Thanks to the demographics of this country, the majority of kids failing academically in this country are white. The percentage of black kids who are failing academically is higher. An individual black kid is more likely to be failing academically than a white counterpart. But thanks to the fact that this remains a majority-white nation, most academic failure is found in white students. And the fact that we insist on viewing academic failure through a racial lens-- that we only ever talk about the need to solve the achievement gap, because we need to "be real", ensures that we won't confront the numerically larger problem of poor white children and their lack of academic achievement.

Were you one of those white kids who were failing in academics? What is served by pointing at that there are "more" white kids failing, when the only thing that matters is the percentage? If it were a 100% white country, then more white kids would still be failing. If whites were 13% of the population, fewer white kids would be failing. That says nothing at all about the reasons that whites are more intelligent than blacks.

Just because a higher number of blacks are failing doesn't mean they are less intelligent.

There could be other factors like their parents net income, the quality of their school, if the parents were educated etc....

Ok, you know your math but I'm not so sure you are good in other subjects.

Anyhow, we shouldn't be afraid to determine what these reasons are and if intelligence is one of them then we all need to deal with that. Being half asian I'm ok with this since we all know asians are the most intelligent!

No, academic performance doesn't neccessarily indicate intelligence -- though being poor or having uneducated parents doesn't either. What you people (appologists who cringe when someone points out that blacks are less intelligent) forget, is that white people, Asians, and Hispanics at every socio-economic level perform better than similarly situated blacks.

Have you heard of genetic clusters? DNA is used to classify people into clusters. These clusters are a lot more scientific than these so called broad 'races' you mention.

Are people from India 'blacks' in your classification system or Asian? Using genetic clusters Africa has many different ones. Thus one can get a more accurate picture of genetic differences.

I have to have at your bullshit 'you people'. I'm sure others have also associated you with a group also, but I will not do that since that is childish.

I'm all for pointing out some specific genetic cluster is less intelligent.

And if an unintelligent "genetic cluster" happens to be inhabited by a lot of black people, then I assume that you'd find it less offensive to talk about the abstract "cluster" than the specific "race"? Well, feel free.

I see you still don't get it. The genetic cluster is what is specific. It is determined based on very specific DNA patterns.

It is your broad categories of race that are abstract. Those are social and cultural concepts and paradigms.

And then you go off the deep end again with 'then I assume that you'd find it less offensive'.

As I said before I'm fine with any mature discussion and I don't find it offensive. I just want it based on science and this appears something you are unable to do.

My, one might think you were black and thus unintelligent.

I didn't mention specificity. I did, however, ask a specific question: if a genetic cluster is correlated with a specific race, then what difference would it make whether we talked about the cluster, or the race? If the cluster had no correlation to race, I would certainly see your point, but that isn't what you've said. There are genetic diseases, for instance, that effect blacks but not whites (and those that effect blacks at a greater rate than whites). One can claim that the fact that the people with a genetic disposition to a particular disease are any particular color is irrelevant, but one also can't deny the correlation (and, the correlation may be helpful in diagnosis).

Now, unless we are all going to start submitting to DNA tests so that people in whom our care is entrusted (doctors, teachers...etc) can know what they're working with, race is a convenient indicator. An honest approach would be to say that race and your genetic cluster on a specific trait are correlated at a rate of .7, so that those who need to know can assume certain things with a confidence of 70% that they're right. Depending on the importants of the situation, the responsible party may call for more testing to increase the confidence level, or accept 70% as "good enough", if the situation warrants.

This is how statistics should be used -- not as a political tool for preventing us from calling a "spade, a spade", if you'll pardon the pun.

There are many different genetic cluster for each of the commonly used 'races' and thus there isn't a one to one match. Thus there is a difference.

You are correct when you mention diseases that effect certain groups of people, but what the latest genetic reseach shows is these do NOT line up by what one defines as 'race' but by these more specific genetic clusters.

Take the sickle cell disease. Now the common understanding, even by doctors, is that this is a disease that effects 'blacks' but that really isn't true. When DNA is used to classify people into genetic clusters and since 'blacks' fall into many different clusters, some of these clusters have a lot higher rate of sickle cell and others do NOT.

This has major ramifications in treating the disease. Instead of just giving every 'black' the same diagnostic test just because they look 'black' they can use their DNA to target those individuals in the specific genetic cluster that are most likely to get the disease.

Very soon doctors will have a DNA profile for all their patients and these will pay a major role in how a doctor treats a patient (e.g. the odds one will get a heart attack, stroke, cancer, etc...).

Now I agree that in areas like schools this isn't going to happen. But if one is going to do a research study, it isn't difficult to ask those in this study to provide a DNA sample and to use that in the study.

And if based on this approach those culturally are defined as black do worst than so be it. At least then we will have something that the NAACP cannot say is a bias study!