McCain's relationship with Jim Hagee is different from Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright. At one level, it's worse; at another level, better.

First of all, McCain doesn't have a shepherd-flock relationship with Hagee. McCain, along with other Republicans, sought the endorsement of Hagee in large measure because of his support of Israel. McCain didn't have a life-long relationship with Hagee, with all the complex emotional attachments, unlike Obama with Wright. His endorsement was a mere matter of politics. So, McCain's seeking the endorsement from Hagee is worse than Obama's relationship with Wright, since it didn't have anything more to do with him than a check-box in the Evangelical/Pro-Israel line.

On the other hand, it is better, in that, within a week after receiving Hagee's endorsement, McCain denounced Hagee's anti-Catholicism, and the Catholic League treated the issue as a settled matter. Now, NPR, including your show, may not have noticed it, but it's nice to see you've finally caught up two months after the matter was settled.

Now, you say people didn't care because McCain is White. I put it to you that media outlets like yourselves at NPR didn't care about it because the bigotry involved anti-Catholicism, a bigotry NPR dismisses as irrelevant, especially when it practices it for itself. I can give you a whole list a hosts and reporters of NPR demonstrating bigotry against Catholics, Catholicism, the Catholic Church, not that most other media are much better. Now, you're shocked --SHOCKED-- to find that anti-Catholics don't spend as much time reporting on a fellow anti-Catholic as they do on Jeremiah Wright. Well, does the joke about sharks and lawyers mean anything to you?

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 12:30 PM ET | 05-06-2008

A few days, I mistakenly commented on a post from American Thinker.com entitled Obama and Wright project their bias on all African Americans (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/obama_and_wright_project_their.html). I say mistakenly, because my comment resulted in a 12 hour email discussion with the author over the weekend about this very subject.

Try as I might, I could not get the author of this article to understand that what Rev.Wright via Hale's research purported was that individuals of African descent learn differently from individuals of European descent and - if indeed the research was valid - that did not have to be a bad thing as the author suggested. Yet, instead the author used the term "less genetically predisposed" and "limited" to provide a foundation for her disagreement with the research. This seems to be the same basic premise that your guest, Pedro Nogeura.

I find it amazing that educators would spend so much time disputing the research with negative and stereotypic terminologies. And as the article's author and Nogeura both suggest is that any differences in the way in which individuals learn that may be based on ancestry is wrong because it equates to one learning style being better than another.

What does it matter if people learn differently because of their ancestry or heritage? Why is it that some educators and pundits view this as a bad thing? Why is it that some educators and pundits view this as "something wrong or deficient" in the learner rather than "something wrong or deficient" in the method of teaching?

Sent by SjP | 12:49 PM ET | 05-06-2008

I heard your money education show on Tell me More on Tuesday, May 6. All the advice about couples was excellent EXCEPT the recommendation to buy mortgage insurance so that a partner could still live in a house after the other spouse died. Mortgage insurance pays the bank and is very expensive. Life insurance, particularly term insurance, is much less expensive and accomplishes the same thing. Mortgage insurance goes to the lender, NOT the surviving partner. Why would you suggest such an expensive form of insurance when life insurance would get you more $$ for less of an investment?

Sent by Andy Leon | 2:40 PM ET | 05-06-2008

My husband was a teacher in a middle school and worked with "Special Ed" children. The main factor he saw with these children is the lack of any interest by the parents in having their children get an education. They were not educated and they did not encourage their children to learn.
When he did home visits he found there were no reading materials. No newspapers, magazines or every comic books.
This was true for black and white children in this category.

