Talk:Kerner Commission

On the paragraph concerning Abraham Miller - an unequivocal (if likely accidental) falsehood, and an unsupported claim

The assertions formerly "supported" with the source "Myths the Kerner Commission Created" (available via Ebscohost) are seriously misleading for a at least two reasons. [For reference, here is the offending paragraph (with some edits I made before I decided it needed to be shelved entirely, for the moment): "Abraham H. Miller, who won a Pi Sigma Alpha Award from the Western Political Science Association for his statistical refutation of some of the Commission's data analysis, stated, "There is considerable reason for rejecting the sociological and popular cliché that absolute or relative deprivation and the ensuing frustration or despair is the root cause of rebellion."]

Firstly and most importantly, the purported quotation does not come from Miller; it is a quotation attributed to someone else. Here is the relevant line in context:

"It was McPhail, however, who showed that neither relative nor absolute deprivation or any other characteristics of the black situation could explain the riots. Pundits, media analysts, and the voices of various interest groups all knew what caused the riots, but clearly the most rigorous social science research confirmed none of this. McPhail's statement about the riots--"There is considerable reason for rejecting the sociological and popular cliche that absolute or relative deprivation and the ensuing frustration or despair is the root cause of rebellion"--should have been their defining statement. But it isn't, for no one can claim access to the federal trough on that basis. Poverty and despair are the claimants' most vital keys to securing such access. Kimble could not dare to call for an infusion of 30 billion a year into the inner cities without the conviction that poverty and despair were the foundations for future riots."

Secondly, there is nothing in the article to support the claim that Miller "won a Pi Sigma Alpha Award from the Western Political Science Association for his statistical refutation of some of the Commission's data analysis." The sole mention of this occurs in the biographical byline that follows the body of the article, viz.: "His early work on the black urban riots won a Pi Sigma Alpha Award for research from the Western Political Science Association." Nothing in that statement allows one to conclude that this vaguely-defined 'work' was a "statistical refutation of some of the Commission's data analysis." (I have contacted the organization with a query on this front since their website only has information on award winners dating back to 2003.

As of now the paragraph is totally unsatisfactory. And a note: a fuller/better citation is needed if this ends up remaining in the article. I can't think off hand what would have to change using Chicago or something, but with MLA: "Miller, Abraham H. "Myths the Kerner Commission." World and I 15.8 (2000): 300. [Access date]." Tothebarricades (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it is McPhail's research that is appropriately cited on pages 305-306 of the World and I article, so what is the issue?

This is a bogus standard about the award. What does one do, put in a picture of it? The award was given in 1976 for the paper presented to the 1975 Western Political Science Association Convention. It's been some years, so the actual time difference might be off. It was shared with Louis H. Bolce and Mark R. Halligan for research that subsequently appeared in Ethnicity in Dec. if 1976 and titled, The New Urban Blacks. It was a statistical refutation of the Sears and McConahay theory of the New Urban Blacks, which was part of the Commission Report and widely cited. Sears and McConahay mangled their data. Both the refutation and the original article are available on the Internet. Although I do not recall all the names of the committee members who granted Miller, Bolce, and Halligan the award, I do remember that Prof. Chris Garcia (UNM) was either the chair or a member of the committee that made the award. Subsequently, Miller, Bolce, and Halligan went on to show that McPhail and others were correct. In a 1977 article in the APSR, they showed that the J-Curve theory of relative deprivation formulated by James C. Davies could not explain the riots.

Challenging the holy grail of the Kerner Commission and feel-good theories such as the New Urban Blacks raised the ire of many, and there were appropriate challenges in peer-reviewed journals to the team's work just as the team had challenged other scholars' works. But this is the first time, I have seen someone claiming that Miller, Bolce, and Halligan made up an award that they never received. Clearly, if the commentator who raised this concern was more interested in the issue than an ad hominem attack by innuendo, all he or she had to do was take on the analysis in the article that appears in Ethnicity in Dec. of 1976. -2003:CA:83CE:5000:3188:3BE0:871A:1961 (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

References

"neocon," bolded text

I've made two changes to the article. First, I've removed the "neoconservative" label from professor Stephan Thernstrom...

This was done for a couple of reasons:

1. I couldn't find any citations that he was in fact a "neoconservative." His work, as far as I'm aware, doesn't even focus on foreign policy, and "neoconservative" is generally defined as a conservative who supports a more interventionist foreign policy.

2. Even if he is a neocon, his views on foreign policy aren't really relevant to his critique of the commission's report, and the label seems to be more of a smear or attempt to discredit what he said rather than something to inform the readers of this article.

Second, I've removed the bold from the text "black frustration at lack of economic opportunity," as this is not an alternate name for the topic of this article or something which redirects here. There was black frustration both long before and long after this report was released. In any case, Wikipedia article style guidelines don't include bold text as a way to simply emphasize a certain point. -2003:CA:83CE:5000:3188:3BE0:871A:1961 (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I arrived here to say that not identifying the well-known political leanings of professor Thernstrom makes his, to my mind, shallow and erroneous assertions about the Kerner Commission findings more difficult to comprehend, and I discover that there was some kind of political identification, which was removed by the previous commenter. I have inserted the word 'conservative," as the objection to the term "neocon" seems to have rested on a perhaps mistaken idea of what that word means, and the idea that it is solely attached to opinions on foreign policy. (PS the article on Wikipedia pertaining to Thernstrom identifies him as a neoconservative. But there is noting 'neo' about his conservatism.) Intersting that Thernstrom is the only voice of any note to be cited in criticism. Actio (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Police reform recommendations

There Lerner commission investigations also included findings of violence by police on several of the cities where uprising occurred. It cut be meaningful to include that context on the summary Iggynelix (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)