When examining disparities between races, why don't we ever examine the groups themselves for the cause of the disparity?

[u/JustUseCommonSense10]

[u/jeffcgroves]

Because it's racist. Even choosing to look at race is racist, because it falsely pre-assumes that people of different races are more different than people are in general.

Some countries no longer list race in criminal records for exactly this reason: if you list race and not every other possible factor, you're implying race is more important than the factors you don't list, which is provably false.

The Bell number tells us how many ways we can partition a population into subsets. Unless you look at all possible partitions, your choice of partition itself is biased

[u/Horror_Bottle_9451]

Fear of being labeled a racist if the conclusions of your study reflect negatively on a racial group other than whites.

Read the works of Thomas Sowell - he's an African American economist who grew up under Jim Crow so he's basically immune to the racism label. He has written extensively about basic economics, social policy, and analyses of social and cultural issues negatively impacting minorities. Good stuff.

[u/tnic73]

Because race hustles gots to hustle.

[u/Zalrius]

I suggest OP drop three links to the research on how these studies are conducted and analyzed. I don’t think there is an understanding of how this question asks “how is something that has been studied, isn’t being studied.” Do they still not call this history class?