 |
||||||||
|
12/18/2002 04:10:00 AM | Timothy Slavery and Statistics Do you all remember the study on slavery and free blacks by Dartmouth Economics Professor Bruce Sacerdote? The Dartmouth had an article on it that I heard caused controversy. (They also ran a pretentious column in which the writer said: "I was recently quoted in the New York Times as saying....") I had a chance to read the actual paper earlier, but I want to talk about it now that I've finally finished my last assignment due this year (ironically, three statistics papers). The abstract says that Sacerdote compared "outcomes for former slaves and their children to outcomes for free balcks (pre-1865), and their children and grandchildren... I find that it took roughly two generations for the descendants of slaves to 'catch up' to descendants of free black men and women." Those quotes around 'catch up' are rather key, because it is not clear to me that 'convergence' between these two groups is evidence that descedents of slaves 'caught up' rather than free blacks 'fell back' relative to whites. The report makes major qualifications to its claims in the text of the paper, but the image that people get of the report is based on how the author, Dartmouth College's official press release, and The Dartmouth present what can be concluded from the study (note the similarities between the latter two sources). Sacerdote seems to be arguing that slavery's effects ended a generation of two after slavery and that is what is interesting about his study, namely that slavery doesn't have lingering economic effects for Blacks (and hence reparations advocates have no basis for their claim). In the conclusion of the paper, Sacerdote notes that "A major topic for future research is whether or not convergence within two generations is a common phenomenon observed after social barriers between groups are removed....If poltical changes in the 1960s and 1970s freed black workers from institutionalized discrimination, then perhaps black-white convergence might occur within one or two generations from now." One might just as well conclude that one type of discrimination is replaced with another (less malign?) version. But in the study itself, there are major qualifications to the claim in the abstract.. First Sacerdote says "I classify blacks as being born into slavery if they are born in a slave state before 1865." Sacerdote says this is "a reasonable assumption" as "94% of blacks in the South were slaves." So he compares Blacks who move out of the South to those whose families were already in the North, yet he notes in a footnte that "Clearly families that move are different than ones that stay and so I offer the various estimates of the effect of slavery not as perfect estimates, but rather as the best estimates i can devise." He later says another of his estimates should be taken "with a pound of salt.". (And of course, there is the obvious problem that measures like census data and literacy do not capture the full extent of position of Blacks in 19th century America). One could respond: well, there are difficulties with statistics, and this is a pretty good study given the limitations of statistics. Maybe, but I would respond we should acknowledge their limitations and not base our knowledge only on what can be (mis)measured. Someone who studied African American studies could probably critique the part of Sacerdote's study that relies on the testimony of 19th century Black intellectuals. We should be careful about statistical studies, as they are not completely objective and 'neutral': they makes assumption and draw unwarrented conclusions My friend Unai sent me this quote, supposedly from a Nixon advisor: statistics are like bikinis what they reveal is enticing what they conceal essential perma link |
| 0 comments
0 Comments: |
Dartmouth The Free Press Alums for Social Change The Green Magazine The Dartmouth Dartmouth Observer Dartmouth Review Dartlog Inner Office The Little Green Blog Welton Chang's Blog Vox in Sox MN Publius (Matthew Martin) Netblitz Dartmouth Official News Other Blogs Ampersand Atrios Arts & Letters Altercation Body and Soul Blog For America Brad DeLong Brad Plumer CalPundit Campus Nonsense Clarksphere Crooked Timber Cursor Daily Kos Dean Nation Dan Drezner The Front Line Instapundit Interesting Times Is That Legal? Talking Points Memo Lady-Likely Lawrence Lessig Lean Left Left2Right Legal Theory Matthew Yglesias Ms. Musings MWO Nathan Newman New Republic's &c. Not Geniuses Ornicus Oxblog Pandagon Political State Report Political Theory Daily Review Queer Day Roger Ailes SCOTUS blog Talk Left TAPPED Tacitus This Modern World Tough Democrat Untelevised Volokh Conspiracy Washington Note X. & Overboard Magazines, Newspapers and Journals Boston Globe Ideas Boston Review Chronicle of Higher Education Common Dreams Dissent In These Times Mother Jones New York Review of Books New York Times Salon Slate The American Prospect The Nation The New Republic The Progressive Tikkun Tom Paine Village Voice Washington Monthly Capitol Hill Media ABC's The Note American Journalism Review Columbia Journalism Review CQ Daily Howler Donkey Rising The Hill Medianews National Journal NJ Hotline NJ Wake-up call NJ Early Bird NJ Weekly Political Wire Roll Call Spinsanity Search Search the DFP  |
|||||||
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.