This is the stuff they teach in medical school now

[pgg]

I encountered it back in the 90s in rural Virginia, but pretty much just from the cohort that were proud to be members of organizations like the United Daughters of the Confederacy. That is to say, really tiny, very vocal group of people who are a few bananas short of a bunch.

Civil War reenactors.

Everyone needs a hobby, but those guys are odd breed. I suspect that people who like to gather in the woods and have nuanced discussions on "states rights" and that bastard Lincoln while wearing Confederate regalia don't put those thoughts away when they head back to the office on Monday.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ucladoc2b]

I’ve lived in the South for three decades and I’ve never heard that phrase outside of Reddit and now SDN.

I trained in the South. I certainly heard it. Not to mention all of the monuments put up DURING/AFTER the start of the civil rights movements. Same with the ubiquitous Confederate flags flown everywhere (some are huge and fly over major interstates).

It’s better in some of the more modern urban/suburban areas. But even sometimes there.

Confederate Statues Were Never Really About Preserving History

In total, at least 830 Confederate monuments have been constructed across the U.S. Most were not built immediately after the Civil War. They were installed decades later, mostly in Southern states, when disenfranchised Black Americans’ civil rights were aggressively under attack.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

 

[tombreaz]

Enjoy…

Why are states banning critical race theory? | Brookings

It's important to understand what critical race theory is and is not.

www.brookings.edu

A far left-wing organization with an author that subscribes to all the mandated tenets is your source? LOL

As a medical professional, I'm sure you're aware of primary and secondary sources.

A partisan left wing secondary source of what he thinks is happening isn't what I asked for. You said key leaders are trying to get racial history not taught in school. Show me a primary source. You'd need an article of Desantis saying something along these lines. Or Trump. Or Cruz. Or Brad Little.

But they don't exist. I am a conservative. I live in Idaho. I have kids in school. Everyone wants accurate history taught. Some people don't want falsehoods taught. You mix these two and think they're the same.

 

[ucladoc2b]

A far left-wing organization with an author that subscribes to all the mandated tenets is your source? LOL

As a medical professional, I'm sure you're aware of primary and secondary sources.

A partisan left wing secondary source of what he thinks is happening isn't what I asked for. You said key leaders are trying to get racial history not taught in school. Show me a primary source. You'd need an article of Desantis saying something along these lines. Or Trump. Or Cruz. Or Brad Little.

But they don't exist. I am a conservative. I live in Idaho. I have kids in school. Everyone wants accurate history taught. Some people don't want falsehoods taught. You mix these two and think they're the same.

Go read the primary sources conveniently imbedded in the article including the legislation proposed in multiple states and school board policies enacted. That should be more than enough primary source for you.

Or keep insulting people. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[tombreaz]

Go read the primary sources conveniently imbedded in the article including the legislation proposed in multiple states and school board policies enacted. That should be more than enough primary source for you.

Or keep insulting people. Whatever floats your boat.

He has no primary sources showing a conservative saying racial history shouldn't be taught. Again, I live in Idaho. I have kids in school. They learn about slavery.

Legislation against CRT doesn't ban teaching about racial history-it bans politicization of left wing talking points about race. You assume these are the same when they're not. I know your stance forces you to think this but there's a whole other world out there that you should at least be able to understand and interact with.

So again, any primary source of a conservative saying racial history can't be taught as you asserted?

It's odd that you're talking to a conservative (me) and I'm letting you know that conservatives aren't against teaching racial history but you're going to beat your crt drum and quote left wing articles to me to try and prove that it's so. If I wanted to know what a liberal thought on an issue, I'd ask, and then I'd take their answer at face value.

 

[ucladoc2b]

https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2021/legislation/H0377.pdf

From your own state.

The law is inherently very broad and it’s intentionally so. Basically, they can ban anything they don’t agree with.

Other states are passing laws that ban anything that might cause distress based “on their race.” So really that could be anything.

The motivations behind these laws are pretty clear.

Of course conservatives aren’t against teaching racial issues as long as it fits their narrative no matter evidence to the contrary.

 

[tombreaz]

https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2021/legislation/H0377.pdf

From your own state.

The law is inherently very broad and it’s intentionally so. Basically, they can ban anything they don’t agree with.

Other states are passing laws that ban anything that might cause distress based “on their race.” So really that could be anything.

The motivations behind these laws are pretty clear.

Of course conservatives aren’t against teaching racial issues as long as it fits their narrative no matter evidence to the contrary.

You're proving why people with opposing viewpoints have such a hard time even conversing. I went to Idaho public schools. My kids are in Idaho schools. I have zero issues with them being taught that our country enslaved and were horrible to blacks for far too long. All of my conservative friends and family agree with me. We are not trying to hide any of that. Your incessant belief that you actually have this secret knowledge of what I really want while I'm plainly telling you what I want is not conducive to reality.

And again, no primary source of any conservative politician demanding we don't teach racial history. You should be mad at he pundits you follow for allowing to to believe in these boogeymen.

