Black and Latino students did worse in schools with ‘diversity officers’: study

submitted by jet199 from nypost.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Perhaps districts create CDO positions because they have larger achievement gaps that they wish to remedy.

That was my first question. Well my second. (See below the line)

To address this concern, it is possible to examine the trend in achievement gaps, over time, rather than the static magnitude of those gaps, to see if districts with CDOs are making progress to close those gaps.

Unfortunately that too is not independent. Racial Socioeconomic Inequality Predicts Growing Racial Academic Inequality.

To see if a CDO improves the performance of the blacks and latinos you have to make a fair effort to estimate how they would have done without the CDO. Assuming that they would have done the same as schools without a CDO is accepted by the paper to be questionable. Assuming instead that the relative trend in performance would be the same, as they have done, is also questionable.

But come on:

1) Chief diversity officers (CDOs), who typically advance a leftist agenda, are spreading beyond college campuses and becoming more common in K–12 districts.

Really? You're going to make it clear that you've got a political bias, at the front of your paper?

Why?

A reason that will be well known to a think tank is that if you associate an argument with a political position, people that feel part of that political position are loathe to question the argument, and quick to dismiss counter-arguments without considering the content.

A paper that leads with "these results are for conservatives only" by a think-tank should ring alarm bells. If they genuinely believe that they have a sound argument, they could present the evidence so that it can sway everyone. If they feel the need to leverage people's politics, and thereby limiting the target to only conservatives, it's likely that they know that their argument doesn't stand analysis.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Excellent points. These types of articles appear to be aimed at people who don't know and/or don't want to know that they're being manipulated by a class warfare against those who will naturally need more time to adjust to standards that have been traditionally beyond their reach, especially for economic reasons, not to mention crippling social consequences of long-standing class warfare and racism.

[–]Canbot 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

The study wasn't "aimed" at anybody, it's just a scientific study. This leftist claim that science that contradicts thier ideology is somehow racist and therfore invalid is just science denial.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I would differentiate a scientific study, by scientists, and a propaganda piece by a right wing thing tank.

A right wing think tank could do a scientific study, but it would be published in a scientific journal, and be subject to peer review.

And it wouldn't start "Chief diversity officers (CDOs), who typically advance a leftist agenda, ..." if it's going to be published in any scholarly journal of standing.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The problem with that these days is that the journals have been corrupted and only print leftist papers. Science is not that which the leftist gatekeepers say is science, it is everything that follows the scientific method. This 100% qualifies. Denying science because of who produced it is still science denial. And your bias is blatant and foolish.