Strategy to End Scientific Racism

Let's all say thanks to Percy Lavon Julian who, 
together with others, invented/developed chemical birth control 
and cortisone.

If you've read my past two posts, I've been pondering the subject of scientific racism, as well as a different U.S. public school model to combat scientific racism. I honestly believe that if done correctly, this would better follow the First Amendment than current practices. I'll try to get my remaining thoughts out in this post. While this post focuses strictly on scientific racism, I've shared many thoughts on systemic racism in the criminal justice system and in the hearts and minds of people who create and influence systems here and here. However, I now think that scientific racism may be the sneakiest form of all, from my understanding. 

If you haven't heard the term scientific racism before, it's using scientific findings or claims to support supposed superiority or inferiority among races. It is sometimes used to justify the mistreatment of one group of human beings by others due to the other group's said biological inferiority. Charles Darwin shows much evidence of this type of thinking. It's actually quite disturbing if you look at his racist text in his work The Descent of Man, as I did two posts back. This can also play out in medical interactions. This study found that, in the U.S., African Americans are less likely to receive care by a cardiologist while admitted to the ICU for heart failure. There is much more evidence to such inequalities, which one can research. 

Check out this Smithsonian Magazine article about scientific racism today. Here are the main points I want to highlight. The author claims that:

1. Results of research are influenced by the biases of people conducting the research. 

2. Most scientists refrain from comparing races scientifically after seeing how it was used to fuel and justify hate, such as in Nazi Germany. 

3. The genetic make up of all humans is extremely similar, no matter what racial differences are visible, leading to the saying that race is a social construct. 

4. Some scientists still do study and publish "race science", often used to reinforce white supremacy, which is frowned upon, but hard to contest, as proving something wrong scientifically takes time.

5. Scientific racial differences should not be ignored completely, but should be examined responsibly, and stereotypes should be avoided. 

After much reflection, what I want to say about this subject is that the danger in viewing human beings through simply a scientific lens is that science is the study of the natural world and equality does not actually exist in nature. Months ago, my friend Martine sent me a video where Charles Barkley and a civil rights attorney Gerald Griggs interviewed Richard Spencer, who is the leader of the white supremist political group Alt-Right. You can see that Spencer is unashamed in his desire for white dominance and racial segregation. 

When asked if he believes in equality, Spencer called the idea "bullsh#t" and went onto say, "There's no equality in nature. There's difference." If the video isn't working for you, here is a clip on YouTube, but it cuts off before he says that line. 

I've come to realize that everyone who views the world primarily through a scientific lens realizes this last part that he said. Most believe that no one should discriminate against another, but I don't know that they believe that everyone is created equal, because they realize that natural selection and evolution does not create equality. So applying this to human society is social Darwinism, which was Hitler's basis. This is what the Smithsonian Magazine article linked and outlined above explains is frowned upon. 

Whether it be white superiority, black superiority, brown superiority, or what have you, it is always a possibility when you look at humans through a scientific lens. We are taught to not look for hierarchies in that way when dealing with our fellow humans, but scientifically speaking, they are natural and possible. You may say that race is a social construct and studies such as the human genome project show that there is no biological superiority or inferiority among races, but to me, that seems like the whole "color blind" approach. 

Some people psychologically deal with racial differences by saying they are color blind. They don't see race. But race difference is a quite visible thing so that hasn't turned out to be the best approach either. This study from the Association of Psychological Science discusses that. 

"The allure of color blindness is that it seems to offer a relatively simple framework for managing issues of race in contemporary society: If people do not notice race, then race will no longer matter. Yet as the research reviewed in this article shows, color blindness is far from a panacea, sometimes representing more of an obstacle than an asset to facilitating constructive race relations and equitable race-related policies."

I especially appreciate this woman's call to be color brave, rather than color blind. Here is the link to her TED talk, in case the video isn't popping up on your device. 