 

[ucladoc2b]

You're proving why people with opposing viewpoints have such a hard time even conversing. I went to Idaho public schools. My kids are in Idaho schools. I have zero issues with them being taught that our country enslaved and were horrible to blacks for far too long. All of my conservative friends and family agree with me. We are not trying to hide any of that. Your incessant belief that you actually have this secret knowledge of what I really want while I'm plainly telling you what I want is not conducive to reality.

And again, no primary source of any conservative politician demanding we don't teach racial history. You should be mad at he pundits you follow for allowing to to believe in these boogeymen.

You yourself might not be. I never said you were. Others not so much. But the point you seem to miss is that legislation in conservative led states is being proposed and passed. CRT is so loosely defined in these laws that it’s very unclear what is actually banned.

 

[tombreaz]

You yourself might not be. I never said you were. Others not so much. But the point you seem to miss is that legislation in conservative led states is being proposed and passed. CRT is so loosely defined in these laws that it’s very unclear what is actually banned.

""""""Unfortunately, because racial issues are a significant part of the history of this country, it would be a inappropriate to leave them out of the school curriculum. And that it the aim of several conservative pundits and leaders.""""""

Stay here with what you said. It's what I took issue with. You said several. You've yet to produce one. I've let you know as a conservative and my time spent in following these pundits and leaders you're probably thinking about that you're statement is wrong. We want history taught simply and accurately. CRT racializes it and does a whole bunch of other stuff I'm sure you've heard.

 

[doctalaughs]

2. Its data set, as mentioned earlier, can't be used to infer lack of bias considering the selection bias which comes from only using police reports as the source data. The salient issue at hand starts one level higher with general police-civilian interaction.

​

So what are we supposed to do? Police reports can be falsified (just like medical records or errors by a hospital)- but they don’t exist in a vacuum. I assume if there is video or witnesses that contradict the police, they would be less likely to enter false information and/or there would be consequences, or the reports would be amended. In this day of bodycams I can’t imagine a large # of shootings arent highly scrutinized by a lot of parties after the fact.

If that’s the best data we have to study- I don’t think it’s fair to assume there are a ton of unjustified and racially-motivated police killings on assumptions that this data is bad.

 

[vector2]

So what are we supposed to do? Police reports can be falsified (just like medical records or errors by a hospital)- but they don’t exist in a vacuum. I assume if there is video or witnesses that contradict the police, they would be less likely to enter false information and/or there would be consequences, or the reports would be amended. In this day of bodycams I can’t imagine a large # of shootings arent highly scrutinized by a lot of parties after the fact.

If that’s the best data we have to study- I don’t think it’s fair to assume there are a ton of unjustified and racially-motivated police killings on assumptions that this data is bad.

Every debate just comes around again in this forum including the exact question you asked. So I'll quote myself from two years ago about what we need to look at instead of selection bias-prone police report studies:. And indeed, if you want to look at that thread it tackles every possible point of discussion regarding police shooting studies.

Resolution of apparent paradoxes in the race-specific frequency of use-of-force by police
Abstract
Analyses of racial disparities in police use-of-force against unarmed individuals are central to public policy interventions; however, recent studies have come to apparently paradoxical findings concerning the existence and form of such disparities. Although anti-black racial disparities in U.S. police shootings have been consistently documented at the population level, new work has suggested that racial disparities in encounter-conditional use of lethal force by police are reversed relative to expectations, with police being more likely to: (1) shoot white relative to black individuals, and (2) use non-lethal as opposed to lethal force on black relative to white individuals. Encounter- and use-of-force-conditional results, however, can be misleading if the rates with which police encounter and use non-lethal force vary across officers and depend on suspect race. We find that all currently described empirical patterns in the structuring of police use-of-force—including the “reversed” racial disparities in encounter-conditional use of lethal force—are explainable under a generative model in which there are consistent and systemic biases against black individuals. If even a small subset of police more frequently encounter and use non-lethal force against black individuals than white individuals, then analyses of pooled encounter-conditional data can fail to correctly detect racial disparities in the use of lethal force. In more technical terms, statistical assessments of racial disparities conditioned on problematic intermediate variables, such as encounters, which might themselves be a causal outcome of racial bias, can produce misleading inferences. Population-level measures of use-of-force by police are more robust indicators of the overall severity of racial disparities than encounter-conditional measures—since the latter neglect the differential morbidity and mortality arising from differential encounter rates. As such, population-level measures should be used when evaluating the local-level public health implications of racial disparities in police use-of-force. Research on encounter-conditional use-of-force by police can also fruitfully contribute to public policy discussions, since population-level measures alone cannot address whether racial disparities are driven by disparities in encounters or disparities in use-of-force conditional on encounters. Tests for racial biases in the encounter-conditional use of lethal force, however, must account for individual-level variation across officers in terms of race-specific encounter rates or risk falling to Simpson’s paradox.

