Got this from a brother on a listserv:
America has lost a generation of Black boys
There is no longer a need for dire predictions, hand-wringing, or apprehension about losing a generation of Black boys. It is too late. In education, employment, economics, incarceration, health, housing, and parenting, we have lost a generation of young Black men. The question that remains is will we lose the next two or three generations, or possibly every generation of Black boys hereafter to the streets, negative media, gangs, drugs, poor education, unemployment, father absence, crime, violence and death.
Most young Black men in the United States don’t graduate from high school. Only 35% of Black male students graduated from high school in Chicago and only 26% in New York City, according to a 2006 report by the Schott Foundation for Public Education. Only a few black boys who finish high school actually attend college, and those few Black boys who enter college, nationally, only 22% of them finish college. Young Black male students have the worst grades, the lowest test scores, and the highest dropout rates of all students in the country.
When these young Black men don’t succeed in school, they are much more likely to succeed in the nation’s criminal justice and penitentiary system. And it was discovered recently that even when a young Black man graduates from a U.S. college, there is a good chance that he is from Africa, the Caribbean or Europe, and not the United States.
Black men in prison in America have become as American as apple pie.
There are more Black men in prisons and jails in the United States (about 1.1 million) than there are Black men incarcerated in the rest of the world combined. This criminalization process now starts in elementary schools with Black male children as young as six and seven years old being arrested in staggering numbers according to a 2005 report, Education on Lockdown by the Advancement Project. The rest of the world is watching and following the lead of America. Other countries including England, Canada, Jamaica, Brazil and South Africa are adopting American social policies that encourage the incarceration and destruction of young Black men.
This is leading to a world-wide catastrophe.
But still, there is no adequate response from the American or global black community. Worst of all is the passivity, neglect and disengagement of the Black community concerning the future of our Black boys. We do little while the future lives of Black boys are being destroyed in record numbers.The schools that Black boys attend prepare them with skills that will make them obsolete before, and if, they graduate. In a strange and perverse way, the Black community,
itself, has started to wage a kind of war against young Black men and has become part of this destructive process.
Who are young Black women going to marry? Who is going to build and maintain the economics of Black communities? Who is going to anchor strong families in the Black community? Who will young Black Boys emulate as they grow into men? Where is the outrage of the Black community at the destruction of its Black boys? Where are the plans and the supportive actions to change this? Is this the beginning of the end of the Black people in America?
The list of those who have failed young Black men includes our government, our foundations, our schools, our media, our Black churches, our Black leaders, and even our parents. Ironically, experts say that the solutions to the problems of young Black men are simple and inexpensive, but they are not easy or popular. It is not that we lack solutions as much as it is that we lack the will to implement these solutions to save Black boys. It seems that government is willing to pay billions of dollars to lock up young Black men, rather than the millions it would take to prepare them to become viable contributors and valued members of our society.
Please consider these simple goals that can lead to solutions for fixing the problems of young Black men: Short term 1) Teach all Black boys to read at grade level by the third grade and to embrace education. 2) Provide positive role models for Black boys. 3) Create a stable home environment for Black boys that includes contact with their fathers. 4) Ensure that Black boys have a strong spiritual base. 5) Control the negative media influences on Black boys. 6) Teach Black boys to respect all girls and women. Long term 1) Invest as much money in educating Black boys as in locking up Black men. 2) Help connect Black boys to a positive vision of themselves in the future. 3) Create high expectations and help Black boys live into those high expectations. 4) Build a positive peer culture for Black boys. 5) Teach Black boys self-discipline, culture and history. 6) Teach Black boys and the communities in which they live to embrace education and life-long learning.
Again, no politics. A poor conception of families (technically can’t BLACK WOMEN fill the economics gap purportedly left by black men?). And the data is a bit off too–none of the graduation rates take transfers into account. I’ve been thinking about the concept of a “poison pill” as a way of explaining the various solutions and prescriptions that people (well-meaning and other-wise) put forth for black people. This is a prime example of well meaning ideas gone awry. (Edited to add: I think Earl’s critique appeared first, but whatever the case is worth reading.)
I have seen this one going around on the Kwaku Network. It’s hard to know who takes this kind of stuff seriously. I’m just about done trying to figure that out. I note is passing that I would imagine this is the kind of nonsense that brings people towards the idea that this definition of ‘black’ is a different race (vis a vis Pew).
Great Doc I was getting nervous (smile),what’s bad,there are people who believe this bs.
Thank you for your comments on the article I wrote. The reality is what it is, regardless as to whether people want to believe it. Educate or Die!
Phillip Jackson
Philip, I disagree with your take on reality, and on your prescriptions for it. BUT I sincerely appreciate the work you do, and I appreciate you writing it. I didn’t link to you directly only because I didn’t know the source. I’ll do so in another post.
Lester,
Where should I look for good stats on all these issues? In particular, what is the fraction of American-born blacks that graduate highschool, end up in prison, graduate college, etc.? My understanding is that these numbers are pretty grim, but I’m curious where I’d get accurate numbers, rather than numbers that don’t correct for stuff that’s obvious to experts but not to amateurs like me.
I guess I’m curious why you thought the prescriptions were bad. The obvious problem I saw was that they were a wishlist of things we mostly don’t know how to do. I mean, it would surely be better if most kids were born to married mothers and were raised by two parents, it would be wonderful if we could close the achievement gap, etc. But we don’t know how to do that, at least based on what we’ve managed so far.
