.

Your argument is irrelevant. It does not invalidate the research linked above in either case.

Which argument? All I see is ed25519FUUU asking two questions.

Did you know that what you (and ed25519FUUU) does has a name? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

I believe you're acting in good faith, and am a little sad you think I'm acting in bad faith.

Can't speak for ed25519FUUU, but I certainly do not have anything against the above linked research. I think ed25519FUUU's point was that doing honest research has become tricky: if a researcher were to get a factually correct but politically incorrect result, could the researcher publish it without facing negative consequences?

It was not an argument against the linked research, it was just a tangential hypothetical.