[simplotek]

I'm not sure you read your own source. It seems you just cherry-picked a couple of passages that support racist views and decided to ignore everything else.

Your own source mentions not only the correlation between income and SAT scores, but it also points out a link between quality of the education services provided to some communities and social pressure. It's also telling that the outliers are explained in a way that boils down to "they succeed in spite of everything we throw at them".

[derangedHorse]

It seems like you’re projecting racist views onto the parent comment. It never discounted the possibility of other race-related factors being the cause of the achievement gap, it was just challenging whether all of it could be accredited to wealth disparities.

[simplotek]

> It seems like you’re projecting racist views onto the parent comment.

What? OP's argument was purely race-based. OP made absolutely no point other than underlining race-based correlations. If you remove all race-based remarks from OP's post, nothing is left.

> It never discounted the possibility of other race-related factors (...)

In your own words, you describe OP's post as focusing on "race-related factors", and even then you try to accuse those who point that out of "projecting racist views"?

Are you serious?

[anonymoushn]

For example, the differences in scores that is not explained by income could be caused entirely by disparate treatment of children by adults based on the child's race. That would be a race-related factor.

[paisawalla]

That's quite some stretching you're doing.

1. I'm pointing out that poverty and racial factors often confound each other. The comment I was replying to made it seem like racial effects disappear when you control for income. If you care about racial equality, then I would think it's in your favor to argue against someone who says racial effects don't exist.

2. It's not racist to point out that certain outcomes correlate with race.