Sent by Vicki Perry | 2:47 PM ET | 05-06-2008

I think Hale and Nogeura were talking about two different ideas. Hale may have been saying that Black children learn at the same (or sometimes even a higher) rate, as other children. But, because of cultural setbacks, they do not have the same background about certain subjects. I think that if I (an AA) took a French cooking class, I would quickly pick up on the techniques. But, since I have little knowledge of wines, types of cheeses, and other ingredients, I would be at a disadvantage. So, say we were working with a particular wine. I would understand at the same rate as others what needs to happen with the wine, how to work with the wine, and what the result should be like...the techniques. It would take me longer to understand why we were using one type of wine over another, because high-end wines were simply not part of my background, growing up. That means the instructor would need to stop teaching and explain the theory behind all of these wines, probably only to me. That doesn't make me a slow learner, that means I'm under-exposed in this area. This is just a cultural or class difference, not a racial difference, our brains don't work any different. But, my lack of wine knowledge would surely slow me down, even with my ability to learn quickly. It wouldn't be second-nature for me, like it would be for some of the other class members. They would have a built-in advantage.

Sent by Lisa W. | 3:20 PM ET | 05-06-2008

NOT only do secondary and college age students learn different in black Aftican American culture, but so do adults. IF you master the art of mathematics and science in natural born skills as a black person, your strange. IF you are an white person who manage to master mathematics and science beyond what is mainstream use, your a genius. Why is adult cultural genius an non topic of discussion in the African media.

Sent by jerry a. Myers | 3:47 AM ET | 05-07-2008

I believe success for children in any arena; be it scholastic, athletic or creative [music, art] achievements depend on the parents. If they are involved, children have a better chance succeeding. If parents are not involved for whatever reason, kids are more likely to fall to the wayside.

I reject the idea that failure is due to race--I have African American friends with kids and they are on top of what their kids are doing. They are in regular public schools and those kids are excelling. I have white friends with kids; they are not particularly involved and their kids are screwing up on a regular basis. Same school. How does that fit with the brain theory?

Its on the parents. If education is not emphasized in the home, expecting teachers to motivate children to succeed will not happen.

However, I do believe the 'opportunity gap' exists but that would hold true for any race.

Sent by sherry d | 9:22 AM ET | 05-07-2008

I was listening to the story about the learning styles of Black and Latino children this afternoon and, I would have to agree with Dr. Noguera's comments. That is, when children are given equal access to educational opportunities at a young age, they are not at a disadvantage.......and they are not lacking in their vocabulary. I believe that Dr Hale needs to acknowledge that her argument and the studies she cited must be put into a certain context. Researchers can bias research to show whatever they want to. I'd be curious to know the circumstances under which some of the studies she referenced, were undertaken. I am insulted at the notion that somehow, children of color are deficient, vocabulary-wise, because of a genetic or physiological "trait"

Sent by Ivan K Guillory, PhD | 2:53 PM ET | 05-07-2008

Matthew Scallon:

You make some interesting points concerning the difference between Hagee and Wright in relations to McCain and Obama respectively. However, McCain on "This Week" with George Stephanapoulis refused to denounce John Hagee's endorsement two Sundays ago because he knew the millions of voters hanging on such endorsement.

Barack Obama on the other hand took a risk with his candidacy by only denouncing Wright's words and not the messenger a couple of months ago until Wright's antics at the National Press Club. It would have been perfect political posturing to denounce a Pastor he's known for almost two decades but he chose a higher road.

So I believe it's a matter of perspective to think McCain's seeking an endorsement from Hagee is better; a person in the company of Pat Robertson, the late Jerry Falwell, all of them who McCain the "Maverick" called "agents of intolerance." Only to speak at the said Falwell's school before his passing and later seek the endorsement of Hagee who has said some damning things about 9-11, hurricane Katrina among others.

I'm not sure how better in character on McCain's part is with such act of flip-flop . . .

Sent by Moji | 7:08 PM ET | 05-07-2008

For the first time in my love affair with Tell Me More I am a little lost for why you choose to toss this issue around. It is a repellent notion that hearkens back to eugenics. It seems like the worst sort of apologist explanation for learning disparates. The nation needs to claim ALL it's children and the black community must quash ideas that academics is acting white. I guess I wished that TMM would have spent the segment talking about internalized messages and the achievement gap. Rev Wright notions about the any part of the brain is like getting legal advice from my butcher. BTW., can anyone tell me what the heck Matthew Scallon is talkin about?

