Consider impact of systemic racism before sentencing black offenders, Canadian judges

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

What would that solve? Are you saying we need to treat all ethnic groups as having different subsets of disabilities?

Standardized testing works. The research is in, and it is overwhelming. If you are worried about some ethnic groups being behind the median, then look at changing social arrangements within those groups, or exposing those groups to more cohesive education.

Don't move the bar down a few rungs just so that they can see some false progress. That doesn't fix anything.

It's not really my area of expertise so I don't want to comment on it in detail. Was just pointing out that there seems to be a lot of debate in the area. I'd also point out though that universities are starting to be more flexible with admission standards when accounting for disabilities and the like than they used, which is a good thing. I'm not really trying to draw an equivalence between race and disabilities because that's pretty crude and insulting. I'm just saying flexibility that affords more opportunities isn't exactly a novel idea and probably benefits society as a whole in the long run.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's not really my area of expertise so I don't want to comment on it really. Was just pointing out that there seems to be a lot of debate in the area.

Yeah, and to the earlier point this is another good area to use the climate science example... if you didn't really know much about that issue, and didn't want to wade in deeply, you might also be inclined to say "there seems to be a lot of debate in that area" and assume that the data were more equivocal than they really are.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but that's not what I meant - I mean genes are a more dominant differentiator for all human beings, by virtue of biology, on the order of 75-25. Who you end up being is less a factor of what happens to you than your genetic makeup. Which is an uncomfortable fact for some people.

Again, without getting involved for the moment (maybe later because it's way more interesting than the American Politics thread right now) in your argument with Cliff, I was bringing it up to analogize it to the evidence supporting the above statement about how influential genetic makeup is. There are quite a lot of people who for ideological reasons resist those conclusions, much like they do in the case of climate change.

Which I totally agree with. My point was simply that there are some people (in the black community, in every community) where, given nothing more than increased opportunity, could be much more successful and well-off than they are. Those people exist in every community, so considering that lack of opportunity (or even more extreme: giving opportunity) will absolutely have a positive impact.

It will not help all people. What does? It will help some people. Because for some people it really is the biggest difference between success and failure.

So, I took Cliff's "it's not helpful because black people don't have books" as silly. I assume he doesn't mean "all black people" but rather "some" as I did, but saying "providing better opportunity won't matter because some members of the black community don't have books" is a fundamentally incorrect statement on its own. It makes no sense.

This all ties back to the point: How is recognizing a factor that certainly impacts members of a community at a higher rate than others, a bad thing? It's not like other communities don't get considerations specific to them, so what's the difference?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, and to the earlier point this is another good area to use the climate science example... if you didn't really know much about that issue, and didn't want to wade in deeply, you might also be inclined to say "there seems to be a lot of debate in that area" and assume that the data were more equivocal than they really are.

Haha, no I assume there is probably a right answer, I just haven't done enough research to know what it is. I think there are more pressing issues to deal with when it comes to grading, such as if kids are being fed properly before they come to school, what kinds of stress or abuse their facing at home, etc. The whole affirmative action in college admissions issue has been completely blown out of proportion by right-wingers. It's not as if they're accepting minorities with a C average and turning away whities with an A.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It will not help all people. What does? It will help some people. Because for some people it really is the biggest difference between success and failure.

So, I took Cliff's "it's not helpful because black people don't have books" as silly. I assume he doesn't mean "all black people" but rather "some" as I did, but saying "providing better opportunity won't matter because some members of the black community don't have books" is a fundamentally incorrect statement on its own. It makes no sense.

I think what bugs me about Cliff's stance on this issue is that he's constantly trying to deflect criticism of Western societies with his "don't let perfect be the enemy of good." If that's your stance, fine, whatever, but at least be consistent.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Which I totally agree with. My point was simply that there are some people (in the black community, in every community) where, given nothing more than increased opportunity, could be much more successful and well-off than they are. Those people exist in every community, so considering that lack of opportunity (or even more extreme: giving opportunity) will absolutely have a positive impact.

