“Race” is Like Astrology

The concept of using "race"--physical appearance--as a proxy for character is as absurd as astrology. I'm well aware that people look different from each other, but the concept of "race" is scientifically baseless. The concept of "race" embraces the logic of astrology: shoving individual people (each of whom is complex) into a handful of simplistic superficial categories and then drawing conclusions that are evidence-free (or often, contrary to evidence) based upon these unwarranted simplistic cartoon-like categorizations. The concept of "race" should be constantly ridiculed the same way that intelligent people ridicule astrology. Any attempt to classify another human being by "race" or birthdate is a lazy ham-handed anti-scientific and pernicious claim that one knows what it is impossible to know--the complexity of that human being--without investing time and effort to get to known them. That is the point of Morgan Freeman:

This enormous flaw with the modern use of the concept of "race" is a conceptual hole so vast that one could easily drive a truck through it. Yet the concept of "race" is rarely attacked at the root.  The first racist act is categorizing people by dividing them into simplistic categories such as white or Black. Without this first move, racism would be impossible.  What is especially distressing is that this widespread exuberant willingness to mis-categorize people into simplistic categories is embraced by both White Supremacists and those who claim to be seeking social justice by embracing critical race theory. These two groups are now in complete agreement that we can somehow know people merely by looking at their physical appearance.

There is only one way to get to know a person, and that is to take the time to learn about them, one by one, by talking with them, getting to know what they've done with their lives, reading about them or watching them interact with others. Complicating things, people change over time, so getting to know who they are requires non-stop effort.  Getting to know someone else requires careful consideration of real world facts and this takes considerable and concerted effort. Taking the time to get to really know other people before casting judgment on who they are is incompatible with making snap judgments but, as we are increasingly being tuned by social media, we are increasingly people who insist on making snap judgments.

Every day, "race" arguments wildly launch off into a thousand directions like fireworks. The basic premise of most of these arguments is the incoherent concept of "race," a concept so completely and irrevocably broken that most of these discussions are a waste of time before the discussion even begins. Imagine the time we could save--time we could redirect to working on solving the immense social problems that are very real indeed (many of them correlated to the physical appearance of groups of people)--if only we cut off most discussions of "race" at the root by calling out the invalidity of the concept of "race."

I will be writing more on this emotionally-charged topic in coming months. At this point I should make two things clear.

A) As I hope I've made clear, "race" is a irretrievably flawed pernicious concept. I believe that the concept of "race" should be thrown in the dustbin of history and we should all enter a new post-racial era. Unfortunately, other people continue to believe in the reality of "race." This idiotic willingness to divide complex people into simple colors makes racism possible. For this reason, I fully acknowledge the existence and destructiveness of racism. Many people mistreat others based upon physical appearance. To do this is unfair. It hurts people, sometimes badly, sometimes leading to deaths. Racism oppresses entire groups of people and has done so systematically over long stretches of time, through the entire history of the United States and many other places. Wherever we encounter racism, we should attack it vigorously in two ways: socially (by calling it out publicly and condemning those who mistreat other people in this way) and through the use of the legal system (e.g., through civil rights laws).

B) The concept of "race" itself is bad science, and this problem needs to be pointed out whenever discussing racism. Every single time.  Even young children know that "race" makes no sense but we socialize them to think otherwise. To fail to point out the absurdity of the concept of "race" whenever discussing racism will lead to more of the same. We will never be able to solve the "race" problem as long as we assume that there is such a thing as "race." One way to do this is to consistently put the word "race" in scare quotes, which is now my habit.  Every time we discuss "race," we need to call out that the the casual, unthinking idea that there is such a thing as "race" is reckless and dangerous. We need to constantly call out that it is impossible and destructive to judge other people by the use of immutable physical appearance. It is, indeed, as insane as believing in astrology, phrenology or palm reading. The unthinking use of the word "race" is utterly unscientific and destructive, even when used by well-intentioned people. The concept of "race" is a mental virus that hurts people and most of those who are infected are unable to see that they are infected. To use "race" uncritically (or "critically," as is de rigeour among the Woke) is to succumb to the banality of evil--unthinking destructive acquiescence to bad ideas.

In sum, racism exists because millions of misguided people believe in the incoherent and unsubstantiated notion of "race."  It will take great effort to break this bad habit because many well-meaning people who are (oftentimes heroically) fighting racism refuse to jettison the concept of "race."  Until large vocal swaths of society simultaneously and consciously embrace both A and B (above), racism will tear us apart.  I'm not optimistic.