Sent by Raul | 1:45 AM ET | 05-08-2008

Michel,

Interesting issues, indeed! I would like to comment on both, if I may.

First, with respect to Obama and any potential effects of his religious affiliation with Wright, I find it particularly insightful that you have identified Race as a curious intrigue here. You are absolutely correct when you pointed out how "we" view "others", especially when religion enters the fray. Certainly by now we are all aware of the dangers of attributing characteristics to an entire group of people based on nothing more than their religious views. Any holocaust survivor can attest to this, but they can also attest to the level of variance in the Jewish community or the Hebrew culture.

Now, when you further add Politics into the mix, things are potentially even more dangerous. The easiest rationale to create regarding the Obama/Wright tie is to assume that Wright speaks for Obama or that Obama is a blind disciple of Wright. The thinking is quite similar to a rudimentary SAT exam question, e.g., "Obama is to Wright as Salt is to Sugar." In essence, they are one in the same (the former being black members of the same church, and the latter being white members in an ingredient list.)

What this argument misses, however, is that religion is only one facet of an individual's complex personality. Religion is only one ingredient, as it were, of a person's entirety. Therefore, our tendency (especially if we are not African American or members of Wright's congregation) is to simply categorize "them" as essentially all the same.

~And wouldn't that be akin to assuming salt and sugar were essentially the same? Call me crazy, but I don't think I would enjoy a salt cookie all that much...but that's just me.

However, what I have found most intriguing about all the furor over this issue is the lack of dialogue with respect to the historic experience of another former Senator whose church membership caused quite the stir in America. John F. Kennedy faced much the same criticism as Obama and soundly addressed them all by focusing on the individual nature of his religious beliefs. Kennedy noted that he did not wish to speak about what kind of church he believed in, "for that should only be important to me." Not only that, but he also noted that he believed in an America "where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote."

~This brings to mind a more pressing intrigue then, doesn't it?

Seeing how the Republican party rallied entire bases of voters by church membership in the 2004 election, wouldn't it suggest that any fear over Obama's membership in Wright's church is being generated by the fact that many people in this country have been instructed how to vote by their own church leaders?

Perhaps this is all the result of a collective guilty conscience?

For me, I just pray we can get beyond all of this and focus on Senator Obama's platform, as opposed to focusing solely on his religious beliefs. (And I say this as someone who voted for Senator Clinton.)

And as for the discussion between the esteemed Professor Noguera and his colleague Professor Hale, I think it was the tenuous nature of defining the "self" which lay at the nexus of their discourse.

I would agree wholeheartedly with Professor Noguera, but that does not mean that I condemn Hale's efforts. Certainly, there are cultural AND socioeconomic factors that affect children's abilities to achieve in certain academic disciplines.

But to proffer that it is somehow their culture that disadvantages them is disingenuous, to say the least! If this were so, then ALL black children (or Latino or Asian or East Asian, etc.) would have the exact same disadvantages, by nothing more than their membership in a particular cultural background. Certainly, Professor Hale can understand why Professor Noguera would object to her premise.

What I thought needed to be considered more at length was how cultural membership is affected in the educational arena. And this was something I thought both professors agreed on, but appeared to be a point that Hale missed. An African American child might, through nothing more than her ethnicity, be subject to certain educational obstacles that have traditionally served to deprive members of that class of people in this country.

~But if she is not subject to those obstacles, wouldn't it stand to reason that she would be just as capable as any other student, regardless of her racial/ethnic/cultural background?

Hence, Hale's premise seeks to have educational systems accommodate the different learning styles of African American students. But in so doing, she must concede that her stance can be interpreted as attributing learning "deficiencies" to those same students.

Noguera, on the other hand, seeks to address the deficiencies in the education system's treatment of African American students, which is largely based on their membership in a larger sociological group.

