Sensible thoughts from syndicated columnist William Rasberry: “Kids won’t learn if we expect failure”:
Too many of us — and not, by any means, just teachers — have accepted that many of our children really cannot learn very much. We bemoan that fact. We are deeply sorry that it’s true, and we are handy with a grocery list of culprits. But fundamentally, we believe that the children of what is called the underclass can’t learn.
Paige sees the evidence for this belief (which we seldom acknowledge out loud) in our resistance to national testing and national (and international) standards.
I see it more pervasively. America’s black leaders, back in the day, took it as their key responsibility to get us ready to compete in an unfair world. Today’s leadership, or so it seems to me, sees its primary responsibility as protesting the unfairness.
The difference is between remedying underperformance and merely explaining it.
When [Secretary of Education Rod] Paige and I were boys, explanations of black disadvantage were so obvious as to be pointless. The thing our people needed, our leaders kept reminding us, was to do well in spite of the disadvantage, to become productive, to make ourselves necessary. Today’s leaders put less emphasis on what we must do and more on what is done to us.
They aren’t wrong. But the unintended consequence of their emphasis is to make us feel more like powerless victims of circumstances we can’t control and less like individuals capable of significant achievement.
Wait, you mean a culture that embraces victimization is a culture that produces more and more victims? Why, that’s absurd! It would mean (…”carry the four…”) that the operative variable in this equation is the embracing and not the victimhood (which itself may or may not be real). Which means in turn that — should we embrace only the highest standards — we’d likely produce more and more kids who strive for…higher standards…?
But that can’t be. It’s too simple. There must be deeper causes at issue here. Mustn’t there?
Otherwise, what’s to keep me from shooting sociologists on sight?

Otherwise, what’s to keep me from shooting sociologists on sight?
You would simply be perpetuating a cycle of violence, leading to dysfunctional family patterns in the sociologist community, and damaging the self-esteem of children in the process.
Though I suppose you can’t really be held responsible, being a victim of a repressive shame-based patriarchy. Fire away.
Awesome!
(Just to make sure I’ve got this right, you’re saying I can shoot the sociologists and their kids, right? That’s just tits!)
Uh-oh, root causes again. Next thing you know, these desperate folks will be strapping on nail studded Semtex belts and detonating themselves in nurseries and at weddings.
And it’ll be ALL OUR FAULT!!!
“Otherwise, what’s to keep me from shooting sociologists on sight?”
Uh, I’m drawing a blank.
If you remember “Bored of the Rings,” you’ll recall when Dildo Buggers first encountered Goddam and thought about killing him, but pity stayed his hand.
“It’s a pity I’m out of bullets,” he thought.