Senate "Race" Relations (was "U.S. Society and Black Men")

Social sciences *are* STEM. That's part of what the S is. This is a non-distinction.

 

Erm. I suspect we agree in overall principle but social sciences like sociology are not traditionally grouped in STEM majors.

 

Nah, anything that doesn't directly contribute to profits and make people good wage slaves should be discarded.

 

I’d like to agree with you, but the “S” in STEM seems to vary depending on who you’re talking to. In my academic and professional career, STEM did not include my political science degree. *shrugs*

 

I'm going to agree with a view here from former NSF program director for social psychology making a point on this 15 years ago:
"Let's be clear: The "S" in STEM includes behavioral and social science. It includes psychology. NSF itself integrates psychology (along with linguistics, anthropology, sociology, economics) into its own structural organization of NSF's directorates, divisions and programs. When asked directly if the "S" in STEM includes psychology, NSF leadership will always affirm that it does."
https://www.apa.org/monitor/sep07/sd

There's also more current examples like the NSF Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2023/nsf23527/nsf23527.htm
The eligibility for that program of STEM funding is that it can go to any discipline that NSF funds research in, with a few exceptions (that don't list social sciences).
One of the seven directorates of the NSF, though, is the Directorate of Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. So per the NSF's S-STEM program, social sciences are included in that STEM funding. For example, sociology program which the NSF describes as "Supports research on social life; the causes and consequences of human behavior; processes of social change; and human social organizations, including groups, institutions and societies".
It sounds quite like what is being discussed falls into sociology, which the NSF considers part of STEM, and which is applying the scientific method to these sorts of things. So I don't see any reason to remove it from either STEM or how other sciences would be treated.

More broadly, I don't think "traditional" has any particular value here in the same sense that "traditionally" the sun was a planet.

 

Okay, but continuing from your same first quote:

Source

More to the point, there would be no reason to be "clear" if there wasn't some question or confusion at the outset. I think what we can say is that very clearly, there are a variety of different definitions in play at the present. I wasn't aware of this diversity when I made my earlier post, so I apologize. At the same time, though, Pumas narrower definition is also clearly legitimate and understood.

 

This. You already have teachers that view the black and brown experience as inherently more difficult.

To answer @Jedi Merkurian , its effectively legitimizing teaching black and brown children, regardless of if they have actually been victims of societal racism and marginalization, that they are victims. High school teachers teaching "black struggle in the 21st century" can easily become them teaching children that no matter what their actual background may be that they are inherently facing an uphill battle in America. We already have white people, liberals and conservatives, that infantilize black and brown people as if we are lesser people that need to be guided to the right answers, domestically and internationally.

@anakinfansince1983 it's not about them being too delicate to learn; I believe that these concepts aren't things you can introduce on a Tuesday, test on a Friday, and move on to the next section the next week. Let's not play coy: we know that frameworks like intersectionality, CRT, and in-depth race relations study alters how people perceive themselves, their surroundings, and their relationship with the world. Reading ****ing Chaucer or Shakespeare does not have the same effect.

 

I'm not sure how you simultaneously complain that these are not topics that can be introduced on a Tuesday and test on a Friday (suggesting that it will only be mentioned on a very cursory level) and then say that there's a danger of in-depth race relations study, which is suggesting that it is anything but cursory.

I also would seriously question how someone can read some of Mark Twain's writings and *not* come away with that pushing them to rethink things about race relations in particular, and literature in general to cause people to reassess how they perceive themselves, their surroundings, and their relationship to the world.

For that matter, if the argument is that because it impacts how they perceive themselves, their surroundings, and their relationship with the world, it sounds like we can't be teaching things like physics, astronomy, biology, and chemistry in school either, since learning those also impact all those things that are 'supposed' to be unaltered. The argument being made isn't that the material is wrong, it's that it impacts the students... and removing everything in education that impacts students would really hollow things out.