Continue Reading“Race” is Like Astrology

Why the University of California System Stopped Using the SAT

Why did the UC system stop using the SAT? This article by Andrew Conway offers some insight "The University of California and The SAT: Speaking the Truth?." Here is an excerpt:

Here are two main conclusions from the report:

“Overall, both grades and admissions test scores are moderate predictors of college GPA at UC. The predictive power of test scores has gone up, and the predictive power of high school grades has gone down, since the 2010… study of this issue. At present, test scores are a slightly better predictor of freshman grades than high school grades are. Both grades and scores are stronger predictors of early outcomes (freshman retention and GPA) than of longer-term outcomes (eventual graduation and graduation GPA).”

“Test scores contribute significant predictive power across all income levels, ethnic groups, across both first-generation and non-first-generation students, and across all campuses and majors.” Based on these results (and more), the special task force recommended that the UC continue to use the SAT in the admissions process.

But then, on May 21, 2020, the University of California Regents released a statement. They announced their decision to drop the SAT requirement for all applicants to all UC schools. I was shocked. Drop the SAT? Why?

Continue ReadingWhy the University of California System Stopped Using the SAT

Missouri Republican Politicians Attempt to Commit Fraud on Gerrymandering Ballot Measure: Slapped Down by Court

Excellent court ruling today on the upcoming Missouri proposed Amendment, as reported by "No on 3," which opposes this upcoming ballot measure (because it unravels anti-gerrymandering provisions Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved two years ago). The court scolded the Republicans who crafted the ballot language. The court then rewrote the ballot language. The judge ruled that the Republican proposed language was “misleading, unfair, and insufficient.” In making this ruling, Judge Patricia Joyce prevented a massive fraud on Missouri citizens.

"No on 3" spokesperson Sean Soendker Nicholson sums it up:

Politicians may lie to our faces about what they’re trying to do with Amendment 3, but they can’t lie in what appears on the ballot,” said Sean Soendker Nicholson, Campaign Director for the No on Amendment 3 campaign. “Everyone needs to understand that politicians are trying to trick voters by hiding a deceptive gerrymandering plan in the state constitution. The whole goal of their plan is to protect incumbent politicians in rigged maps drawn in back rooms by lobbyists and political operatives.

Continue ReadingMissouri Republican Politicians Attempt to Commit Fraud on Gerrymandering Ballot Measure: Slapped Down by Court

The Best Kind of Free Speech is Antithetical to Cancel Culture

From FIRE's Website:

"FIRE is a free-speech organization, but we’ve always interpreted “free speech” to mean something larger, older, and bolder than just your legal rights. Given that we are also concerned with academic freedom, I’ve also focused on how to make discussions productive, and how to promote tolerance for people you disagree with. Of particular importance in higher education is determining how to keep an atmosphere of robust debate, thought experimentation, and innovation alive and healthy.

From a very early stage, FIRE advocated for what could roughly be called a “culture of free speech,” where we seriously consider the ideas most opposed to our own, debate and persuade those who disagree with us, consider people’s intentions, and give space for error and forgiveness when faced with mistakes. This is the antithesis of cancel culture, which attempts to reduce individuals to a singular offensive statement or action, remove them from mainstream society, and inflict grave social costs on anyone who might defend them."

What can you do to promote these ideas? Read "What you can do right now to help protect you or your campus from cancel culture." at the same website.

Continue ReadingThe Best Kind of Free Speech is Antithetical to Cancel Culture

Life in a Woke Upscale Progressive Private School

How are things going in one upscale private progressive school in NY for the children of a Jewish woman and her Black husband?  This is an excerpt from "My Kids and Their Elite Education in Racism: How Rye Country Day School reflects the madness of our times," by Naomi Schaefer Riley:

I fear that the message currently emanating from teachers and administrators and politicians and pundits will harm [ ] relationships. The new anti-racism, with its endless cycles of victimization and demands for reparations—as opposed to the model of teaching people to aspire to colorblindness and providing everyone with equal opportunity—requires all of us (and children in particular) to see race all the time. This new model will turn what would otherwise be ordinary, healthy relationships—friendships, even—into dramas with racially defined roles for all the characters.

The good people of my community and others around the country are told that no matter how welcoming they are, how well they treat others, there is nothing they can do to make up for systemic racism. Will they begin to fret over every interaction, fearing that they could say or do the wrong thing? . . .

I worry that the message is already trickling down. Advice columns in recent years have featured parents asking whether it’s okay for them to adopt children of another race, or whether people can ever truly understand someone of another race enough to marry that person, or whether it wouldn’t be easier for same-sex couples to use the white partner’s egg so as not to have the insurmountable task of handling a black child. Could white supremacists of 50 years ago have dared to dream of such attitudes among people who call themselves liberals?

Continue ReadingLife in a Woke Upscale Progressive Private School