I mentioned that the claim that it has been scientifically determined that there is no inferiority or superiority among races compares to the color blindness approach. People can see right through it. As long as there is difference, there can potentially be inferiority or superiority. And there is not just difference in appearance, but other physical differences, such as sickle cell anemia and keloids, which affect some of my family members of African descent, as well as our students and their families, but I did not see them in my predominantly white circle in Virginia growing up. As the lone white person in my circle, I am physically affected by things that others around me are not, like skin infections in the summer months. I suppose you could argue that that may not be tied to my race, but the point is, there is difference correlated to race and it goes beyond physical appearance. This article shares a study which found whites are more prone to irregular heart rhythms.   

So we could continue on as we are, knowing that there are scientific differences between races and ethnicities, but trying to influence everyone to not go down the path of inferiority and superiority. However, I think there is a much better solution. And in order to give this solution a shot, we'll have to use our imagination and put aside some things from the past. We'll have to also rethink the First Amendment. 

My suggestion is that we bring God back into schools. Am I suggesting that we revert back to the Dark Ages, as one person said? No, not at all. I am suggesting that we include this very important topic into our public education because it is just that: a very important topic. I am also not claiming that this will be a cure for all, but if done correctly, a definite and necessary step in the right direction. 

 I understand that belief in God does not have to do with how educated or intelligent someone is. It has to do with what someone has experienced. Some are taught to look for and communicate with God from the time they are little and therefore have different experiences than others who are not taught that. Some who are brought up believing in God stop believing later in life because of their experiences, or lack of experiences. Others who were raised to not believe in God become strong believers and proponents of their belief because of experiences they had. Similar to those who experience racism, we should not judge someone else's experience because we have not experienced it ourselves. We should be open to listen and consider. 

I think that harm has been done in trying to block God out of schools completely. I am sure that there is a way to include him that does not establish or inhibit any religion. True, atheism will be challenged more under this model, but atheism and the theory of evolution as an explanation for the origin of life as we know it actually challenges all supernatural activity. If supernatural activity is presented as false or not important enough to include in school in any way, shape, or form, one can surely argue that this practice inhibits all religions other than atheism, while simultaneously establishing a religion or world view. We have to keep in mind that kids spend the majority of their young lives at school, so removing a topic completely is making a big statement. 

I am not suggesting that we teach religion or even study religion in public schools. I am suggesting that we recognize a higher power or creator or the possibility of one and define him as love. We should teach or at least recognize the possibility that he created all men equal, as is written in the Declaration of Independence. 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." 

That beautiful phrase which our country is founded on doesn't quite make sense if you replace creator with a scientific explanation, does it? Some will see that line and say that our forefathers did not intend it to include races other than their own, but it says what it says. It says all men. You can try to replacing creator with a scientific explanation, but our smart, critically thinking kids and adults will be able to see through it. Richard Spencer sure did. We have evolved into a species that recognizes that we all have certain unalienable Rights? It doesn't hold the same power, if you ask me. It seems like wishful thinking. We have evolved into a species where all individuals have evolved equally? Now, that's just contradictory through and through. 

When you look at humans and different ethnicities through the lens of a creation, created by a loving God, you can see or argue that God created variety, just as siblings have variety among them, but all are of equal importance to loving parents. There is no inferiority or superiority, but different strengths, weaknesses, and combinations. Earthly parents may make mistakes and kids might not feel equally loved, but omnipitent, omnipresent, loving God does not. Inequality we see in the world is the result of the decisions of people, who have free will, not God. If people practiced more love, like God wants, the inequality would disappear. This would go beyond just fighting scientific racism, but injustice in general. 

Not only would promoting this world view at school work to end scientific racism, but it would work against any faulty teachings at home or in places of worship that teach people that God cares about their cause to the point that they could harm another for it. As it is, perhaps too much is left in the hands of religion. Does the First Amendment mean that the government can give no teaching of God's character at all, but it can negate his existence? Are God and religion the same thing? 

I shared in a previous post a prayer we say every morning at summer English camp. It was a compromise between camp counselors from the U.S. who grew up in and/or worked in public schools where prayer was not allowed, and students here, where prayer is the way each school day begins. Someone found it online and we all liked it. 