Resolution of apparent paradoxes in the race-specific frequency of use-of-force by police - Humanities and Social Sciences Communications

Analyses of racial disparities in police use-of-force against unarmed individuals are central to public policy interventions; however, recent studies have come to apparently paradoxical findings concerning the existence and form of such disparities. Although anti-black racial disparities in U.S...

www.nature.com

 

[doctalaughs]

In more technical terms, statistical assessments of racial disparities conditioned on problematic intermediate variables, such as encounters, which might themselves be a causal outcome of racial bias, can produce misleading inferences. Population-level measures of use-of-force by police are more robust indicators of the overall severity of racial disparities than encounter-conditional measures—since the latter neglect the differential morbidity and mortality arising from differential encounter rates. As such, population-level measures should be used when evaluating the local-level public health implications of racial disparities in police use-of-force.

This still doesn’t get to the causality of any disparities, even if you believe population level measures are better than encounter-level?

What if certain races behave differently towards police based on their perceptions (more aggressive, less likely to comply with orders etc)?

The best study of racism in policing would take 10,000 police bodycam videos and somehow scrub the skin colors interacting - and have blinded judges rate them whether force was justified or not.

 

[vector2]

This still doesn’t get to the causality of any disparities, even if you believe population level measures are better than encounter-level?

What if certain races behave differently towards police based on their perceptions (more aggressive, less likely to comply with orders etc)?

The best study of racism in policing would take 10,000 police bodycam videos and somehow scrub the skin colors interacting - and have blinded judges rate them whether force was justified or not.

The paragraph right after the one you bolded says exactly that regarding causality: "...population-level measures alone cannot address whether racial disparities are driven by disparities in encounters or disparities in use-of-force conditional on encounters"

However, in the age of an overly militarized police who have training like this:

And who are increasingly disconnected both demographically and geographically from the populations they police, I'm definitely less inclined to believe that a 3x disparity is driven by century-old racist tropes about black people being "more aggressive"

 

[Gern Blansten]

The paragraph right after the one you bolded says exactly that regarding causality: "...population-level measures alone cannot address whether racial disparities are driven by disparities in encounters or disparities in use-of-force conditional on encounters"

However, in the age of an overly militarized police who have training like this:


View attachment 363763
View attachment 363764


And who are increasingly disconnected both demographically and geographically from the populations they police, I'm definitely less inclined to believe that a 3x disparity is driven by century-old racist tropes about black people being "more aggressive"

Would you prefer a class for officers to learn to shoot the armed assailant in the leg? Or a class that teaches officers to use a shotgun and fire two blasts in the air, as Biden recommends? Maybe officers should be taught to shoot the assailant's gun out of their hands, thereby peacefully neutralizing the threat. Or, maybe take the Uvalde police Captain approach and just give it an hour or so and see what happens?

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Would you prefer a class for officers to learn to shoot the armed assailant in the leg? Or a class that teaches officers to use a shotgun and fire two blasts in the air, as Biden recommends? Maybe officers should be taught to shoot the assailant's gun out of their hands, thereby peacefully neutralizing the threat. Or, maybe take the Uvalde police Captain approach and just give it an hour or so and see what happens?

Nope, I prefer they shoot first, ask questions later or better yet barge into my home and shoot me on the couch.

 

[nimbus]

I've barely lived in the south (Virginia and North Carolina) and I've certainly heard it.

It's possible that I sometimes hang out with a different cohort of people than you. I've belonged to several gun clubs/ranges in these states and there's definitely a subset of that population that not only thinks that way, but assumes that if they see you holding an AR15, that you do too.

I usually responded by saying that I only came to the South to see what we northerners won in the war. (I'm actually from San Diego.)

San Diego may not be “the South” but it’s still south and like the rest of the US, it was also won in a war. Who’d have though Putin is trying to be a modern day James Polk?

 

[BLADEMDA]

Nope, I prefer they shoot first, ask questions later or better yet barge into my home and shoot me on the couch.

If the police do cross the line, I would expect your family would collect anywhere from $10 to$15 million. These killings are very expensive to the taxpayer and while money can't compensate for the loss of life the municipalities would go broke if they permit their officers to continue their "at war" approach to neighborhood policing.

A look at big settlements in US police killings

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The attorney for George Floyd's family said Friday that a $27 million settlement of a federal lawsuit by the city of Minneapolis is the largest pretrial civil rights settlement ever.

apnews.com

The city of Louisville paid a $12 million settlement to Taylor's mother, Tamika Palmer, in September 2020.

Louisville to pay Breonna Taylor's boyfriend Kenneth Walker $2 million to settle lawsuits

The city agreed to settle lawsuits filed by Walker in federal and state court, his attorneys announced this week.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Dr. Rude]

If the police do cross the line, I would expect your family would collect anywhere from $10 to$15 million. These killings are very expensive to the taxpayer and while money can't compensate for the loss of life the municipalities would go broke if they permit their officers to continue their "at war" approach to neighborhood policing.

A look at big settlements in US police killings

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The attorney for George Floyd's family said Friday that a $27 million settlement of a federal lawsuit by the city of Minneapolis is the largest pretrial civil rights settlement ever.

apnews.com

The city of Louisville paid a $12 million settlement to Taylor's mother, Tamika Palmer, in September 2020.

