-The New York Times reports with phenomenal visualizations of the data. Although the data shows black females and latinos do just fine, The New York Times nonetheless make it all about racism. They count data when it can be interpreted by racism (against black men), but they don't count it when it shows no racism (against black women).
“you’ve got to explain to me why these putative ability differences aren’t handicapping women,” said David Grusky, a Stanford sociologist who has reviewed the research."— Eli (@EliWilliam2020) 3 April 2018
Yup. And yet you don't have to explain why racism isn't handicapping women? #MotivatedReasoning
-The study does find Black males do better in neighborhoods with less racial bias. How do they measure racial bias?
They measure it with implicit association tests (IAT), and google searches for racial epithets. Read or listen to Jesse Singal for a decent criticism of the implicit racial bias test.
-National Review argues that by adjusting for household income, the authors of the study reduce the importance of family structure.
-The most interesting paragraph in the authors easy to read summary of the paper:
Higher rates of father presence among low-income black households are associated with better outcomes for black boys, but is uncorrelated with the outcomes of black girls and white boys. Black father presence at the neighborhood level predicts black boys' outcomes irrespective of whether their own father is present or not, suggesting that what matters is not parental marital status itself, but rather community-level factors associated with the presence of fathers, such as role-model effects or changes in social norms.
