Racial Progess

[Stadler]

I get news feeds periodically from my local news station, WFSB out of Hartford (CBS affiliate).  Within the last hour or so, I got one that read something like "Connecticut is a blue state; so you might be surprised where we are ranked on our racial progress!" and it proceeds to tell me we're ranked 11th for states with the LEAST racial progress.  It then links me to this:  http://www.wfsb.com/global/category.asp?c=208508&widgetid=209434&slideshowimageid=2

As you can imagine, I read all kinds of stuff into that headline; the main implication being that as a blue state, we would lead the world in racial progress, and those filthy conservatives in the red states will be lagging behind wishing they had segregated water fountains still.

Imagine my surprise when I saw the top eleven (the list is published by Wallethub.com):
1. District of Columbia (BLUE)
2. Wisconsin (Red in 2016, but BLUE in 2012 and 2008)
3. Minnesota (BLUE)
4. Vermont (BLUE)
5. South Dakota (Red)
6. Maine (BLUE)
7. Iowa (Red in 2016, but BLUE in 2012 and 2008)
8. Illinois (BLUE)
9.Pennsylvania (Red in 2016, but BLUE in 2012 and 2008)
10. Michigan (Red in 2016, but BLUE in 2012 and 2008)
11. Connecticut (BLUE)

Six blue and four more that are nominally blue but went for change in 2016.  Now, I'm not turning the tables and trying to imply that "liberals" are racists.    But I am saying that maybe our conventional wisdom isn't accurate.  Maybe our news outlets ought not play into those preconceptions when posting headlines (and I wrote an email to the guy who's byline was on the story saying just that).   The website does not contain that headline; I don't know if it changed or if it was only on the text messages linking to the story.

But maybe we shouldn't be so quick to point fingers and judge. 

[Adami]

You crazy. We all know liberals are all perfect saintly paragons of virtue, and conservatives idolize Hitler and Satan.

Stop trying to deny common sense.

[El Barto]

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-most-and-least-racial-progress/18428/#methodology

I think you can read quite a bit into the study, but distinction between the governing party isn't one of them. Geography plays a pretty big role. There's a pretty stark line between North and South. However, it looks to me like the discrepancy in the total number of black folk might be a bigger factor. SHouldn't come as much surprise that the whitest states have the least "racial progress." I suspect if you survey the black residents of Vermont they'll both tell you things suck pretty hard. 

Something that jumped out at me, if we do want to make this a partisan issue, is Texas's ranking. Very high in both education and health between black and white folk. Interesting because Texas consistently ranks bottom of the barrel in both categories. Leads me to believe that we strive to insure that everybody gets equally shitty social services, regardless of race.

[Cool Chris]

Did I miss where it outlined what exactly "racial progress" is, or is this the worst reporting ever?

[Adami]

Did I miss where it outlined what exactly "racial progress" is, or is this the worst reporting ever?

Their methodology section goes over it.

[El Barto]

Did I miss where it outlined what exactly "racial progress" is, or is this the worst reporting ever?

Racial Integration – Determined by subtracting the values attributed to whites and blacks for a given metric, using only the most recent available data.

Racial Progress – Determined by subtracting the values attributed to whites and blacks for a given metric, using the oldest available data and the most recent. Based on the result, we calculated the percentage of progress for that specific metric in the analyzed period.

edit: and without seeing the actual data this is all pretty meaningless. For all we know they're comparing 1859-2017 Alabama and Delaware from back a couple of weeks ago.

[Cool Chris]

Thanks guys somehow I only saw the slideshow. I'll casually challenge some of those metrics. Why is 'Share of Single-Parent Households' a factor in racial progress?

I suspect if you survey the black residents of Vermont they'll both tell you things suck pretty hard. 

Why? Just because they might be in the stark minority, it doesn't necessarily follow they are treated like garbage.

[Stadler]

Thanks guys somehow I only saw the slideshow. I'll casually challenge some of those metrics. Why is 'Share of Single-Parent Households' a factor in racial progress?

Well, see, that's part of the "implication", and for me a measure of bias in the methodology.  And it also raises a much bigger question:  what role does the State have in terms of either making sure parents get married or stay married?  I didn't want to divorce my ex, but once it became inevitable, the last thing I wanted was shit from the State of Connecticut over it.   I'm an intelligent, adult male that cares for his kid.  Stay the flip out of my (failing) marriage.   

I suspect if you survey the black residents of Vermont they'll both tell you things suck pretty hard. 

Why? Just because they might be in the stark minority, it doesn't necessarily follow they are treated like garbage.

Well, that's part of it, too, isn't it?    The fact is, African Americans make up about 13% of the population  in the States right now.  No matter how hard we try, no matter what social engineering we undertake, it will NEVER be '50-50'.   I think this gets missed when we talk about race.    On an individual level, if we're competing for a position or job or house, the black candidate ought to have a 50-50 shot at getting that prize (as against a white person, or other minority) but at the end of the day, in terms of racial demographics alone, we shouldn't see more than say 10 to 20% of African Americans in any given sub-population.  It's just math and statistics, not racism. 

[Stadler]

Did I miss where it outlined what exactly "racial progress" is, or is this the worst reporting ever?

I originally posted it thinking it was a smattering of both.