Louisville to pay Breonna Taylor's boyfriend Kenneth Walker $2 million to settle lawsuits

The city agreed to settle lawsuits filed by Walker in federal and state court, his attorneys announced this week.

www.cbsnews.com

There isn't always video evidence (or other overwhelming evidence) in the absence of video. Officers rightfully get the benefit of the doubt absent such video.

Absent video, Ahmaud Aubrey's killers likely would have gone free. Coming from the other side, Kyle Rittenhouse likely would be in prison absent video.

 

[epidural man]

Well, I have to say, perhaps we as a community are growing together.

This is a great thread I think.

Lots of strong disagreements, but kudos that it has remained cordial.

@ucladoc2b and @doctalaughs have strongly opposed views, but they have argued with class and compassion.

I do have a few opinions on these matters however.

I don't think anyone should use the term gerrymandering and accuse a side of it. BOTH SIDES do it with very clear and obvious historical examples from both sides. Why anyone would try to argue with their blue or red colored glasses is just mind blowing.

It's like that argument on another thread about mail in votes, and try to claim that only one side cheats. Mail in ballots have been around forever, and people have tried to cheat this way forever, and some succeed, and most are caught, and BOTH SIDES do it. It probably works it self out as far as fairness in the end. It's why large trial randomized trials seem to work.

Finally, I think this was the most important line so far - so maybe we should review.

"It's odd that you're talking to a conservative (me) and I'm letting you know that conservatives aren't against teaching racial history but you're going to beat your crt drum and quote left wing articles to me to try and prove that it's so. If I wanted to know what a liberal thought on an issue, I'd ask, and then I'd take their answer at face value."

Am I biased because the speaker is from Idaho and I was born and raised there? Perhaps. Are Idaho people the most straight-forward, reasonable people on the planet? Yes...Yes they are. But that isn't the point. The subtle point is - we don't often listen to one another and we assume what they say isn't what they mean, and we put our OWN meaning to what they say. That is a problem, and one we should pay attention to.

 

[Kierkegaard's Bud]

Of course they will find this. But association doesn't mean causation. I doubt that these are related to race as much as they are related to income and poverty (far more). I doubt that Beyonce or Kanye have these problems. And I would be very surprised if poor whites don't have the same problems.

There are simply more poor people among blacks than whites (a lot related to education and the structure of black families). Again, Candace Owens says it better in Blackout.

Serena Williams was about to die when giving birth. Many papers controlled for several factors especially in relation to maternal mortality but they can’t confound the disparity away. Serena is wealthier than most, your average black woman, just imagine.

Another major point is black and other minorities are poor(er) but stopping there is an incomplete tale. As recently as the 2010s, big banks have paid in hundreds of millions since they had consumer lending systems that have higher interest rates for blacks that could not be necessarily explained by established factors. If you can’t build wealth, you will be poor(er).

It is a disservice to medical students to teach them intricate biochemistry concepts and think less of them when it comes to system level thinking of how social factors interact to bring about disparities.

FYI: I’m not a liberal or a conservative by today’s standards.

 

[doctalaughs]

Serena Williams was about to die when giving birth. Many papers controlled for several factors especially in relation to maternal mortality but they can’t confound the disparity away. Serena is wealthier than most, your average black woman, just imagine.

It is a disservice to medical students to teach them intricate biochemistry concepts and think less of them when it comes to system level thinking of how social factors interact to bring about disparities.

Yeah, but the whole point is that observed disparities doesn’t mean racism. And they aren’t teaching a vague number of “social factors” are causing these disparities- they are teaching that THE major factor is “systemic racism.”

Same argument is made with standardized tests. Black students score way lower due to “systemic racism” is the argument made.

Sorry, I’m just not buying it. If you control for poverty, the only plausible difference is cultural values (on education, or views on health respectively).

 

[Kierkegaard's Bud]

Yeah, but the whole point is that observed disparities doesn’t mean racism. And they aren’t teaching a vague number of “social factors” are causing these disparities- they are teaching that THE major factor is “systemic racism.”

Same argument is made with standardized tests. Black students score way lower due to “systemic racism” is the argument made.

Sorry, I’m just not buying it. If you control for poverty, the only plausible difference is cultural values (on education, or views on health respectively).

I don’t understand the clear definition of systemic racism so I won’t go there. But to say “if you control for poverty...” is idiotic to say the least when you have controlled for every quantifiable factor and the disparities is still there. I have tried my best to see if the counter argument could be right in this situation (i.e your proposed postulate) but it’s intellectually dishonest.

So would you support teaching how key social factors affect health?

 

[doctalaughs]

I don’t understand the clear definition of systemic racism so I won’t go there. But to say “if you control for poverty...” is idiotic to say the least when you have controlled for every quantifiable factor and the disparities is still there. I have tried my best to see if the counter argument could be right in this situation (i.e your proposed postulate) but it’s intellectually dishonest.

So would you support teaching how key social factors affect health?

We have all taken the SAT and many other standardized tests. As you do the algebra and logic problems, is your impression “wow, this is a thoroughly racist multiple-choice test?”

