Interesting for me to juxtapose the issues being raised by Bill Cosby and James Watson. Cosby has been largely accepted-- his message? The Black community is killing itself by not fathering successive generations.
Now, enter the comments of James Watson: (see CNN--
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/19/uk.race/index.html) Now I cannot agree with his arguments, but I wonder if they were stated differently, and by Bill Cosby, whether they would be accepted more (or credible).
If we admit that Africa and Africans were systematically exploited for 100s of years, is it any wonder there is a gap? Many very smart scientists have documented (not necessarily in a genetic, biological defensible way) cycles of extinction and adaptation. The distinctive thing about humans is that we've been enjoying a hugely successful positive feedback loop of technology and information ("collective learning") for thousands of years, leading to larger brain sizes and utter dominance of the planet-- exploiting ever greater levels of energy to feed our brains and culture. Unfortunately for us post-moderns, we're living with the impact of choices made by Europeans (and others) who exploited other ethnic-racial people groups (not just Africans), but the net impact is that in many cases (Africa, decolonized America, etc.), these people groups have not been as fully assimilated into access to the growth cycle. Differentiation by skin color, we've perpetuated a new, negative feedback cycle. Now this does not seem to be racist, because for one, some of the smartest people I know now are Blacks, and some of the most ignorant are White. But in general, the smart ones have things in common (not necessarily race) and the ignorant ones (or, lets call them not interested, or not good students, or whatever else) also have things in common.
Smart kids have lucked out and had good school experiences. Good teachers, good, clean, well funded schools. Rich media, books, computers. And not only that, but their health has generally been better-- more access to health care because of better insurance arrangements, so less sick time, less absenteeism. They generally have at least one very involved parent who has replicated a learning environment at home and has high expectations. By the time they get to high school, they have already developed certain habits: respect for adults, cooperation with others, promptness, and ownership of their own choices, including their choice of friends. Kids who are not as successful (or not as "smart") haven't had the above opportunities as much, or are from families that are caught in a negative feedback cycle of poverty and low expectations. They are not organized, are not curious, cannot commit to learning as a lifestyle because they may not see any direct benefit, trapped as it were in a culture of low expectations and the expectation of failure. They may have already been labeled, and may have already lost the opportunity for good.
Now, I don't think this has much to do with race. But given that this culture of Poverty, in Baltimore, or any other urban center in America, is not getting any better, it is ridiculous to blame it all on teachers. Cosby, I think is right, in shifting-- not blame-- but accountability to families. This makes more sense. But as Alonso has indicated, it is important for schools to have partnerships with families. Every time we have back to school night (or conferences), it is always the parents I don't need to see who show up. The rest are too busy working or partying, or in many cases are pretty intimidated by school and their own past failure.
So-- why can't we come together for 45 minutes a week and discuss and work on solutions? If we can do it, maybe the rest of our society will do the same? It says something that a school board would feel so compelled to protect pre-teens from pregnancy by substituting themselves into the role of parent to hand out birth control.
