|
|
|
|
|
|
by 5upplied_demand
99 days ago
|
|
|
You haven't addressed the breakdown I provided showing why those initial assumptions don't match the data. Can we acknowledge that the original premise was based on a misinterpretation of the figures rather than just delete the history of your statement? |
|
|
> Your source (below) says that Hispanic and black student enrollment didn't change, just white enrollment. Maybe there are other factors?
> "First off, no statistical relationship existed during those years between Asian American student enrollment and that of students from other groups, such as African Americans or Hispanics"
But you omitted the portion after the semicolon:
"First off, no statistical relationship existed during those years between Asian American student enrollment and that of students from other groups, such as African Americans or Hispanics; therefore, white movement was a reaction not to the broader emergence of non-white neighbors, but to Asians specifically."
To be totally fair to you, the first clause in isolation clearly means what you interpreted it to mean, it seems like the author of the article doesn't understand what "correlation" means. But it looks like the co-author of the underlying study draw the same conclusion as I did:
"'If we just look at the basic correlations, we don’t see this kind of white flight from low-income suburbs,' said Boustan. 'To me, this very clearly rules out basic racial animus.'"
The rest of the article explains that the white flight is caused by dislike of the increased competition Asian students bring, not racial animus like you suggested.