But that is how a lot of these people think and teach. It defies logic. Sure, I understand that if you are wealthy and your kids spend time doing test-prep they will do better, as is true of anything in life (hard work and prep pays off). The answer is to make test prep available to all (which it mostly is despite claims to the contrary), not to somehow say everything in life is racist if the outcomes aren’t equal.

Just another analogous argument here, but an instructive one.

Here’s a good tidbit that defines this new movement:
“Ibram X. Kendi of the Antiracist Research & Policy Center at Boston University and author of How to be an Antiracist said in October 2020. "Standardized tests have become the most effective racist weapon ever devised to objectively degrade Black and Brown minds and legally exclude their bodies from prestigious schools”

 

[Kierkegaard's Bud]

We have all taken the SAT and many other standardized tests. As you do the algebra and logic problems, is your impression “wow, this is a thoroughly racist multiple-choice test?”

But that is how a lot of these people think and teach. It defies logic. Sure, I understand that if you are wealthy and your kids spend time doing test-prep they will do better, as is true of anything in life (hard work and prep pays off). The answer is to make test prep available to all (which it mostly is despite claims to the contrary), not to somehow say everything in life is racist if the outcomes aren’t equal.

Just another analogous argument here, but an instructive one.

Here’s a good tidbit that defines this new movement:
“Ibram X. Kendi of the Antiracist Research & Policy Center at Boston University and author of How to be an Antiracist said in October 2020. "Standardized tests have become the most effective racist weapon ever devised to objectively degrade Black and Brown minds and legally exclude their bodies from prestigious schools”

You vehemently are trying to tell a half-truth.

In your example, “Sure, I understand that if you are wealthy and your kids spend time doing test-prep they will do better”, REMEMBER you don’t wealthy in a vaccum. Most Americans have their net worth attached with the homes. Major banks have paid hundreds of millions - billions combined since they had no rational basis for rejecting refinancing. When you start a business, and you get a high (er) interest rate, you will be crippled in the wrong run, it’s easier to get bankrupt.

Banks won’t throw that much money if they had solid evidence to defend themselves. In a past life, I was on a team that was re-writing consumer lending softwares because of this very issue.

I do think racism is the wrong issue to banter all day long but it seems like people on here are ferevently upset when anyone mentions racism, whether you like it or not it exists.

 

[tombreaz]

You vehemently are trying to tell a half-truth.

In your example, “Sure, I understand that if you are wealthy and your kids spend time doing test-prep they will do better”, REMEMBER you don’t wealthy in a vaccum. Most Americans have their net worth attached with the homes. Major banks have paid hundreds of millions - billions combined since they had no rational basis for rejecting refinancing. When you start a business, and you get a high (er) interest rate, you will be crippled in the wrong run, it’s easier to get bankrupt.

Banks won’t through that much money if they had solid evidence to defend themselves. In a past life, I was on a team that was re-writing consumer lending softwares because of this very issue.

I do think racism is the wrong issue to banter all day long but it seems like people on here are ferevently upset when anyone mentions racism, whether you like it or not it exists.

Have you seen Thomas Sowell's comments on racism? They might clear some of this up for you. Racism always has and always will exist. Tom's comments are the most clear and seemingly correct that I've ever read.

 

[Southpaw]

Have you seen Thomas Sowell's comments on racism? They might clear some of this up for you. Racism always has and always will exist. Tom's comments are the most clear and seemingly correct that I've ever read.

I interpret this as ‘I like what Thomas Sowell says therein he is correct’.

 

[tombreaz]

I interpret this as ‘I like what Thomas Sowell says therein he is correct’.

Why do I like what he says, Lefty? Maybe take your interpretation a bit deeper.

I like what he says because it's succinct, logical, and accords with reality. Not only is he an elderly black man who lived through more racism that probably most on this forum, but he's a world renowned scholar on these issues. So, forgive me for expressing my "like" of something that's helpful to myself and others.

 

[doctalaughs]

You vehemently are trying to tell a half-truth.

In your example, “Sure, I understand that if you are wealthy and your kids spend time doing test-prep they will do better”, REMEMBER you don’t wealthy in a vaccum. Most Americans have their net worth attached with the homes. Major banks have paid hundreds of millions - billions combined since they had no rational basis for rejecting refinancing. When you start a business, and you get a high (er) interest rate, you will be crippled in the wrong run, it’s easier to get bankrupt.

Banks won’t through that much money if they had solid evidence to defend themselves. In a past life, I was on a team that was re-writing consumer lending softwares because of this very issue.

I do think racism is the wrong issue to banter all day long but it seems like people on here are ferevently upset when anyone mentions racism, whether you like it or not it exists.

Ok - so banks paid for their misdeeds, as they should. Where we actually find discrimination it should be addressed. Where we find disparities, not so much. Equal outcomes is not a laudable or healthy goal.

No one denies racism exists so don’t move the goalposts. Let’s not try to find systemic racism everywhere where it doesn’t exist (such as standardized tests — utterly ridiculous).

Your statement that “racism is the wrong issue to banter all day long” means you essentially agree, because that is what we do today — in schools, corporations and social media.

