Too handwavy, the cure for discrimination is at the very minimum adequate public funding for primary and secondary education _everywhere_ (with adequate student to teacher ratios _everywhere_).
Although the discussion is at NYU this problem is not limited to the US. The issue with this and other societal problems is that state governance is operated in 4 year cycles (much like corporations now are restrained by the next quarter). Public education is something you invest in now to see a benefit of 25 years down the road. Until we collectively solve the incentives around long term policy all other aspects of addressing discrimination fall short.
> the cure for discrimination is at the very minimum adequate public funding for primary and secondary education _everywhere_
So how does increasing the funding of poor white students advance Kendi's "anti-racist" program, precisely?
Clearly there's no logical link between the two concepts of discrimination and government school funding, at best a historical one and where I live, government schools get way more funding per pupil ($10k more) than private school tuition. But that doesn't make the government schools good, as a rule.
> the cure for discrimination is at the very minimum adequate public funding for primary and secondary education _everywhere_ (with adequate student to teacher ratios
You know that when you're describing a policy with vague words like "adequate" you are actually giving yourself an escape hatch in case the policy fails?
"The policy was great, it's just that funding wasn't adequate".
Which makes your policy unfalsifiable and almost religious in nature.
"Adequate" is less vague than most other ways you could describe levels of funding though.
You can easily enough define a base set of requirements that all educational institutions need to be able to provide (independent of any proposed goal such as combating entrenched discrimination against particular minorities) and establish what the minimal funding necessary for that much is. And if after doing so, given a reasonable span of time of ensuring those requirements are met (let's say 10 years), there's still no measurable (relative) improvement in educational outcomes for those you're aiming to help, it's fair to say the theory is falsified - or at least, you've proven that adequate funding for all education institutions regardless of location or ethnic make-up of students isn't enough on its own. Which personally is the result I would expect to see, for various complex reasons - while I'm not a fan of policies that explicitly show favoritism to individuals based on ethnicity etc., I don't have a problem with accepting that it costs more to provide effective education to students from certain socio-economic backgrounds, and therefore there's an argument for allocating taxpayer funding accordingly (esp. in parts of the world, and it's certainly the case here in Australia, where even public schools rely on a percentage of their funding to come from the community/parents).
Ok I will bite, adequate budget means you can keep a 20 students to teacher ratio. And you have enough school supplies (for all students) in order for teachers to follow their programmes.
Too handwavy, the cure for discrimination is at the very minimum adequate public funding for primary and secondary education _everywhere_ (with adequate student to teacher ratios _everywhere_).
Although the discussion is at NYU this problem is not limited to the US. The issue with this and other societal problems is that state governance is operated in 4 year cycles (much like corporations now are restrained by the next quarter). Public education is something you invest in now to see a benefit of 25 years down the road. Until we collectively solve the incentives around long term policy all other aspects of addressing discrimination fall short.