-Interesting stuff, indeed.

Sent by Javier Martin Ortiz, J.D. | 2:14 PM ET | 05-08-2008

I strongly disagree with Dr. Hale's conclusions. As a twenty-something black male who recently graduated from Yale University with a Ph.D. in microbiology, I reject the notion that, as a child, I was physiologically or genetically predisposed to have a limited vocabulary and act out in the classroom.

All four of my grandparents emigrated from the West Indies and raised my parents with little more than a high school education, but they instilled the importance of education and hard work. My mother became a nurse and my father is a social worker. Because reading, education, and proper behavior were priorities in my household I won my first spelling bee in second grade and never looked back.

Mostly, I take issue with her assertion that inherently black boys do not learn vocabulary the same way white children to and cannot sit still in the classroom the way white children can. As a child, I was able to sit still in class because I was raised to sit still at the dinner table, be respectful of my teachers, and to act "out in the street" as I would in my own home. I would argue that the discouraging statistics Dr. Hale cites about unruly and less literate black children is more likely caused by bad parenting, not physiology.

Sent by Ian Simon | 4:43 PM ET | 05-08-2008

I am a national board certified teacher in one of the most impoverished neighborhood schools in South Chicago. I have six years of experience working with African American students in the highest need. The factors that affect the learning process of my students could be described as cultural in that they come from a culture of poverty. But I hardly think that lends credibility to Professor Hall's argument. Every student learns differently, regardless of culture. It is the fundamental task of any educator to approach instruction from that truth. I agree with Professor Noguera's warning against cultural generalizations. When we accept poverty under the misnomer of culture, we exacerbate the "achievement gap" through our neglect of the real issue: economic inequality.

Sent by Jeremy Peters | 5:26 PM ET | 05-08-2008

In reference to the discussion between Drs. Hale and Noguera, I am among those offended by some of Dr. Hale's assertions - particularly that learning differences among people of different races are linked to genetic, physiological difference. I agree with some of her points, but it seems that she needs to distinguish much more clearly factors of culture and class from those of a biological concept of race.

Michel made the observation during the show that Dr. Hale's position was similar to one that racist pseudo-scientists (my words, not Ms. Martin's) have historically sought to prove. An excellent reference for this discussion of the fundamentals of racial difference is a lecture on DVD by Stuar Hall called "Race, the Floating Signifier." (Much of Hall's writings are worth mentioning, but this lecture is particularly accessible. He is a well-known British professor and a leader in the area of cultural studies for those who aren't familiar with his work.)

It is a tragedy that Dr. Hale does not believe that all humans, regardless of culture, class, race, ethnicity, gender, etc. are not fundamentally equal when it comes to our biology. I am not questioning her intentions in any way. I applaud Dr. Hale's efforts to support improved education for children of color in this country. However, the language she uses to explain the achievement gap puts her on a slippery slope.

I know that a lot of what I've said just echoes sentiments already out there. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to share my opinions because some of what Dr. Hale said outraged me as a human being that believes in equality.

Sent by David Lisenby | 11:38 AM ET | 05-09-2008

I listened to TMM today (5.9.08) and I think that my previous post (re: how Black kids learn) was commented on. It appeared that I had said that I agreed with Dr. Hale. I did not. I do not believe that black kids learn "different". I'm sorry if it read that way. I was stating that I don't think Ms. Hale was saying that kids learn different, but that they enter the education experience with a different background. In my previous post, I clearly stated that black kids DO learn at the same rate as other children. They just don't have the exact same background. But, to wrap it up, I agree with Prof. Noguera, all children can learn the same. 90% depends on the parenting. Having worked with the abuse/neglect court in a large city, I have seen a large share of parents who couldn't care less if their children could read or write. These children did not succeed educationally and usually ended up in criminal trouble. Parents have to step up and take advantage of every opportunity for their child.

Sent by Lisa W. | 2:17 PM ET | 05-09-2008