 

[Southpaw]

Why do I like what he says, Lefty? Maybe take your interpretation a bit deeper.

I like what he says because it's succinct, logical, and accords with reality. Not only is he an elderly black man who lived through more racism that probably most on this forum, but he's a world renowned scholar on these issues. So, forgive me for expressing my "like" of something that's helpful to myself and others.

It accords with your reality. And therein you agree with it. Does it accord with others reality? Well, probably not. It’s the definition of, well, your opinion.

 

[tombreaz]

It accords with your reality. And therein you agree with it. Does it accord with others reality? Well, probably not. It’s the definition of, well, your opinion.

Ahh yes, the black guy in his 90s with decades of racism under his belt really accords with my reality as a white 30 year old. Man, Southpaw, how do you do it?

 

[Southpaw]

I do think racism is the wrong issue to banter all day long but it seems like people on here are ferevently upset when anyone mentions racism, whether you like it or not it exists.

Whether or not systemic racism exists, and what to do about it, is a political belief. And therefore it’s not worth touching here. People bring preconceived beliefs to the table, and hold them so tightly that no amount of evidence will change their mind (it’s all biased!). It’s a waste of time even discussing it to be honest.

 

[Southpaw]

Ahh yes, the black guy in his 90s with decades of racism under his belt really accords with my reality as a white 30 year old. Man, Southpaw, how do you do it?

Yes, exactly. Your deductive reasoning will ensure many med school acceptances, for sure.

 

[Kierkegaard's Bud]

Ok - so banks paid for their misdeeds, as they should. Where we actually find discrimination it should be addressed. Where we find disparities, not so much. Equal outcomes is not a laudable or healthy goal.

No one denies racism exists so don’t move the goalposts. Let’s not try to find systemic racism everywhere where it doesn’t exist (such as standardized tests — utterly ridiculous).

Your statement that “racism is the wrong issue to banter all day long” means you essentially agree, because that is what we do today — in schools, corporations and social media.

When discrimination i.e racism in this case, can bring about preventable health disparities, it should be discussed in medical school in a rational way. That’s my stance for now.

Nobody said equal outcomes, that’s all you.

 

[doctalaughs]

Whether or not systemic racism exists, and what to do about it, is a political belief. And therefore it’s not worth touching here.

I agree with you on this. But then why does a political belief get to be taught as “truth” in schools and corporations?

I don’t mind if it’s an optional seminar in college - but unfortunately it’s mandatory for a lot of places. Imagine if there was mandatory “pro life” training in schools and fortune 500 companies. That would also be ridiculous.

 

[tombreaz]

Yes, exactly. Your deductive reasoning will ensure many med school acceptances, for sure.

Complete subject change, huh?

Hey look, big bad doctor man bullying a premed student. Are you this tough in real life?

The irony of you chiming in on racism and then engaging in bullying is rich btw.

 

[Southpaw]

I agree with you on this. But then why does a political belief get to be taught as “truth” in schools and corporations?

I don’t mind if it’s an optional seminar in college - but unfortunately it’s mandatory for a lot of places. Imagine if there was mandatory “pro life” training in schools and fortune 500 companies. That would also be ridiculous.

Are there not plenty of catholic institutions that do exactly this?

 

[doctalaughs]

Are there not plenty of catholic institutions that do exactly this?

You don’t see any difference in appropriate teachings at a religious school/institution and one that is created supposedly for anyone in society?

 

[Southpaw]

You don’t see any difference in appropriate teachings at a religious school/institution and one that is created supposedly for anyone in society?

I do, but I don't think that's the question I was responding to. Regardless, sure if I sign my kids up to catholic school I should know I'm getting a pro-life/religious slant. And if I sign my kid up for public school I shouldn't get any religious/political slant at all, outside of teachings of how our government operates. Or teaching about US history/World history, etc. I'll leave it at that. I imagine if I go further we'll diverge greatly in thought/belief and further discussion would prove itself pointless.

 

[doctalaughs]

Regardless, sure if I sign my kids up to catholic school I should know I'm getting a pro-life/religious slant. And if I sign my kid up for public school I shouldn't get any religious/political slant at all, outside of teachings of how our government operates. Or teaching about US history/World history, etc. I'll leave it at that. I imagine if I go further we'll diverge greatly in thought/belief and further discussion would prove itself pointless.

Ok that’s fine we can leave it at that. It’s interesting we can essentially agree on the statement above — and likely differ so greatly in what we think is actually going on in various schools/institutions.

 

[nimbus]

Complete subject change, huh?

Hey look, big bad doctor man bullying a med student. Are you this tough in real life?

The irony of you chiming in on racism and then engaging in bullying is rich btw.

Med student?? Congratulations 🎉

 

[tombreaz]

Med student?? Congratulations 🎉

Pre. My bad.

 

[GassYous]

Complete subject change, huh?

Hey look, big bad doctor man bullying a premed student. Are you this tough in real life?

The irony of you chiming in on racism and then engaging in bullying is rich btw.

You're annoying and no one likes you. Stop polluting our section.

 

[secretasianman]

Premeds seem to have so much time to focus on trolling random internets these days.