 

A system can be adversarial against someone even before they as a particular individual confront that adversity. Black people could not vote and in many parts of the South could not offer testimony in legal proceedings. You wouldn't say they "didn't fact adversity" simply because they were not called as a witness and then refused. It is enough that they would have been, if they ever needed to that makes the system adversarial.

Or, for instance, the FDA has approved multiple devices for measuring blood oxygen levels. They never had to be certified as actually functional in Black people. As a result, those that are currently in use give readings with important, falsely high error rates in many Black patients. Regardless of whether a given Black person ever ends up so sick as to suffer low oxygen levels where this would become an issue, that is a systemic flaw in our procedure for evaluating the safety of medical devices. Their safety literally was not considered. That's a sign of an adversarial system that imparts specific disadvantage. They have every right to complain about it before they end up so sick. Wait until they're in the position where this becomes most relevant, and they literally won't have the breath to do so.

Teaching about inequities in society has never meant teaching people to be victims. It's understanding how policies can affect people. Conservatives are huge proponents of talking about how systems "pick winners and losers." That's literally their whole complaint against government. They wouldn't have any problem with an educational model that points this out except that historically and in the present day, what we find over and over again is that they are the ones doing the picking, and they overwhelmingly pick people of color to be the losers.

 

@Jabba-wocky great points. Again, I agree with you, in part.

Teaching about inequities in society does not necessitate teaching people to be victims, but it can and, often enough to be significant, does. Serious question: You honestly believe that this does not occur?

 

1. I don't think this is very common, no.
2. I believe it is far more common that you create deeply unhinged people of all races by refusing to acknowledge inequities in society even as the results of that inequity are plainly evident. They are therefore left to draw inaccurate or bigoted conclusions. For instance, even with identical resumes, people with Black names are far less likely to be called for a job interview. If you don't know this about their resumes, but do notice that very few Blacks make it to get interviewed for jobs, the obvious thing to think is that they are all just less appropriate for the position/less good in their field/lazy. Do you honestly believe that this doesn't happen?

 

I don't doubt that the talk about system racism does demoralize some number of black people. That doesn't mean reality should be avoided. This is your general stance.

This was your comment when I mentioned the pain caused by the trans debate and the fact that they suffer murder and suicide at disproportionately high rates.

Also remember that we're talking about an elective class.

 

Note: Not going to answer the STEM related part of your post because, as we established a few pages back, you and I do not see them the same, specifically in relation to the social sciences. Any dialogue on that would need to establish a basic level of agreement of terms and definitions before higher level discussion could occur. As always, I am open to engaging in that with you through PMs if you wish. Otherwise, we can drop it.

To respond to the above, I think there is a misunderstanding: In-depth race relations isn't a "danger" (you used that term, I did not); I think there are some positive, but more negative potential effects to relying on k-12 teachers to teach 12-18 year olds cursory, diluted introductions to major social science theories that are actively still being developed. I think the difference in this thread is most of you are approaching this with a "What could go wrong? Go ahead." attitude which, somehow, is conflicting with my "Eh, some things could go wrong, but go ahead."

No, I think it does happen.
-------
@CT-867-5309

My stance here has been almost exactly the same:

 

Explain, precisely, why your statement of in-depth race relations is germane to the discussion of if it should be taught in schools, then, if there is no danger with it. And why bring it up when talking about why certain things shouldn't be taught.

I also think that doesn't explain where you're getting the idea that this is particularly cursory when this is an elective that it seems would be rather strongly centered on this. And, for that matter, why "diluted introductions to major social science theories that are actively still being developed" is going to be functionally different from "diluted introductions to major science theories that are actively still being developed", something that is already being done routinely.

 

Okay, before I do this, I was told there is an education thread. If we want to move this there before we really talk this out, we should. Until then, I’d like to ask, so I can better comprehend your position: Is the mind of a 15-16 year old in any way different to the mind of a 20-22 year old, to you? If so, how? If not, why?

No. I’d rather scholars teach advanced subject matter, which youre going to take as an insult. Some k-12 teachers are scholars, but most scholars are not k-12 teachers. Combine that with my reservations of teaching high school students advanced subjects in general (to include advanced math and science) and my position is pretty clear.

