'Race norming' | Syracusefan.com

'Race norming'

I read an article on this. As I understood it, this was the “norm” in the industry and was adopted by the parties.
The “norm” was done with the presumption that (all) blacks came from lower socio-economic and educational backgrounds, so their baseline was different.
I may have misunderstood the article, but I didn’t take it that malice by the NFL is part of this. iIt was how concussions were measured.
 
I read an article on this. As I understood it, this was the “norm” in the industry and was adopted by the parties.
The “norm” was done with the presumption that (all) blacks came from lower socio-economic and educational backgrounds, so their baseline was different.
I may have misunderstood the article, but I didn’t take it that malice by the NFL is part of this. iIt was how concussions were measured.
That’s a great definition of institutional racism.
 
I read an article on this. As I understood it, this was the “norm” in the industry and was adopted by the parties.
The “norm” was done with the presumption that (all) blacks came from lower socio-economic and educational backgrounds, so their baseline was different.
I may have misunderstood the article, but I didn’t take it that malice by the NFL is part of this. iIt was how concussions were measured.


Does that mean that they have less cognitive functioning to lose - or that they are less deserving of compensation for losing it?
 
Does that mean that they have less cognitive functioning to lose - or that they are less deserving of compensation for losing it?
Again, as I understood the article, when the original scale was developed it was an attempt to level the measurement with a presumption that we find abhorrent today. If you want to accuse science as being racist, that raises whole other issues
In the end, if the standardized “baseline” cognitive abilities were lower for blacks, then there cognitive declines would be seen as less, resulting in fewer, and less valuable awards.
Again, as I understand the article, the way that was agreed upon by all parties was the medically accepted method.
It’s interesting that now, with SAT scores and NCAA eligibility, many of the arguments about the socio-economic impact on standardized test are being retooled to assail the merit of the tests. The problem is that they are wrongful applied to blacks as a race, rather than applied based upon income, parental education, parental marital status, school district, etc.
African-American students at FM or JD are likely to score far higher on SATs than white children in Altmar, NY whose parent are 3rd generation on public assistance.
There is nothing inherent in race with regard to intelligence or the ability to learn.
 
Again, as I understood the article, when the original scale was developed it was an attempt to level the measurement with a presumption that we find abhorrent today. If you want to accuse science as being racist, that raises whole other issues
In the end, if the standardized “baseline” cognitive abilities were lower for blacks, then there cognitive declines would be seen as less, resulting in fewer, and less valuable awards.
Again, as I understand the article, the way that was agreed upon by all parties was the medically accepted method.
It’s interesting that now, with SAT scores and NCAA eligibility, many of the arguments about the socio-economic impact on standardized test are being retooled to assail the merit of the tests. The problem is that they are wrongful applied to blacks as a race, rather than applied based upon income, parental education, parental marital status, school district, etc.
African-American students at FM or JD are likely to score far higher on SATs than white children in Altmar, NY whose parent are 3rd generation on public assistance.
There is nothing inherent in race with regard to intelligence or the ability to learn.

That doesn't answer either of my questions - until the last sentence.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
170,352
Messages
4,886,418
Members
5,995
Latest member
meierscreek

Online statistics

Members online
329
Guests online
1,813
Total visitors
2,142


...
Top Bottom