Like most things to do with race there is a tiny, tiny sliver of truth in this, but not enough to explain the outcomes.
sigh
Lets look at sports.
Sprints: The ACTN3 gene[1] is associated with the fast-twitch muscles, and is more prevalent in people of West African descent. Out of the last 7 Olympic 100m mens finals all 56 finalists have been of West African descent. Only 2 out of the top 500 100m race times are by people without African descent.
Case closed? No. The proportion of sprint wins by West Africans is much higher than the prevalence of the ACTN3 gene would explain, and other power sports (notably weight lifting) are dominated by other ethnic groups with a more average distribution of the gene.
Distance running: The Kalenjin tribe (mostly from Kenya) has dominated distance running since the late 1990s. Most of their competition has come from Ethiopian runners and the occasional North African (especially in the women's events)[2].
They do have a genetic advantage: they tend to be very skinny, with long legs and short torsos. But you can find these attributes in any population group. More surprising is that elite non-African runners performance has decreased over time: For example, of the top 10 Marathon times by British athletes only 1 (in 8th position) is since 2000, and 6 are pre 1990 (including the 2 fastest times).
This indicates something else is going on, that can't just be explained by genetics.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACTN3
[2] http://www.iaaf.org/records/toplists/road-running/marathon/o... - the best place person without a African heritige is Ronaldo Da Costa at 57.
> Sprints: The ACTN3 gene[1] is associated with the fast-twitch muscles, and is more prevalent in people of West African descent. Out of the last 7 Olympic 100m mens finals all 56 finalists have been of West African descent. Only 2 out of the top 500 100m race times are by people without African descent.
> Case closed? No. The proportion of sprint wins by West Africans is much higher than the prevalence of the ACTN3 gene would explain, and other power sports (notably weight lifting) are dominated by other ethnic groups with a more average distribution of the gene.
It's hard not to conclude that you're purposefully trying to fool someone here. It never occurred to you that more than one gene might be involved in sprinting?
Sure, we know there are lots of things we don't know yet. But we do know generally in almost every case every ethnic group has individuals whose genetic makeup overlaps with those from other ethnic groups.
It's hard not to conclude that you're purposefully trying to fool someone here. It never occurred to you that more than one gene might be involved in sprinting?
My point is that there is a lot more involved in sprinting (and high-performance generally) than just genetics.
One of the best examples of this is the cross country skier Eero Mäntyranta[1]. His family carries a genetic mutation called Polycythemia[2] which means they produce a very high proportion of red blood cells (basically like the EPO doping Lance Armstrong did, but natural).
Juvonen described lab-testing samples of Eero’s bone marrow cells, which produce red blood cells. The plan was to add EPO to the cells and track the creation of red blood cells. A typical human’s bone marrow cells won’t start making blood cells in the lab until EPO is added. But Eero’s bone marrow cells began the process of creating red blood cells before Juvonen could even stimulate them with EPO. Whatever tiny speck of EPO that was already in the sample was enough to keep the red cell factories humming. Eero’s body was hypersensitive to even trifling traces of EPO.[3]
He was a very successful cross country skier (Olympics: 3 Gold, 2 Silver & 2 Bronze over 3 games), but he was still beatable, even with this unprecedented genetic advantage.
A quote from [3]:
This is why any sensible person, in response to the questions: “Is there a genetic test for performance? Is there a performance gene?”, can only ever answer “No, it’s too complex to reduce to a single gene, and tests cannot assess this level of complexity. Yet”.
Mäntyranta is about as close as it gets to that. However, despite that, I want to point out that even with this mutation, one which saw his hemoglobin levels increase by around 50% compared to the typical male, he still didn’t wipe the floor with everyone, every time. Yes, he dominated his events in unmatched fashion in 1964, but he still got beaten, and that single mutation did not confer invincibility, only advantage. That’s again an illustration that performance is multi-factorial, and it suggests that many other factors are responsible.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eero_M%C3%A4ntyranta
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familial_erythrocytosis
[3] http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/12/eero-mantyranta-finl...
(1) Not enough black quarterbacks
(2) Not enough black coaches
and those are issues that need to be addressed?
How is the low proportion of black quarterbacks a bigger problem than the ultra-low proportion of white non-quarterbacks?
It would be if there was any other indication of discrimination against whites than the numbers. In the case of coaches and quarterbacks there was.
When I wrote that I wasn't aware of any evidence showing discriminatory hiring practices affecting white players, but I have since found an allegation of one incident[1].
Given that, I'm changing my position[2]: Yes, the NFL should act on this. I'm not sure what an appropriate course of action is (given that quotas don't work well), though.
[1] http://rollingout.com/sports/stephen-a-smith-discusses-rever...
[2] Strong opinions, weakly held...
I agree with you that I don't think the NFL is discriminating against white players. They just want the best, period.
What I have issues with is when a company's racial makeup shakes out to be majority white (funny how that can happen when you draw from a pool that's majority white) and the first instinct is to say "this _must_ be because of bias."
a) White males are better at software engineering and that's why the majority of software engineers are white males (there is no scientific evidence to support this whatsoever).
b) There are socio-economic factors that lead more white males into software engineering than anyone else (there is ample scientific evidence to support this theory).
Clearly there is a bias at work somewhere. It's not necessarily a hiring problem, but rather one that starts further up the "supply chain" (if you will). We're trying to fix that.
No to the quotas.
But yes, race in the NFL (and in many sports) is an issue that should be addressed. The old problem of the low proportion of black quarterbacks is slowly being addressed, and the Rooney Rule[1] has had some success with the underrepresentation of black coaches.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule