Network Schools – Wayne Gerseny to https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/03/magazine/thomas-piketty-interview u w B l.html?h I’ll smid=url-share the Is for

As readers of this blog know, I have long believed that housing patterns and the zoning laws that create those housing patterns are the underlying cause of the socio-economic and racial divides in our country. If white children never come in contact with people of color their impressions about that group will be based on what they hear at the dining room table, what they see on television, what they read on line, and what they hear from their classmates in school. Similarly, if children raised in affluence never come in contact with those who are economically disadvantaged their impressions about that group will be based on what they hear at the dining room table, what they see on television, what they read on line, and what they hear from their classmates in school. And, when children are raised in white and affluent neighborhoods and communities there is no reason for them to ever cross paths with children of color or less affluent children.

Those of us who have succeeded in making a good living by virtue of our own good fortune and hard work want to believe our country is a pure meritocracy; that it is still possible for any children of color and any child raised in poverty who applies themselves can “succeed” through grit and pluck; and many heartwarming stories reinforce that notion.

Those of us who have succeeded in making a good living by virtue of our own good fortune and hard work also want to believe believe that every voter is rational and seeks what is best for our nation as a whole. We like to believe that voters are open-minded and will rely on facts, data, and their own understanding of how policies impact their lives and the well-being of the nation.

And so, those of us who have succeeded in making a good living by virtue of our own good fortune and hard work continue to believe in the narrative that it is possible to change the minds of others by presenting reams of facts and figures and letting the facts speak for themselves. If enough people examine enough data they will be persuaded to endorse policies that will improve their well-being and the well-being of their neighbors. The well-educated and well informed voter, then, will drive social change.

But, as David Brooks reports in his column written on December 31, 2020, a column looking back on 2020, it doesn’t really work that way.

So many of our hopes are based on the idea that the key to change is education. We can teach each other to be more informed and make better decisions. We can study social injustices and change our behavior to fight them.

But this was the year that showed that our models for how we change minds or change behavior are deeply flawed.

It turns out that if you tell someone their facts are wrong, you don’t usually win them over; you just entrench false belief.

Much of Brooks’ column describes how racial diversity training, designed to make employees aware of how their conduct reinforces racism, does just the opposite. Once an employee has received the training they can become complacent, “…thinking that because they went through the program they’ve solved the problem“. Worse, in some cases the training itself activates latent resentment, making those who hold biases feel like they are being singled out and making independent minded employees feel that they are being told what to think. Instead of instigating social change through education, Mr. Brooks– much to my surprise– suggests changes to the way society is set up, He concludes his column with this sobering analysis:

The superficial way to change minds and behavior doesn’t seem to work, to bridge either racial, partisan or class lines. Real change seems to involve putting bodies from different groups in the same room, on the same team and in the same neighborhood. That’s national service programs. That’s residential integration programs across all lines of difference. That’s workplace diversity, equity and inclusion — permanent physical integration, not training.

This points to a more fundamental vision of social change, but it is a hard-won lesson from a bitterly divisive year.

I think Mr. Brooks stops his column here because he realizes that changes of this kind can only be affected by (gasp) an active and effective federal government. An unfettered “marketplace economy”– one that is completely free of  government regulation— will not compel a change in housing patterns or employment practices and a weak central government cannot mandate community service in the name of “putting bodies from different groups in the same room”.  Maybe in his next column Mr. Brooks will advocate for such an active and strong federal government… but only if the facts he presents lead him to that inevitable conclusion.