SAILER SAYS EVANSTON BLACKS ARE POOR UNDERCLASS \doc\web\99\09\evanston.txt From: SteveSlr@aol.com Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 11:41:14 EDT << Louis Andrews here - The NYTs carried a lengthy, interesting article on the failure of upper and middle class black kids from good homes to make the grade: http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/070499school-blacks-edu.html >> The key point glossed over in the article is that most black students at Evanston Township are poor. Steve Sailer here: This article focuses on the high school in Evanston, Illinois, just north of Chicago and the home of Northwestern U. Having seriously looked into moving to Evanston, I'd like to give a little background on what's really going on there, since it's an interesting situation: a highly liberal community where integration is making white kids more anti-black than their parents. I'm going to focus not on academic achievement and intelligence, like Louis Andrews did, but on civil behavior. The former is a difficult problem ("the bottom half of the bell curve ye shall always have with ye"), but the latter is one that America used to be much better at encouraging, and we could be again. The key point glossed over in the article is that most black students at Evanston Township are poor. The article says, "At Evanston, 42 percent of the high school's 2,900 students are black. And while there is poverty here -- about 30 percent of the students, mostly blacks, receive free or reduced-price lunches -- there is also a solid black middle class." I'd read this as suggesting that about 2/3rds of the black students are getting subsidized lunches, since there is negligible white poverty in Evanston. Various friends and acquaintances, white and black, say the problem with Evanston is that there's a sizable enough black slum that a great many of the middle class black families have to send their kids to Catholic schools to keep them away from underclass blacks. (Middle class blacks greatly fear their children being sucked back down by exposure to the malign charisma of the 'hood.) Thus, the public schools end up dominated by two groups: poor blacks and white kids of liberal parents (e.g., Northwestern profs) who want their kids to experience a "multicultural environment". The white kids, however, having to actually to experience the multiculturalism that their parents like to theorize about, grow up constantly afraid of being beaten up by homeys, and thus become more anti-black than their parents. Sports teams and other voluntary activities tend to be segregated by race (e.g., the soccer team has practically no African-Americans.) This kind of phenomenon is one reason why middle class blacks have so few kids -- it's expensive to insulate their children from poor blacks in the public schools. And low fertility among middle class blacks is a reason by slow black progress -- despite the successful efforts of black individuals to raise themselves, the next generation of African-Americans always seems to start over in the same place because of differential fertility rates by class. Much of the black progress before the Civil Rights era was based on class segregation. For example, nosy black landlords (e.g., boarding house owners) in Harlem during the "Renaissance" were extremely persnickety about whom they rented to. They'd evict tenants for "low-class" behavior at the drop of a hat. This set standards that poorer blacks were incentivized to live up to. Thanks to the ACLU, however, the power of landlords to act as civilizing agents was largely broken. It's time for a general reassessment of how black families who are trying to live up to better standards of behavior can segregate themselves from their brethren who aren't trying. Steve Sailer http://members.aol.com/steveslr ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FreeShop is the #1 place for free and trial offers and great deals! Try something new and discover more ways to save! http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/381 How to contribute to H-Bd: 1. To reply privately to just the sender of this message, click the "Reply" button on your email package. 2. To reply publicly to the entire H-Bd list, click the "Reply All" (or equivalent) button on your email package. 3. To start a thread, email your message to h-bd@egroups.com . Hi all, Arthur Hu here, I did a study published in National Review which showed that although the desegregationists insist that mostly white schools are better than mostly black schools, if you look at the blacks who are already in the best white suburbs, their test scores are either no better than their urban counterparts (Seattle 35-45 vs suburbs 40 or so) or at best no better than 50 while whites and asians in affluent suburbs are scoring 70-85.

Asians on the hand generally score as well as whites in the towns one or two notchs up the scale.

However, what the PC totally ignore is that even the poorest most segregated minority kids can peform at excellent levels 60-85th percentile if put on a rigorous facts-first curriculum completely at odds with progressive constructivist reform so popular. Examples, Barclay school in Baltimore, and Wesley in Houston.

So it is studying and mastering the material that counts, not race, desegregation, or income!

I consider it to be absolutely criminal that the press does not hold affluent suburbs accountable to race education parity, preferring to blame all minority underperformance on "defective" urban schools. In fact, in Seattle, I'm the only guy who figured out that with 70th percentile scores, Seattle whites are _better_ educated than any suburb except Mercer Island, at 40th percentile, their blacks do nearly as well as the fancy eastside suburbs of Bellevue and Issaquah.