Shawn, Bill, and others seem to assume a dialogue on race leads to "excuses and explanations for poor performance"---things they are not ready to accept.
Justine and others correctly point to the limits of dialogue. Certainly no dialogue can make a person a good parent or enforce good parenting. (I suspect good parenting is at the root of so many behavior problems. Until we pass a law requiring people to be good parents [impossible and unenforceable, of course], we will be stuck dealing with the effects of bad parenting.)
The ideas behind a dialogue are that it:
- --invites people sitting out to participate; on the theory that...
--community problems are easier to solve when more people are engaged in working towards a solution.
...and that it:
- --helps me learn helpful clues towards a solution; on the theory that...
--I don't start the dialogue knowing everything.
This last point is crucial. If there are things for me to learn, "explanations" can be helpful (though all may not be valid, so we still must assess each).
However, if Shawn is correct in equating "explanations" with "excuses"--
No excuses, No explanations, just solutions. Reasoning is a wonderful skill until we use it to justify shortcomings. When I express concern about open forums and community discussions on topics like this, that is what I fear. Endorsing that it's okay to do poorly and encouraging complacency.
...then it would follow that dialogue is counterproductive.
So I pose twin questions to the participants in this dialogue:
1. Is an explanation an excuse?
2. Do we all start the dialogue knowing everything?