Prometheus 6

Yes, I intend to get off a good one on the topic tomorrow and Friday as well.

I had a considerable amount of help for today's post. It's the text of a discussion that just wrapped up at that Discriminations site I've been bitching about.

That link points to a post on P6 that points to the discussion. I already pinged the thing twice.

The conversation is reproduced verbatim and I leave any conclusion about points raised and techniques used to your judgment.

Comments: Still More Brown Watch

A friend of mine lamented that she hadn't had time to read all the "Legacy of Brown" retrospectives have been appearing recently. I told her not to worry; all she need do is read the short editorial on the subject...

Glad you provided the links.

Now if you can explain why you quoted the Times in such a way as to twist the entire intent of their editorial in a way that DOESN'T show your intent is incompatible with honesty I will be truly impress. Will even post it verbatim on my site with no comment.

Posted by P6 May 17, 2004 02:59 PM

This would be a cool way to slut for links. But, of course, it isn't.

Posted by ELC May 17, 2004 04:22 PM

I am not the one who suggested anyone read the Times quote on my site.

I am the one who says the post should have linked to the editorial in the first place but then you'd have all seen what was written here had nothing to do with what was written at the Times.

Please, feel free to NOT visit my site.

In fact, I implore you. Don't. Follow. That. Link.

Posted by P6 May 17, 2004 05:44 PM

P6: I fail to see how the portion John left out invalidated the point he was trying to make -- namely, the lack of statistics on school integration in the South today. He was questioning the facts of a salient point in the editorial.

Perhaps John could have left the very last sentence in, but methinks you doth protest too much.

Posted by Joey May 17, 2004 06:14 PM

1) Regarding the TIMES article: John's partial quote was completely in the spirit of the article and the additional context given by P6. (For example, the article clearly meant to compare two statistics that are clearly incomparable.) If P6 wants to claim otherwise, it is not sufficient to merely give a larger quote; he must explain what it was about the context that John got wrong.

2) Regarding the article about Auburn University: P6 likes the first part of the article that says we need black and female computer scientists in order to address the shortage caused(!) by terrorism. For some reason P6 therefore criticizes John for attacking the later part of the article that says we also need black and female computer scientists for a completely different reason: because they think differently from nonwhite males. John never criticizes the first part of the article, but I will.

Let us assume that we have a shortage of computer scientists, and that we therefore want to attract more qualified people into the field (and that we don't care what -- presumably useless -- activities we take them away from). The article says, "White males can't fill the gaps." Leaving aside the constant confusion between "white" and "nonblack", I say: "Why not?" After all, very few white males are computer scientists; the vast majority are not. Who knows where the greatest untapped potential is for computer scientists. I think we should take Auburn's miraculous methods for converting Blacks and women into computer scientists, and use them to convert people of ALL sexes and races into computer scientists.

Posted by Private Person May 17, 2004 08:28 PM

As I indicated in my UPDATE, I don't feel the need to respond to the charge that my "intent is incompatible with honesty," but to save anyone who cares the trouble of scrolling up to check I would like to point out that the third word of the the third line of my post does link to the NY Times editorial.

Posted by John Rosenberg May 17, 2004 09:53 PM

Private Person:

1) Regarding the TIMES article: John's partial quote was completely in the spirit of the article and the additional context given by P6. (For example, the article clearly meant to compare two statistics that are clearly incomparable.) If P6 wants to claim otherwise, it is not sufficient to merely give a larger quote; he must explain what it was about the context that John got wrong.

Fine.

The theme, of course, is the failure of Brown's purported promise of integration.

That is not the case. The theme of the editorial is that the work is progressing, hopeful but incomplete. Since the entire basis of the post is incorrect, it kinda voids the rest of any meaning.

2) Regarding the article about Auburn University: P6 likes the first part of the article that says we need black and female computer scientists in order to address the shortage caused(!) by terrorism.

It's a fact that half out technical graduates were foreigners. It's a fact that many of them find equal facilities at home now. The article's speculation seems reasonable and the National Science Foundations's decision to support a study to understand its success is a good move. Supporting folks getting into the middle class is generally a good thing to do anyway.

For some reason P6 therefore criticizes John for attacking the later part of the article that says we also need black and female computer scientists for a completely different reason: because they think differently from nonwhite males.

Wrong again.

His statement:

This is a provocative assertion, and it would be good to have some evidence of the results of this "difference." In what sense, or in what sense related to computer science, are all non-blacks "the same people"? "Same" how? How are black minds different from white or Asian or Hispanic minds? Have there been any black "solutions" that could only have been produced by someone with a black background?

Discriminating minds want to know....

My response:

There is no conception of "all non-blacks" being "the same people," anywhere in the article.

I "attacked" John…and frankly, now you…for the attacking the program with a strawman.

Leaving aside the constant confusion between "white" and "nonblack", I say: "Why not?"

Because not all of them will want to. It's that simple. Perhaps "won't" is a better word for it than "can't."