Right there with you. It's a matter of figuring out which "some people" it will actually be a boon to, and which it won't.

saying "providing better opportunity won't matter because some members of the black community don't have books" is a fundamentally incorrect statement on its own. It makes no sense.

Having a bunch of books in the house, regardless of your race, is going to correlate strongly with how intelligent your parents are, which by virtue of what I was saying is going to correlate strongly with your own potential for intelligence. I assume that's what he was saying. Actually my understanding is that this is a real, honest to god statistical factor that has been used in studies to predict outcomes for marginalized people - literally whether they have books in the house. I can't recall where I read that. Anyway, it's kind of a sidebar issue, I'm not sure why you've fixated on those couple of words.

This all ties back to the point: How is recognizing a factor that certainly impacts members of a community at a higher rate than others, a bad thing? It's not like other communities don't get considerations specific to them, so what's the difference?

As long as it's relevant to the factors I listed earlier I don't think it's a bad thing. You do have to demonstrate that it is relevant, otherwise it's just noise. But I'm not that skeptical of it, personally. Either way though, my original post is really what I think of this - if you want judges to consider something they currently aren't for sentencing purposes, you probably need a change in law.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Having a bunch of books in the house, regardless of your race, is going to correlate strongly with how intelligent your parents are, which by virtue of what I was saying is going to correlate strongly with your own potential for intelligence.

What if they're all Dean Koontz books?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Having a bunch of books in the house, regardless of your race, is going to correlate strongly with how intelligent your parents are, which by virtue of what I was saying is going to correlate strongly with your own potential for intelligence.

Don't Kindle-shame bro.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Don't Kindle-shame bro.

I was going to call it out for being bourgeois but this is funnier.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Don't Kindle-shame bro.

Is THAT the toxic subculture Cliff keeps talking about?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think what bugs me about Cliff's stance on this issue is that he's constantly trying to deflect criticism of Western societies with his "don't let perfect be the enemy of good." If that's your stance, fine, whatever, but at least be consistent.

What irks me is the lack of context.

"Alberta needs to address its murderous culture" implies that Alberta has a particularly murderous culture.

If you consider tolerance, pluralism, and diversity to be good things, isn't it useful to look at:

A) Which cultures are most tolerant, pluralistic, and diverse. And then:

B) Look at why those cultures are tolerant, pluralistic, and diverse, so we can maintain the values and institutions that made them that way. Because those values and institutions can weaken and break down if we neglect them in our enthusiasm to remake society.

[icecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

What would that solve? Are you saying we need to treat all ethnic groups as having different subsets of disabilities?

Standardized testing works. The research is in, and it is overwhelming. If you are worried about some ethnic groups being behind the median, then look at changing social arrangements within those groups, or exposing those groups to more cohesive education.

Don't move the bar down a few rungs just so that they can see some false progress. That doesn't fix anything.

No..standardized testing doesn't work. The most recent research overwhelmingly suggests the opposite of what you just claimed.

There are many educators fighting to get it removed altogether.

[Harry Lime]

Would that not create a system where certain schools which are known for rigid testing are given higher social and economic standing to the schools whose testing is brought down to accommodate the students current academic level?

If standardized testing doesn't work, but one tier education does, how do you reconcile the two?

Please feel free to extrapolate to the justice system, if there is a positive plausible solution to that.

[jammies]

What we really need is affirmative action so more white people are encouraged to commit crimes. Only this will solve the racial imbalance in our prisons.

I can't do everything myself, people!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by icecube

No..standardized testing doesn't work. The most recent research overwhelmingly suggests the opposite of what you just claimed.

There are many educators fighting to get it removed altogether.

Standardized testing is like Corsi. It's a great stat to evaluate how your systwm is working but if you just tell your team to shoot more to improve Corsi without improving what Corsi is a proxy for it doesn't work.

Teaching to a standardized test does not improve outcomes however standardized testing can effectively measure where different schools are at.