As far as the first question just read Earl’s response (linked above). He links to a report that actually gets the interpretation of the data right.
As far as the second question I’m going to throw out some issues.
1. I’ve no problem here, though I’d ask what “embracing education” means (and also why hasn’t this happened if indeed this HASN’T happened).
2. I’d rather have people exposed to a range of folks than not, but what is the empirical relationship between “positive role models” and economic advancement?
3. This isn’t short term…and given that it isn’t short term I’d focus more on the stable environment (which entails RESOURCES) than I would on fathers.
4. Agreed, unless this is a call for religion.
5. Agreed, but this isn’t short term, and requires systemic change.
Long Term
1. Agreed (strongly).
I’d toss the rest, as they work on the assumption that black people have cultural deficits that are either as significant as the resource deficits or perhaps CAUSE the resource deficits.
Check out the Fourth Season of The Wire (now on dvd) if you want to see what types of damage are being visited upon black boys and girls in k-12 education. This stuff isn’t cultural at all….
I thank everyone for their ideas for improving our plight. Now it is time for action.
Phillip Jackson
I have a question for you re: comment #7 item #3. Exactly how will “resources” replace the emotional, moral and mental influence of a father? And why do we have to choose between “resources” and the presence of fathers?
malik you’ve got two families. one set is resource poor (little money, little education, little access to either) with two parents, the other resource rich (massive money, massive education, massive access to both) with two parents.
if everything else is equal…it is clear which parents have the best ability to provide for their children.
if we then change the demographics of the families. both families have the SAME level of resources, but one is one-parent (doesn’t matter what the gender is), and one is two-parent (doesn’t matter what the genders are). i think it is clear here as well.
but what you seem to be saying is that two parents with low resources are better than one parent with massive resources.
when you compare “moral” and “mental” stuff to real resources–to money, to education–you are making psychic resources the equivalent of physical resources. and because the central issue is poverty, the only reason i can provide for why you’d make this move, is ideology. the common sense narrative is that “two parent families work better.” when the answer is really “families with resources work better”. so instead of working for the proxy–getting that extra parent in–why don’t we just go for the resources?
because we aren’t socialized to look for systemic solutions to these types of problems. in most other industrialized nations, no one would try to go after ‘deadbeat dads’ at least not without first making sure the mother is taken care of. whether this means getting 6 months paid leave for childcare, or whatever is required.
Doc, I asked a question, I didn’t make an assertion. For the record, my take on the matter is that you’re presenting a false dichotomy. We don’t have to choose between addressing the absence of fathers or providing families with economic resources. Clearly, we have to do both at the same time. Clearly, a family without a father is diminished, both socially and economically, but it’s just as clear that a father who himself doesn’t have access to social and economic resources can’t materially improve the situation of his family. However I don’t think material prosperity is the sole criteria by which to evaluate the benefit of a father in the home. For example, let me pose this question to you, a question which I’ve had to grapple with myself. Let’s say a father has the opportunity to earn an enormous amount of money for himself by taking an very dangerous (and legal) job. The amount of money he could earn would probably make them financially stable for at least a decade. But he may not ever come home. Do you do it, for the sake of your family? Or do you decide that no amount of money is worth leaving your wife and kids behind? I think most folks in a loving family would decide that no matter how much they have to scrap and scrape, having dad around is worth more than any amount of “resources”. So, I have to disagree with your assertion that one parent with massive resources is necessarily better than two parents with low resources. This is an issue with both personal and economic dimensions, and we have to grapple fully with both in order to come up with sound solutions.
dang unclosed tags.
tell me what you want to do and i’ll change it (and delete this comment after i do so)….
……
You’re right. You did ask a question. So switch every time I say “you” to something like “folks.” We’ve gotten to a place ideologically where we’ve in effect taken the discussion about social justice and about ameliorating suffering due to the lack of resources off of the table, and replaced it with discussions of individual initiative and family formation. The line about the nuclear family predates moynihan but attains a certain force with him. It isn’t that black families are being shredded by structural factors, it is that their very structure (as they rely upon a single mother) is uncivilized and backwards.
I don’t buy this. I believe that the central family unit is whatever individuals CHOOSE that unit to be. Now “choose” here doesn’t mean that everything is everything, and that every sister who wants a husband can just choose that to be their reality and it’ll OCCUR. But it does mean that instead of taking a single mother with two kids and saying “we need to get you a husband so those kids can get better” we need to be saying “let’s see what you need in the way of resources so you can take care of your kids better and give them a better future.” I don’t think that the answer in this circumstance is ‘a father’, but rather ‘stuff.’
I disagree. It is diminished IF EVERYTHING ELSE IS CONTROLLED FOR. And not even then. Clearly a family without resources is diminished. But families without fathers exist and actually thrive. Because to be honest, some fathers don’t need to see their children.
I do it, if the job is something I am qualified to do.
Finally:
For me this is a public policy issue. We’re talking about literally millions upon millions of families. The personal has a place, in organizing folks to understand their circumstances. But we shouldn’t be legislating what the correct family structure looks like.
A Generation of bad analysis about black boys http://t.co/tiChu2g4
From the Archives: A Generation of bad analysis about black boys http://t.co/tiCcWs6U