Coca-Cola says 'Be Less White' learning plan was about workplace inclusion

It will be a chunk. It accounts for a lot of income variance in existing research, like Chetty's at Harvard. He and his colleagues seemed to bury the effect though in at least one of their papers on "inequality", which is frustrating since the effect size was the largest of all their predictors. They're ideologically biased, which is a huge problem in social "science" right now, and they don't want to talk about anything related to individuals' own behavior ot choices. They prefer to focus on blaming exogenous factors, society, etc.

IQ score differences are huge, and I'm not sure that anyone knows why. We might not have the full picture there for another 50+ years. At this point it would very difficult to even research it given that leftists will try to destroy your career if you do (e.g. the SPLC will smear you as a "white supremacist" if you research or discover or report group differences that are unfavorable to a non-white group, as they have smeared Charles Murray). The black-white IQ differences are greater than one standard deviation, which was very confusing to discover in graduate school – I had no idea. Since IQ predicts income, there is little chance of income parity anytime soon, unless we can find a sort of loophole around that relationship. But we won't be finding any loopholes or workarounds if we're not allowed to research it, so...

The out-of-wedlock birth rate and the IQ disparity are beefy predictors because they're so large in magnitude. Those two variables virtually guarantee a large income difference. There's really no way for a group to make as much money as another group if they're having 72% of their kids out-of-wedlock when the other group is at 20-25%, and also spotting the other group maybe 14+ points on mean IQ. Given those starting conditions, I wouldn't even worry about racism or talk about racism. I would focus on the things that I know are real and the I know are having a huge impact. There isn't any evidence of an equivalent effect of racism. That would be interesting to think about. For racism to be as punchy as out-of-wedlock births or IQ, we would need to see a situation like where basically black college graduates couldn't get jobs due to simple racial discrimination, at a really punchy rate. We don't see that. Systemic racism doesn't exist in the US by any definition I would think of based simply on the term. It seems to reduce to subjective construals through a leftist abstraction layer and symbolic/ideological framework. In other words, you need to be a leftist to see it, and if you don't see this invisible thing, you're a bad person. It's an arbitrary ideology at that point, and the timing is nothing short of predominant.

> However, it is also beyond question that there is at least some marginal disenfranchisement experienced by certain people purely on the basis of their appearance

Most of the focus today is on what’s called “systemic racism” which is a real thing and is based more on structural disparities associated with skin color rather than skin color in and of itself. For example, wealth in Black families undercut by redlining, etc. These disparities are not only real, they’re large, and they’re not shrinking.

We can (and should) talk about these things. But inverting that, and talking about “white privilege” isn’t either sound nor effective. “White privilege” includes, for example, the fact that the median Black person makes about the same income as a White person at the 33rd percentile of income. Put differently, a white person enjoys “white privilege” because there was a statistically better chance they’d be born into a higher income family. (Specifically, a 66% chance of having an income higher than 50% of Black households.) That makes sense from an academic point of view, to people with college degrees. It comes across as complete gibberish to my grandmother in law and some of my wife’s aunts, who are solidly in the bottom 1/3 of white incomes, and spent much of their lives below even that. The counter-factual hypothetical the income distribution of white people in general is meaningless to them. All they hear is that most Black people make more money than they do, yet they’re the ones being accused of having “white privilege.”

The problem is exactly the issue of applying generalizations to specific people. If you explained the statistics to my grandmother in law, that white people on average make significantly more money than Black people on average, she would get it. She didn’t go to college, but that’s within her ambit. It’s where you take the generalization about white people, and tell her as an individual white person that she’s somehow “privileged” despite growing up dirt poor that you’re going to lose her.

The lessons we 90s kids learned in school were the right ones. Don’t generalize about people based on their skin color. These new ideas from college professors are wrong ideas.

States actually measure this: pick any metric you want (you may choose any of dropout rate, pass rate, sport budget, student:teacher ratio, college admission rate for a start) and compare how each school is doing compared to the average.

I think there’s a lot of potential in this idea.

I can't find any student:teacher ratio statistics anywhere. Are you sure it's different by race?