"Science" at The Kellog School of Management

Sometimes I am left flabbergasted at what passes for “science” among leftists.
The Kellog School of Management recently did a “study” that was intended to reveal which approach is best in educating children, a) a colorblind approach that de-emphasizes  racial differences and focuses on our similarities or b) an approach that emphasizes diversity and draws attention to inequalities.
The conductor of the research, Evan P. Apfelbaum explains:

“However, our research suggests that exposure to colorblindness can actually reduce individuals’ sensitivity to meaningful racial differences. And as a result, when discrimination does occur, individuals with a colorblind mindset often fail to see it as such.”

In a perfect world, social engineers would not be allowed to experiment on children to test the efficacy of their indoctrination techniques.  But, alas, this is not a perfect world:

In their experiment, the researchers explored the effects of promoting a colorblind approach to diversity among 8- to 11-year-old students. First, students reviewed different versions of a multimedia storybook. Half received a colorblind version and the other half received a version that framed diversity as a value. In both stories, the narrator championed racial justice, but the colorblind version encouraged the minimizing of race-based distinctions, whereas the value-diversity version encouraged readers to embrace these differences.

What did Apfelbaum mean by “discrimination”?  Not surprisingly, it is only white on black discrimination that is considered “discrimination”:

After the storybooks were read, the students listened to three stories featuring varying degrees of racial bias: a control story in which a white child was marginalized by his white schoolmate’s contribution to a school science project; an ambiguous story regarding a white student’s exclusion of a black student from his birthday party; and an explicitly biased story describing a white student’s unprovoked assault of a black student in a soccer game.

Here are some of the assumptions made by the researchers:
1)  One white student marginalizing another white student is not worthy of special concern.  Picking on another child because of his height or freckles is not as serious as picking on him because of his race.
2)  Not inviting a black student to a birthday party could/ should be considered “discrimination” and cause for concern.
3)  An unprovoked attack, by a white student on a black student is certainly due to racism.  The victim cannot simply be a random “wrong place, wrong time” target of aggression.
4)  The perpetrators of (white/black) racial discrimination are always white while the victims are always black.
According to the authors, it is a “decline in sensitivity with severe consequences” when the group that viewed the “colorblind” presentation detected racial discrimination less often than the group that had viewed the “diversity” presentation.  It is left unstated how we know, for a fact, that the latter two hypothetical stories were due to racism.
What we have here might qualify as “research” but only insofar as it is to sharpen the tools of childrens’ indocrination.  The researchers are training children to detect racism in every inconsiderate or violent act perpetrated by whites against non-whites.  It is an example of the early brainwashing of whites to believe that it is more evil to be mean to a black child than to be mean to a white child.  Also, it is an example of the brainwashing of blacks to believe that every slight or misfortune they may suffer in life is the result of racism.  If this is not child abuse, I do not know what is.
When these children get older, the brainwashing continues.  They had already been taught that there are no “random” acts of cruelty against “people of color” by whites – but the newspapers and television teach them that almost every act of cruelty by “people of color” against whites is “random” and “not a hate crime”.  Since they are raised, from an early age, to accept this blatant double standard, most of them will never recognize it for what it is.
Some of them do notice the double standard and suddenly they see it all around them every day.  They notice other things too – like the very Jewish sounding name of the researcher above.  They become angry and they often become radicalized.  It is easy to become radicalized when one suffers constant oppression and no official organs recognize one’s plight.  Unfortunately, becoming radicalized and angry is synonymous with becoming hysterical for many people.  When others see a hysterical person, his views suffer diminished credibility.  Herein lies one of our primary challenges: to remain angry enough to do constructive things – but not so angry that we come across as hysterical.