But even conceding that racism is the dominant factor in performance differences, the framework proposed here is plain ridiculous. In essence, what they’re advocating is that because disadvantaged groups underperform in advanced math, advanced math should be scrapped altogether in public schools. The effect of this will be to handicap disadvantaged groups even further, as they’re less likely to attend private school or have access to private tutoring, and thus will be locked out of advanced math entirely while advantages groups continue to receive advanced math instruction in private schools.
Since I have no such 'scientific racism' views and claims of 'proto-fascism' are ridiculous at face value ...
... that a common person would take some rather mundane comment somewhere to mean those things, implies that they've been radicalized in some way in the manner that I've described.
"Racists is everywhere, under my bed, in the jingle for that product, in our schools! Math is racist! We Need Action Now!"
'Anti Racism' is a reasonable concept at face value, but the issue has obviously created groups of wayward ideologues in large swaths in the US, who are more likely than not to be involved in the civil service, particularly in education.
Since 'improving education' is a perennial issue of contention anyhow - if we throw 'math is racist' into the fire, along with legions (at least a critical mass) of fervent supporters - and then finally allow the hollow politicians and media to misrepresent and aggrandize all of it in bad faith (votes, money, attention, power etc.) ... then we have yet another toxic cocktail of public malaise and dysfunction distracting us from dealing with the core issues.
> Many of these people are in the civil service and so this will influence their view.
It influences the political pressures placed on people in the civil service more than anything else. People in the civil service are in the civil service for a long time, typically. Often they are in the civil service for decades. On the other hand, elected officials and political appointees rotate in and out much more quickly.
I know people in the civil service, they have a much more long-term and level-headed view of things, and my impression is that they "weather the storm" of changing political pressures. At least, the ones who survive in the job do. Political appointees and elected officials are much more mercurial. Appointees know that their position is (somewhat) an extension of their own political power to begin with.
Christians are fond if it: "You have an innate, direct relationship with God, in his eyes you are equal to the The King" etc..
But we've only had 'governance' in the broad sense for 100 years.
And we've never really tried to apply such principles into education until the 1960s.
Now we have actually made incredible progress on social issues, we have our 'wars' in Social Media with Holy Anti Racism Fanatics trying to do their best - because 'racism is bad' - which of course it is - and 'systematic racism exists' - which of course it does - but the 'kernel of truth' of these issues drives people into ideological fervour as though it's some giant overwhelming issue, when really it's not. Racism is still pernicious, but it's not fundamental.
And FYI don't think it's all rubbish.
For example - 'Math' is heavily based on prerequisites. If you 'fall back' in Grade 4, you may never be able to 'catch up'. While that's true in general, it's not as acute as in math.
Poor kids might be far more likely to 'fall of the bandwagon' and a lot of poverty might be due to systematic racism, and so the 'Hard Requirements' for certain things may not be ideal.
You could have 'summer school' or 'after school' or 'accelerated catch up' programs.
Those would be 'reasonable' solutions in my view - and FYI these are mostly issues of poverty, not race, they are couched as racial issues because that's what fires people up.
Edit: and yes, I agree 'most people in the civil service' are level-headed. Most people actually are. But some groups have outsized voices, amplified by 'allies' elsewhere.
The 'Anti Racism Agenda' is a 'fundamental pillar', like a religion, of 25% of the US population, and they are pretty active about it. And the actions of the most extreme 5% end up really upsetting other people. Much like a very powerful fool using made up constitutional manoeuvres to try to take over the government would upset a lot of people as well.
Good intentions, surely, but that doesn't make them right.
How did you reach this conclusion in the face of 300+ years of verifiable, well-documented federal, state and local racist legislation and policies? If it’s pernicious now then it’s always been pernicious since generations have persevered irregardless of these policies… but that doesn’t make sense to me.
Systematic racism only exists today to positively discriminate against people belonging to so-called disadvantaged races, at the expense of those belonging to so-called privileged races. That's why White and Asian kids are discriminated against in college admissions.
Shitty taxation policies fuck all new home owners and have little to do with race.
