“Science” at The Kellog School of Management

Sometimes I am left flabbergasted at what passes for “science” among leftists.

The Kellog School of Management recently did a “study” that was intended to reveal which approach is best in educating children, a) a colorblind approach that de-emphasizes  racial differences and focuses on our similarities or b) an approach that emphasizes diversity and draws attention to inequalities.

The conductor of the research, Evan P. Apfelbaum explains:

“However, our research suggests that exposure to colorblindness can actually reduce individuals’ sensitivity to meaningful racial differences. And as a result, when discrimination does occur, individuals with a colorblind mindset often fail to see it as such.”

In a perfect world, social engineers would not be allowed to experiment on children to test the efficacy of their indoctrination techniques.  But, alas, this is not a perfect world:

In their experiment, the researchers explored the effects of promoting a colorblind approach to diversity among 8- to 11-year-old students. First, students reviewed different versions of a multimedia storybook. Half received a colorblind version and the other half received a version that framed diversity as a value. In both stories, the narrator championed racial justice, but the colorblind version encouraged the minimizing of race-based distinctions, whereas the value-diversity version encouraged readers to embrace these differences.

What did Apfelbaum mean by “discrimination”?  Not surprisingly, it is only white on black discrimination that is considered “discrimination”:

After the storybooks were read, the students listened to three stories featuring varying degrees of racial bias: a control story in which a white child was marginalized by his white schoolmate’s contribution to a school science project; an ambiguous story regarding a white student’s exclusion of a black student from his birthday party; and an explicitly biased story describing a white student’s unprovoked assault of a black student in a soccer game.

Here are some of the assumptions made by the researchers:

1)  One white student marginalizing another white student is not worthy of special concern.  Picking on another child because of his height or freckles is not as serious as picking on him because of his race.

2)  Not inviting a black student to a birthday party could/ should be considered “discrimination” and cause for concern.

3)  An unprovoked attack, by a white student on a black student is certainly due to racism.  The victim cannot simply be a random “wrong place, wrong time” target of aggression.

4)  The perpetrators of (white/black) racial discrimination are always white while the victims are always black.

According to the authors, it is a “decline in sensitivity with severe consequences” when the group that viewed the “colorblind” presentation detected racial discrimination less often than the group that had viewed the “diversity” presentation.  It is left unstated how we know, for a fact, that the latter two hypothetical stories were due to racism.

What we have here might qualify as “research” but only insofar as it is to sharpen the tools of childrens’ indocrination.  The researchers are training children to detect racism in every inconsiderate or violent act perpetrated by whites against non-whites.  It is an example of the early brainwashing of whites to believe that it is more evil to be mean to a black child than to be mean to a white child.  Also, it is an example of the brainwashing of blacks to believe that every slight or misfortune they may suffer in life is the result of racism.  If this is not child abuse, I do not know what is.

When these children get older, the brainwashing continues.  They had already been taught that there are no “random” acts of cruelty against “people of color” by whites – but the newspapers and television teach them that almost every act of cruelty by “people of color” against whites is “random” and “not a hate crime”.  Since they are raised, from an early age, to accept this blatant double standard, most of them will never recognize it for what it is.

Some of them do notice the double standard and suddenly they see it all around them every day.  They notice other things too – like the very Jewish sounding name of the researcher above.  They become angry and they often become radicalized.  It is easy to become radicalized when one suffers constant oppression and no official organs recognize one’s plight.  Unfortunately, becoming radicalized and angry is synonymous with becoming hysterical for many people.  When others see a hysterical person, his views suffer diminished credibility.  Herein lies one of our primary challenges: to remain angry enough to do constructive things – but not so angry that we come across as hysterical.

About jewamongyou

I am a paleolibertarian Jew who is also a race-realist. My opinions are often out of the mainstream and often considered "odd" but are they incorrect? Feel free to set me right if you believe so!
This entry was posted in examples of propaganda, government/corporate discrimination against whites, nurture vs. nature and I.Q., racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to “Science” at The Kellog School of Management

  1. countenance says:

    a) a colorblind approach that de-emphasizes racial differences and focuses on our similarities or b) an approach that emphasizes diversity and draws attention to inequalities.

    So you have either a)firing squad or b)hanging gallows. What say you, Mr. Hobson?

  2. Annoyed says:

    These “studies” always make me throw up a little, the worst part about them(and generally the entire social science section of universities) is that they are almost always governmentally funded.

    We, the White population is literally paying people to develop ways to destroy White racial consciousness and disintegrate us.

    The whole thing is mind boggling when you think about it.

  3. fred says:

    This was a very interesting article and made a lot of great points. I agree with all of them by the way. I can’t discuss them all so I’ll touch on the one that’s always puzzled me. The researcher’s name does kind of jump out at you. I’ve always wondered just how deliberate something like that really is. Obviously, the guy knows he’s indoctrinating kids. But is he doing it because he is a typical SWPL idiot. Or because he’s malicious? I suppose there are some who fall into each category. And there are probably some who fall into both categories.

  4. Gay State Girl says:

    I think the best way to teach tolerance is not to talk about race at all in the early years. Diversity education will just breed resentment among the white students and cause them to harbor more hard feelings to the others. You can teach children of all races together in one classroom, but emphasize effective communication skills, math, science, and give them strong foundations in business and technology.

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      Diversity education will just breed resentment among the white students and cause them to harbor more hard feelings to the others.

      I’m living proof of that. The main reason why I’m not so fond of “diversity” is because I know it too well.

      • Gay State Girl says:

        I wasn’t even exposed to that many blacks. We had the METCO program, which bused a limited amount of inner city minority students to affluent towns, and my exposure to these students wasn’t all together bad. The problem for us is that our school district was ruled by liberal jews and multiculturalism was pretty much intertwined with the rest of the curriculum. If the teacher assigned a book, it would be about another culture. If she wrote a math problem on the board, it would read like, “If Ichiro has 6 Japanese cherries, and Tariq has 8 Iraqi figs, how much fruit would they have in total. And this does not begin to describe the mullticultural curriculum itself. We were regurlarly treated to guest speakers of different cultures who engaged us in projects involving their culture. My fourth grade teacher was obsessed with Native Americans and made us all adopt Native American names and “Power Animals.” Every day she would lead us in the Sioux spirit ceremony. If this does not cross the line of separation between church and state, I don’t know what does.

  5. Gay State Girl says:

    I did have some bad experiences with black children. As I mentioned before, I have Aspergers and motor delays so everyone would bully me but blacks were phisically abusive. I responded by calling a black girl a nigger and of course I got the full blame.

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      Gay State Girl, Gay State Girl, at that moment you forgot that blacks are the ultimate protected class who can never say or do any wrong!

      *sarcasm off*

      If you’re a white person getting messed with by a black person, you had better just submit and take it, or you’ll get the blame.

      Kinda reminds me of this story.

      Blacks are allowed to abuse whites, physically and verbally, with no consequences, but if whites even slightly retaliate, then they’re the ones who get in trouble.

      Of course, blacks think it’s the other way around, and think that I’m full of it.

      But I can link to many other stories.

      http://www.vdare.com/roberts/hate.htm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s