If a teenager shows high interest and aptitude for a field or subject, they should be granted the opportunity to take college courses at a university or a community college, to include in-depth race relations and social science subject matter. I am not convinced that bringing these subjects down to the high school level is 1) necessary (partially indicated by the College Board, since it’s an elective) and 2) overwhelmingly beneficial with no potential shortcomings.

We have more kids doing badly in school than we have doing well on traditional subjects that are appropriate for their ages. Maybe we should try to improve upon those educational milestones instead of introducing new subjects altogether.

Your response may be that the prospective kids taking these courses are likely already high achieving as this is an AP elective, to which I’d respond then that they should be allowed to attend universities to receive this information from “experts” while the k-12 teachers devote their resources towards helping the other children that are in more need of assistance and guidance.

So, again, no, I do not think that educators are incompetent, but I do think the existing tier of education does have a purpose and that each level of professional teaching is it’s own craft, with its own considerations, strong suits, and skill sets.

And, again, my position is not that they should block this class or curriculum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

In the categorical way that question was stated as two distinct groups? No, it's a diluted introduction to distributions that I think leads to that sort of argument. And that becomes even more the case when comparing an AP course (which tend to be taken more often towards the end of high school) and a GE requirement (which tend to be taken more often towards the beginning of college). So in your view, is the mind of a 17-18 year old in any way different to the mind of a 17-18 year old? That age range covers older high school students and younger college students.

What "experts" do you mean here? A significant portion of college teaching is not by people who are going to be subject matter experts, with the added complication that they're also generally not trained in how to teach. It's also hardly uncommon to have a topic where all the instruction is being done by other college students, and I don't think those represent the experts you're interested in. If the concern is that the topic is so delicate, there's much more to be gained from someone trained to teach it. That is not, generally, university educators.
And the broader statement about reservations of teaching high school students "advanced subjects" seems particularly undefined... given how you have had 'reservations' of both teaching things in a 'cursory' manner and teaching 'advanced' things, taken at face value that does rather eliminate the discussion of just about all of math and science because there isn't a version of math and science that is both in-depth and also not-advanced.

There's also simply the pragmatic element that high school students can get to their high school, they can't necessarily get to a university with the same ease. It's a part of why there's local high schools to begin with rather than a different structure.

 

*nods*

I see. So in that case, nothing can reasonably be argued to be too advanced for high school students and it doesn’t really* matter who’s teaching them.

Ok. I think I get where you’re coming from and can understand your reaction. We’ll have to agree to disagree because I don’t think we’re going to persuade each other to our respective “sides” of this discussion.

I agree with you here, Merk and my wife agrees more with you guys on this than me. If people want to learn something, they should be able to.

 

For how often you complain about people 'misrepresenting' your statements, you managed a twofer with taking what I said as "nothing can reasonably be argued to be too advanced for high school students and it doesn’t really* matter who’s teaching them" when I explicitly talked about the value of who is teaching them and never said that "nothing can reasonably be argued to be too advanced for high school students".

My stance is that "advanced" when used in any context that it conveys true meaning, represents its relationship to other prerequisite materials and not that the topic is undesirable (which appears to be how you have used it as it's been devoid of any commentary on prerequisites in your usage).
For example, I don't think there's much place for quantum mechanics in high school not because quantum mechanics has some ramifications conceptually but because students have not gotten through the necessary prerequisites to learn the material yet; in the case of quantum mechanics it'd need linear algebra and physics, and I'd further say that physics in turn needs calculus. It's not simply that there's something about quantum mechanics in itself that puts it out of being taught in high schools routinely.

If you can't point to the material that needs to be learned first and hasn't routinely been, then I don't think you can establish a topic as "advanced", and at no point has your argument been about particular prerequisites necessary for such a course that would justify calling the material "advanced".

(And all of this is a dodge to the initial question of how the comment about in-depth race relation studies was relevant to the discussion that it was made in)