I assume your example is talking about Prop 58. [1] Is Prop 58 racist? Of course not, the CA Constitution prohibits racist and sexist laws and the courts are very good at enforcing that prohibition.
Prop 58 means a lower property tax bill can be inherited by the children with the property. By your reasoning, isn’t allowing property inheritance at all racist?
To me this is a meaningless injection of “equity” into a discussion on equality. Racism is not a word that means “inequity” - as in - everyone not consuming, producing, contributing, and owning the exact same quanta. That of course is a bizarre fiction.
We are talking about a tax policy which generationally preserves a tax break. It had a meaningful basis in law and policy which does not discriminate based on race, but it certainly provides a significant tax benefit to generational land owners.
Now again, that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the Federal estate tax lifetime exclusion amount, which provides orders of magnitudes greater tax benefits to preserving generational wealth, so Prop 58 is just a bit player in this scheme.
If the argument is that a tax policy which is advantageous to anyone with generational wealth is “systemically racist” then I think the argument has gone off the rails.
There are important justifiable public policy goals to ensuring a certainly level of generational wealth. There is no and never will be an important justifiable public policy goal of being “racist”.
If someone wants to argue for wealth confiscation, redistribution, and equity (e.g. some form of communism) then by all means give it a shot. But I don’t abide calling people racists if they disagree with that as a policy goal. If the argument is “merely” that there should be no tax benefit which preserves generational wealth, you actually immediately end up in exactly the same place.
The answer is of course more likely along the lines of “we do both”. We have policies that provide for protecting and maintaining a certainly level of generational wealth. And we also have policies which provide a massive welfare system for people without any generational wealth.
As to estate tax exemptions, they aren't nearly as egregious. There can certainly be an argument for reparations of ill-gotten gains to level the playing field, but it's at least possible for me to accumulate wealth myself and pass it on to my children. In contrast, it's simply impossible for me to acquire and pass on the same property tax rate that my white neighbors have.
I think saying you can’t go back in time and capitalize on an investment 60 years ago that also comes with an accrued property tax advantage is true, but has nothing to do with race. Anyone can start accruing their own tax advantaged status under the exact same Proposition, and no one can ever try to take it away from them on the basis of a protected trait, right?
I guess what I’m asking is, is there anything specific about this tax policy that accrues benefits to a historical capital investment which makes it “racist” over any other tax policy that accrues benefits based on historical capital investment?
There are so many race neutral policies that provide accrued benefits like this. Even social security benefits accrue based on historical wages. But also things like Roth IRAs which provide compounded tax free growth. You can’t contribute the same dollars today to a Roth IRA and get the same tax advantages as someone who contributed the same amount but over the last 60 years, the benefit can only accrue over time, just like the CA property tax benefit can only accrue over time.
Not everyone pays the same tax rate on their income or their property, nor are they provided the same level of government benefits. In many cases that tax rate or benefit level will be based on historical personal or family wealth. Often times it works out to be a progressive tax, sometimes it’s regressive depending on so many policy goals that are often in conflict with each other.
Simply put, any of your neighbors who have owned their (family) property for several decades have accumulated a several thousand dollar a year tax benefit for being a long-time owner. You too can accrue a several thousand dollar a year tax benefit the longer that you hold your property. You don’t get to buy in and get that benefit on Day 1, and neither did they.
This can be trivially demonstrated: ten times more men are arrested and incarcerated than women, yet no one would claim this suggests the US criminal justice system is systemically sexist toward men.
watch “the news” or go on twitter
"The news" is dominated by organizations which are trying to maximize their social media engagement metrics so they can get more money from advertisers, so they're subject to the same forces that drive Twitter.
Neither of these sources reliably give you a picture of national affairs. Right now the best I can do is get a picture of local affairs by talking with people that I happen to encounter because I live near them.
There is however a very broad movement of people who believe that unequal outcomes are a manifestation of racism and so they act accordingly in their roles in government etc..
Many of these people are in the civil service and so this will influence their view.
It would be 'insane' to ignore this movement, it's one of the most powerful social forces in the US right now.