How a popular research tool may lead us astray on racism in America
[link removed]
CounterCurrent:
Racial Audit Studies—
Fact or Fiction?
How a popular research tool may lead us astray on racism in America
CounterCurrent is the National Association of Scholars’ weekly newsletter, bringing you the biggest issues in academia and our responses to them.
[link removed]
Category: Neo-Racism; Reading Time: ~2 minutes
------------------------------------------------------------
** Featured Series - Testing the Tests for Racism by Wilfred Reilly ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------
Some things seem so obvious as to be barely worth mentioning. The sky is blue. Grass is green. Dogs bark and cats meow. Race relations in America are far better than they were in the 1950s.
That last one, though, sparks more debate than you might think. Most Americans, especially those outside academe, agree with the commonsense claim that racism has declined in the decades after the civil rights movement. Racial segregation is no more (though, unfortunately, it’s making a comeback ([link removed]) in higher education). Public approval for interracial marriage has skyrocketed in the last 60 years. The only lynch mobs we see anymore take the form of angry Twitter users.
In other words, while racism in America is not completely gone—it will always live on through a select few unsavory individuals—it is objectively way less prevalent ([link removed]) today than it was in decades and centuries past.
To challenge this widely accepted fact, enter the critical race theorists, the anti-racists, and the 1619ers … let’s just call them the neo-racists for short. Neo-racists see race and racism in everyone everywhere—at all times. Everything (and I mean everything ([link removed]) ) has to do with race and always has. According to this view, America is as racialized as it ever was, if not more.
To prove this, neo-racists point to slippery academic concepts such as “implicit bias,” “white fragility,” and “structural racism,” all of which help make racism as amorphous and vague as possible. It’s everywhere, but we also can’t detect it without the help of our social science sleuths. But once they find racism, you better agree that it’s there. Why? Because if you don’t, you’re complicit in racism, of course! And no one wants that.
The conflict between these two views makes it difficult to impartially evaluate new research on racism. We don’t want to simply write it off, because it very well may provide valuable insights regarding where racism still exists in American society and what we may do about it. On the other hand, we cannot just accept it all at face value (much to neo-racists’ chagrin), especially since the fields generating it—sociology, anthropology, and education, for example—have been all but totally hollowed out by activism-first, scholarship-second pseudo-researchers.
To help us wade through these murky waters is Wilfred Reilly, assistant professor of political science at Kentucky State University, an academic well-versed in the contemporary literature on racism in America. In his latest article ([link removed]) for the National Association of Scholars’ quarterly journal, Academic Questions ([link removed]) , Dr. Reilly guides us through the wild world of audit studies, that is, a research method ([link removed]) that “test[s] for unequal treatment by having otherwise identical pairs of people who vary on a single trait, such as race or gender, apply for the same sets of opportunities, such as apartment vacancies or job openings.”
In the article, a meta-analysis of sorts, Reilly sorts through various problems that plague audit studies, ultimately concluding that
Some of their results obviously do indicate that bias remains a reality within significant sectors of the U.S. employment and housing markets. However, these studies rarely if ever examine rates of pro-white (or pro-POC) bias in higher education, the public sector, and the minority business community; very frequently do not include adjustments for social class or perceived competence; and have not extensively compared the bias faced by members of other potentially disadvantaged groups with that faced by blacks. Given this, audit data does not seem to counter the basic observation that citizens of different races with the same background characteristics often perform similarly in life. I certainly do hope audit scholars tackle the points made above going forward, perhaps proving this point wrong—and perhaps proving it right.
Dr. Reilly’s article is far too complex to adequately summarize here. I highly recommend that you check out the entire piece ([link removed]) , as well as a related article ([link removed]) in the same issue by Richard P. Phelps, which examines the dire state of contemporary education research.
We can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater and eschew social science research in its entirety. It remains a valuable tool when conducted with rigor and integrity. But we must also be skeptical of much of the research published today, especially that which is written by those concerned with promoting their own ideological agenda above all else. “My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with the facts.”
Until next week.
David Acevedo
Communications & Research Associate
National Association of Scholars
Read More ([link removed])
For more on neo-racism and higher education:
[link removed]
Fall 2021
** The Politicization of Education Research and the AERA ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard P. Phelps
Like many science-related professional associations founded on the principles of unbiased research, nonpartisanship, and best practices, the American Educational Research Association (AERA) has become thoroughly politicized.
[link removed]
May 17, 2021
** Keeping the Republic: A National Association of Scholars Position Paper ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Wood
Schools that welcome and endorse neo-racism are sowing the seeds of misery for a whole generation of Americans.
[link removed]
December 30, 2020
** Prejudice Under the Microscope: The Implicit Association Test (Part I) ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Frisby
In this three-part series, Professor Craig Frisby evaluates the merits of the popular Race Implicit Association Test. See parts II and III here ([link removed]) and here ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
September 16, 2020
** Racism: What It Is and What It Is Not (Part I) ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Frisby
Many conflicting definitions of racism vie for our support. Which are correct and which are incorrect? Professor Craig Frisby investigates in this three-part series. See parts II and III here ([link removed]) and here ([link removed]) .
** About the NAS
------------------------------------------------------------
The National Association of Scholars, founded in 1987, emboldens reasoned scholarship and propels civil debate. We’re the leading organization of scholars and citizens committed to higher education as the catalyst of American freedom.
============================================================
Follow NAS on social media.
** Facebook ([link removed])
** Twitter ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
** Website ([link removed])
** Donate ([link removed])
| ** Join ([link removed])
| ** Renew ([link removed])
| ** Bookstore ([link removed])
Copyright © 2021 National Association of Scholars, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website, membership or donation forms, contact forms at events, or by signing open letters.
Our mailing address is:
National Association of Scholars
420 Madison Avenue
7th Floor
New York, NY 10017-2418
USA
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
.