Thank you for the food we eat

Thank you for the friends we meet

Thank you for the birds that sing

We give thanks for everything. 

Amen

Regardless of anyone's religious beliefs, who can argue with giving thanks? It recognizes the possibility of a higher power, shows humility, and teaches gratitude. We all found it non-controversial, and I think U.S. public schools could too. Under this model, I believe teachers, when questioned, could be advised to take the optimistically agnostic approach, as opposed to atheistic. They can be taught to maintain certain limits and tell kids that the school does not provide answers beyond that. While they may personally hold further beliefs, they can't share them at school. Period. I don't think it's a huge change from current practices. The biggest thing is that it gives some power and authority to the idea of equality and the principles of sharing and caring, which we seek to teach kids.  

When questioned in science class if the theory of evolution as an explanation for the origin of humans and all life forms contradicts the loving God they are simultaneously taught about, the answer would be that some things do contradict each other, and we can't actually prove, scientifically or historically, anything that happened from time periods before we have witnesses. To say that they do not contradict each other is a lie. To argue otherwise would be to argue the idea of absolute truth, which may not be beyond an infinite God, but is beyond our capacity as humans. We are wading into murky waters if we try to argue absolute truth, because we have to teach kids the difference between truth and lies. We should surely teach kids to consider different points of views and complex issues, but absolute truth cannot be compromised.

Therefore, it's important to be clear and humble that we cannot prove the answer there. We can only observe patterns in nature, read historical texts for as far back as possible, and create theories. However, I think we should seriously reconsider the way evolution is taught, knowing that the texts that first raised the idea were blatantly racist and dehumanizing to certain ethnicities, while simultaneously tempting to white supremists. It would be hypocritical to do anything but that during this time of awakening, where everything seems to be under deconstruction in order to be reconstructed in a better way. 

I am not suggesting that we forget the idea of natural selection and evolutionary biology altogether, but that we move away from Darwin as a person, The Descent of Man, and The Origin of Species. We must ask ourselves what Darwin has done for us, really? Has he taught us anything about open heart surgery? Depression? World poverty? Climate change? Vaccines? Environmental sustainability? Engineering? Technology? Has he actually taught us anything about Genetics? Scientists can feel free to enlighten me, and I know he made contributions, but my point is, I don't think we'll really be missing out without him. 

Do most people know who Cecilia Payne is, who apparently discovered the composition of stars? Male scientists apparently stole her fame. Or perhaps even more relevant, what do you know about the scientists who first synthesized and mass produced steroids from plant compounds? (Ex: birth control & cortisone). Check out Percy Lavon Julian. 

So how will such change get implemented? My thought is that a charter school, or several charter schools, should be started as a trial. My previous post discusses thoughts about the legal arena there. I am rooting for a special person to act as a spokesperson for this change, but I don't know if he's reflecting on my several emails, or whether he has paid them any attention, although his administrative assistant is nice enough to reply and thank me for the attempts. He may think I'm simply getting dopamine surges from making connections, but I think this is something God would appreciate us acting on. This special person is Phil Vischer, who was able to bridge the gap between secular and religious education/entertainment through his creation of Veggie Tales, a cartoon that teaches about God's love without coming off as threatening to parents who hold varying beliefs. 

Although I'm rooting for Phil and the Holy Post podcast which he co-hosts, I would think many people would be interested in such an endeavor. But it should be done right, so as to not go down in the books as another unfavorable ruling by the courts for any mention of God in schools. I believe that the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few, as written in Matthew 9:39. Therefore, I am asking the Lord of the harvest to send out the workers so we can all enjoy the harvest together.   

I'll finish by sharing a few videos of my daughter when she was four years old. She was chosen to say the school prayer in front of her entire school here in Puerto Plata, which goes up to 12th grade. Even this prayer, which is longer and more involved, could be seen as religiously neutral, yet socially awesome. "Teach us to work without rest in order to fight always in favor of justice". In case the videos aren't popping up for you, here she is saying the prayer with English subtitles and here she is saying it in front of the whole school as they repeat.