 

[Southpaw]

Ok that’s fine we can leave it at that. It’s interesting we can essentially agree on the statement above — and likely differ so greatly in what we think is actually going on in various schools/institutions.

I think it’s debatable what’s actually being taught. I recall my education and I’m sure you remember yours. I don’t recall being swayed to hating myself or other whites/Asians/males. Perhaps times are radically different, but I’m hesitant to believe as such based on what’s been posted here so far.

I do want to add that while my kids are too young for medical school (what a lot of people are discussing in this thread) they are not too young for their taste of US public education. I was raised in the public education system in the US so I thought I knew what we were signing up for. Of course, as an anesthesiologist I can afford to live in the best school district in the best area of town (think school with lots of whites and asians) while on the other side of town there is a lot of public housing and poverty (think schools with lots of minorities). Even in the school my kids went to I was shocked at how rigid their program had become. Very little time spent outdoors. I was also shocked at how many kids one teacher was responsible for educating (30-35 kids). With no assistants. No one can do that. If there’s even 1 disruptive kid the entire class is ruined and no one is educated.

Teacher pay is atrociously bad. So bad that I would NEVER become a teacher even if I thought it was my life's calling and I couldn't live without it. I'd just volunteer in the evenings for free. My kids did an insane amount of stupid worksheets, effectively educating themselves along with my wife and I helping and being actively involved at home, because that's all the teacher could keep up with with so many students. I often thought 'what happens to the kids who get little help at home because their parents are either working or tired from a long day at work and can't commit the energy....I guess they just fall behind and get pushed along without learning what is needed'. I find it just absolutely ridiculous that people can look at the system here and say 'equality of opportunity' with a straight face. In fact I think we are just as far, if not farther, away from 'equality of opportunity' than we were when I was young and perhaps even before.

Regardless, I never considered CRT. Never even crossed my mind. It's like some new boogeyman that popped up on FoxNews a couple years ago because they had to come up with one more thing for conservatives to be against (as we found out during Trump there is no Republican platform - just a lot of stuff they are against).

Anyway, I know everyone feels different. And I'm sure I have partners in my group who work extremely hard to see CRT in everything education wise even in my area. I just have larger, much larger in my opinion, concerns with regard to our education system.

 

[D P356]

Complete subject change, huh?

Hey look, big bad doctor man bullying a premed student. Are you this tough in real life?

The irony of you chiming in on racism and then engaging in bullying is rich btw.

Chill your beans, bruv.

Most folks on this forum don’t interact that way unless it’s @GravelRider asking @lotsapain to wipe his hairy anus as negotiated in his locums contract.

 

[doctalaughs]

I think it’s debatable what’s actually being taught. I recall my education and I’m sure you remember yours. I don’t recall being swayed to hating myself or other whites/Asians/males. Perhaps times are radically different, but I’m hesitant to believe as such based on what’s been posted here so far.

I do want to add that while my kids are too young for medical school (what a lot of people are discussing in this thread) they are not too young for their taste of US public education. I was raised in the public education system in the US so I thought I knew what we were signing up for. Of course, as an anesthesiologist I can afford to live in the best school district in the best area of town (think school with lots of whites and asians) while on the other side of town there is a lot of public housing and poverty (think schools with lots of minorities). Even in the school my kids went to I was shocked at how rigid their program had become. Very little time spent outdoors. I was also shocked at how many kids one teacher was responsible for educating (30-35 kids). With no assistants. No one can do that. If there’s even 1 disruptive kid the entire class is ruined and no one is educated.

Teacher pay is atrociously bad. So bad that I would NEVER become a teacher even if I thought it was my life's calling and I couldn't live without it. I'd just volunteer in the evenings for free. My kids did an insane amount of stupid worksheets, effectively educating themselves along with my wife and I helping and being actively involved at home, because that's all the teacher could keep up with with so many students. I often thought 'what happens to the kids who get little help at home because their parents are either working or tired from a long day at work and can't commit the energy....I guess they just fall behind and get pushed along without learning what is needed'. I find it just absolutely ridiculous that people can look at the system here and say 'equality of opportunity' with a straight face. In fact I think we are just as far, if not farther, away from 'equality of opportunity' than we were when I was young and perhaps even before.

Regardless, I never considered CRT. Never even crossed my mind. It's like some new boogeyman that popped up on FoxNews a couple years ago because they had to come up with one more thing for conservatives to be against (as we found out during Trump there is no Republican platform - just a lot of stuff they are against).

Anyway, I know everyone feels different. And I'm sure I have partners in my group who work extremely hard to see CRT in everything education wise even in my area. I just have larger, much larger in my opinion, concerns with regard to our education system.

I largely agree that CRT is not being widely taught in elementary and middle school.

Many high schools have elements of it though (ie openly “antiracist” stance, discussion of systemic racism as not debatable, victim mentality, lots of “owning white privilege” talk). Maybe some think that’s ok and maybe we do have larger things to tackle, but it’s a fact in many public high schools and adopted as the mantra of the leadership.