What really bothers me here is the amount of effort it takes to root out words in a positve article about a Generally Good Thing and spin them negatively. The only thing worse would be if you do it effortlessly.

And don't worry, I'm not a troll. I won't be posting here regularly.

Posted by P6 May 17, 2004 11:07 PM

The editorial ambiguously says "Brown kick-started...a slow but steady process of dismantling legal segregation." What do they mean by "legal segregation"? Of course, Brown immediately banned segregation by force of law. In addition, Brown also helped lead toward later laws making many forms of private segregation illegal -- housing, employment, etc.

As John pointed out, the editorial compared southern statistics with national statistics. That same comparison also loaded the deck by comparing schools with majority black students vs. schools with majority non-white. students.

It's annoying to see this sort of contempt for the reader, even when its not needed. The Times is essentially correct. Brown has not led to as much school integration as many had expected.

In my opinion, the biggest flaw in the editorial is its failure to note that the Brown decision didn't lead to the educational gain many had expected. Brown presumed that integration would automatically produce equal educational results. I think time has disproven that idea. Too bad the Times is still stuck in a superseded mind set. The more important battle today is to improve education for blacks.

Posted by David May 18, 2004 01:42 AM

David:

the short editorial on the subject that appears in today's New York Times
In my opinion, the biggest flaw in the editorial is its failure to note that the Brown decision didn't lead to the educational gain many had expected.

One short editorial can't cover everything. You're blaming them for dealing with one topic at a time? How…desparate.

But since you brought it up, why did Brown fail to produce the educational gain many expected (hint: "There was bitter opposition to school integration.")? Who expected it to happen automatically (hint: it wuzzent Black folks)?

The whole post is an ad hominem attack. The New York Times being a legal person and all.

And as a side note, I find the number of you that have clicked that like after I specifically asked you not to a bit disrespectful.

That's a joke, son.

Posted by P6 May 18, 2004 05:47 AM

P6 - "why did Brown fail to produce the educational gain many expected (hint: 'There was bitter opposition to school integration.')?

You seem to have bought into the notion that integration = education gain. I disagree. I think the public schools failed,for two main reasons. The educational establishment gave them lousy tools. Also, judges and others made it difficult to maintain the discipline needed for effective teaching.

I was educated in the inner city at a time when those schools still worked. My wife and I chose to send our children to integrated schools. They got good educations only because we had the background and the interest to supplement their mediocre classes.

"You're blaming them for dealing with one topic at a time? How�desparate (sic)."

The Times mention of the conservative Supreme Court was an implicit call for more bussing. I was disagreeing. I think what's needed now is improved education for those students who need it most. Their best hope, in my opinion, is school choice.

Posted by David May 18, 2004 08:35 AM

David:

You seem to have bought into the notion that integration = education gain

We haven't discussed my views on this yet. And since this isn't the topic under discussion in the above post I won't go into it here.

Again, my problem is the energetic spinning of objectively good results.

The Times mention of the conservative Supreme Court was an implicit call for more bussing.

David, what you see depends on where you look. If you insist there are boogiemen in every minority outreach program that exists, you will be able to find something to prove that are there.

A skilled misrepresentation by selective quoting is the best way.

Posted by P6 May 18, 2004 01:49 PM

P-6, I gather you don't agree with my interpretation of the Times's comment about a "conservative Supreme Court." OK. What's your interpretation? What was the their complaint?

Posted by David May 18, 2004 05:25 PM

The theme, of course, is the failure of Brown's purported promise of integration.

That is not the case. The theme of the editorial is that the work is progressing, hopeful but incomplete.

They had no complaint.

Posted by P6 May 18, 2004 08:01 PM

P-6:

"The theme, of course, is the failure of Brown's purported promise of integration."

Right.

Q. Why did the Times mention a conservative SC as relevant to the lack of integration?

A. Because the conservative SC was less willing to use bussing for racial integration than a liberal SC would have been.

See. When the Times mentioned a conservative SC, they were implicitly advocating more bussing.

Posted by David May 18, 2004 10:10 PM

David:

See. When the Times mentioned a conservative SC, they were implicitly advocating more bussing.

Right.

I take it the initial discussion is over? I assumed your changing the subject was conceding the point I made. Which is already explained in a prior comment.

Posted by P6 May 18, 2004 11:36 PM

P-6: Sure, I agree with you. The last sentence of the editorial says, "Brown's glass as considerably more than half full." That's consistent with your formulation that the work is progressing, hopeful but incomplete.

I's not sure what you mean by, "They had no complaint." Saying that school integration is incomplete because of a conservative SC sounds to me like a complaint.

I think we're pretty much in agreement, except for some quibbling about word usage.

Posted by David May 19, 2004 06:06 AM

David:

I honestly think our differences run a little deeper, but that happensif you're not ready for that you shouldn't speak out, just do your stuff sneaky.

Add to that the increased nuance in today's posts and I'm ready to stop jumping up and down on people's head in their own house.

But don't be surprised to see trackbacks.

Posted by P6 May 19, 2004 11:37 AM