Because it can be damaging to students if she expects one group to do poorly
Why this fact is controversial is beyond me
Georgetown law professor fired for accidentally blurting out the truth
-
Whatever differences you observe between w@@te and AA/l@tin@ students, the differences result from racism and unconscious bias. That's how this country determines the cause. AA and l@tin@ students blame the system without reflecting their effort level. They wait for someone to help instead of studying/working harder.
-
I don't think the observation that she made is incorrect as it's true that with AA, the black kids in these classes will do worse on average. And I do think a lot of professors have angst about that, since some w0ke bro might accuse us of racism when we're not the proximate cause for the disparity. That said, the way she says it is a bit disconcerting. "some of my lower ones", "good ones", etc. it's a bit weird.
Who cares if it’s a weird thing to say (of course it’s not though)
-
Unconscious bias is evil
Unconscious bias doesn't exist.
that is where you are thoroughly and utterly wrong
Uh-huh, suuure. Provide a shred of evidence. You can't.
There's a very very very famous paper about employment with Black vs White names. Also another very very very famous paper comparing employment for Mothers vs Non-mothers. There is solid evidence from good economists.
-
^ Imagine how hard it is to remember to stop recording
It actually can be hard to remember. I am constantly juggling the mic and camera mutes, depending on what's going on in the class. Often I forget to start the recording. A teacher has a lot to think about if you're doing it right. It can be very mentally demanding. If you're doing it right.
-
sure, you think so. you can live in your self-deluded bubble
yet another content-free response with no evidence or links.
Here, let me show you what evidence in support of a position looks like.
https://replicationindex.com/2020/12/13/defund-implicit-bias-research/
Some highly cited studies suggested that subliminal priming influences behaviour without awareness (Bargh et al., 1996; Devine, 1989). However, in the past decade it has become apparent that these results are not credible (Schimmack, 2020). The reason is that social psychologists did not use the scientific method properly. Instead of using experiments to examine whether an effect exists, they only looked for evidence that shows an effect. Studies that failed to show the expected effects of subliminal priming were simply not reported. As a result, even incredible subliminal priming studies that reversed the order of cause and effect were successful (Bem, 2011). In the 2010s, some courageous researchers started publish replication failures (Doyen et al., 2012). They were attacked for doing so because it was a well-known secrete among experimental social psychologists that many studies fail, but you were not supposed to tell anybody about it. In short, the evidence that started the implicit revolution (Greenwald & Banaji, 2017) is invalid and casts a shadow over the whole notion of prejudice without awareness.
-
sure, you think so. you can live in your self-deluded bubble
yet another content-free response with no evidence or links.
Here, let me show you what evidence in support of a position looks like.
https://replicationindex.com/2020/12/13/defund-implicit-bias-research/
Some highly cited studies suggested that subliminal priming influences behaviour without awareness (Bargh et al., 1996; Devine, 1989). However, in the past decade it has become apparent that these results are not credible (Schimmack, 2020). The reason is that social psychologists did not use the scientific method properly. Instead of using experiments to examine whether an effect exists, they only looked for evidence that shows an effect. Studies that failed to show the expected effects of subliminal priming were simply not reported. As a result, even incredible subliminal priming studies that reversed the order of cause and effect were successful (Bem, 2011). In the 2010s, some courageous researchers started publish replication failures (Doyen et al., 2012). They were attacked for doing so because it was a well-known secrete among experimental social psychologists that many studies fail, but you were not supposed to tell anybody about it. In short, the evidence that started the implicit revolution (Greenwald & Banaji, 2017) is invalid and casts a shadow over the whole notion of prejudice without awareness.i don't want to waste my efforts on discussing implicit bias with a person that is implicitly bias and is too bull-headed to be convinced otherwise. not worth it, so why do it? you're defensiveness already indicates you are one them
-
I don't think the observation that she made is incorrect as it's true that with AA, the black kids in these classes will do worse on average. And I do think a lot of professors have angst about that, since some w0ke bro might accuse us of racism when we're not the proximate cause for the disparity. That said, the way she says it is a bit disconcerting. "some of my lower ones", "good ones", etc. it's a bit weird.
Yep, not only is she guilty of openly observing the truth but she failed to do so with the effete delicacy required of us by our woke betters. As such, her career is toast.
-
Both of these professors were/are adjuncts. Tenure doesn't sound so bad, does it now?
Tenure wouldn’t protect you if you spoke any negative truth about AA.
Orly? Please give us 3 examples of tenured faculty who were fired because they spoke "negative truths about AA."
-
Both of these professors were/are adjuncts. Tenure doesn't sound so bad, does it now?
Tenure wouldn’t protect you if you spoke any negative truth about AA.
Orly? Please give us 3 examples of tenured faculty who were fired because they spoke "negative truths about AA."
It's just possible that admins would lie about why a firing is happening. Charles Negy, UCF, is an interesting recent case.