Obviously this becomes more prevalent in higher-ed and some corporate cultures etc. Which— like I said — is injecting/teaching a certain political belief in schools and workplaces, which IMO is wrong.

The argument that we have bigger fish to fry doesn’t invalidate that.

I agree poor teacher pay and large classrooms is a huge issue (as I said in a prior thread, I was a high school teacher for a few years before medicine and agree the conditions are atrocious). That being said, equality of opportunity is not going be be remotely moved by equal schools — parents and home environment is 98% of the equation, and unfortunately you can’t change that. It’s mostly learned/ passed on / cultural as well (not mostly money and resources).

 

[Kierkegaard's Bud]

I largely agree that CRT is not being widely taught in elementary and middle school.

Many high schools have elements of it though (ie openly “antiracist” stance, discussion of systemic racism as not debatable, victim mentality, lots of “owning white privilege” talk). Maybe some think that’s ok and maybe we do have larger things to tackle, but it’s a fact in many public high schools and adopted as the mantra of the leadership.

Obviously this becomes more prevalent in higher-ed and some corporate cultures etc. Which— like I said — is injecting/teaching a certain political belief in schools and workplaces, which IMO is wrong.

The argument that we have bigger fish to fry doesn’t invalidate that.

I agree poor teacher pay and large classrooms is a huge issue (as I said in a prior thread, I was a high school teacher for a few years before medicine and agree the conditions are atrocious). That being said, equality of opportunity is not going be be remotely moved by equal schools — parents and home environment is 98% of the equation, and unfortunately you can’t change that. It’s mostly learned/ passed on / cultural as well (not mostly money and resources).

****ting out numbers like 98% to make your argument seem plausible is funny.

Children are students for a great majority of the day, if you pour $10-$14 K (typical well established education system cost) worth of resources into their education with invigorated teachers, it will do wonders for the generation and country.

Stop it with the culture argument. In the 50s, black people marriage rates exceeded anyone’s. Horrible policies ruined it. Culture isn’t static which means it isn’t intrinsic.

 

[nimbus]

****ting out numbers like 98% to make your argument seem plausible is funny.

Children are students for a great majority of the day, if you pour $10-$14 K (typical well established education system cost) worth of resources into their education with invigorated teachers, it will do wonders for the generation and country.

Stop it will the culture argument. In the 50s, black people marriage rates exceeded anyone’s. Horrible policies ruined it. Culture isn’t static which means it isn’t intrinsic.

Yeah. A lot of things assumed to be intrinsic are not intrinsic. There have been posters here who have implied that IQ is intrinsic. In one study of rural Kenyan schoolchildren, the average IQ of one cohort exceeded the IQ of a preceding cohort by 26 points. This happened over a short 14 years.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tamara-Daley/publication/10764139_IQ_on_the_Rise_The_Flynn_Effect_in_Rural_Kenyan_Children/links/5daafbb1a6fdccc99d91d121/IQ-on-the-Rise-The-Flynn-Effect-in-Rural-Kenyan-Children.pdf?origin=publication_detail

I belong to a currently “ORM” group but many of us are descended from barely literate or completely illiterate great grandparents. Polygamy was rampant in prior generations. There wasn’t always an emphasis on education and family among our ancestors.

As you say, culture is very fluid.

 

[doctalaughs]

****ting out numbers like 98% to make your argument seem plausible is funny.

Children are students for a great majority of the day, if you pour $10-$14 K (typical well established education system cost) worth of resources into their education with invigorated teachers, it will do wonders for the generation and country.

Stop it with the culture argument. In the 50s, black people marriage rates exceeded anyone’s. Horrible policies ruined it. Culture isn’t static which means it isn’t intrinsic.

I never said culture was static. I’m saying that to make a difference we need to change the culture of de-valuing education in these communities.

And the political attitude of racial blame that is now taught is doing the exact opposite (why take charge of your own education/ destiny if your situation is mostly blamed on systemic racism).

Money towards early childhood education I still believe can make some difference ( but not nearly as much as involved/caring parents). By high school you are totally wasting your money and breath.

 

[Southpaw]

I never said culture was static. I’m saying that to make a difference we need to change the culture of de-valuing education in these communities.

And the political attitude of racial blame that is now taught is doing the exact opposite (why take charge of your own education/ destiny if your situation is mostly blamed on systemic racism).

Money towards early childhood education I still believe can make some difference ( but not nearly as much as involved/caring parents). By high school you are totally wasting your money and breath.

Involved and caring parents, and interested teachers (kids spend A LOT of time with their teachers) can make all the difference. This is beyond the scope of this conversation but I think the American family is getting destroyed and scammed by the desire for ‘more’. Work more. More money. Nicer/bigger home. New cars. Constant stream of Amazon boxes showing up at the door. Credit cards. Debt upon debt upon debt. Rinse repeat.

Maybe it wouldn’t matter but I feel like if we all lived simpler lives, accrued less stuff, had less debt, and worked LESS, we’d have more time to spend with/help our children in school and be happier.

It is absolutely hardest to make it all work and keep bills paid/food on the table for our poorest, and it is those kids who need invested and caring parents the most.