Here is what I see – and I’ll use quotes as to not misrepresent anyone’s words.

nancy said:
Geez Dan, I’m starting to get a little jaded here at BFS. I’m sure there’s some devil’s advocacy at play here, but there doesn’t seem to be a whole lotta love out there for blacks, Muslims, the homeless and dumb kids.

To which laura replied:
I think you need to be careful in your generalizations at the end of your post. Admittedly, I don’t have a lot of love for gang thugs, terrorists, and those who could but refuse to help themselves. Yes, there are blacks, Muslims, homeless and dumb kids that fall into those categories (as well as there are whites, Westerners, home-full’s(?) and smart kids that fall into those categories also). I think you’ve gone a little overboard in suggesting that the discourse here has been general prejudice or disdain toward all these groups as a whole.

Was the post from nancy flippant and possibly facetious? Perhaps . . . but nowhere does she “suggest” that anyone was advocating a “general prejudice or disdain toward all these groups (by “groups” one can assume that poster laura was referring back to blacks, Muslims, homeless and dumb kids) as a whole.”

After that, all Heck broke loose . . .

Write about the Red-Hat Society again. We all do not seem to have a problem bashing them.

Nancy, I wasn’t cautioning you to be careful because I was offended by your remarks. I was cautioning you to be careful because I think you are misrepresenting the comments that I and other people have made here, and that is certainly not your right. My writing characterizes me and I’ll stand by what I’ve said, but your opinions of my stances certainly don’t characterize me or give you the right to throw classist or elitest labels on me.

You seem to really belabor the point that no one ever agrees with you here, that everyone is of like mind except you. I didn’t take it as a pity party, but I think these comments reinforce my point. I see lots of varying opinions on this blog, lots of different degrees of agreement or disagreement. You seem to put everyone as solidly in one camp or the other, with you as the lone camper on your side. I simply don’t see it that way. The views expressed here just aren’t as extreme as you portray them, and that’s why I take exception to the way you classify some of my opinions. Just because I don’t completely agree with you doesn’t mean I completely disagree with you either, but it seems you won’t have it any other way.

Thanks for bringing the discussion back around. You make a lot of excellent points.

I never said I don’t cast judgments on anyone. I said I don’t feel inclined to cast judgments on others who haven’t been afforded the same opportunities that I have, and then criticize them for their lot in life. Will I judge the opinions of well-educated people? Sure. There’s a huge difference in judging entire groups of people based on stereotypes and cliches and judging people, or more accurately the opinions of people, who CHOOSE to express their very well-articulated thoughts in a public forum. I think you leave yourself open to that scrutiny.

The reaction to my post suprises me a bit. I value the give-and-take and diverse opinions here on this blog. It would be kind of boring if everyone agreed all the time. (I guess, take me out of the equation and everybody would!)I welcome the criticisms about what I say because I understand that that’s how this works here: I freely post my opinions. I am putting myself out there and I have a responsibility to listen to the reaction. I don’t feel attacked by the responses, and yes, some of the responses to me have been much more direct and pointed than I have ever dealt out. And readers always know without a doubt you’re talking about me since I’m usually the only one on my side. (I hope this isn’t beginning to sound like a pity party. I don’t feel bad at all.) However, this is at least the second time that I’ve been cautioned to back off of what I’m trying to say,at the risk of offending someone. Believe me, I have been offended here many, many times, but have never issued a warning to “Be careful” that I’m starting to offend someone else. I’m getting a real feeling of “How dare she?” here, but if I am so off-base, why the hyper-defensiveness? Why the comments like “just in case anyone thinks that I am the commenter to which you referred, I don’t want to be characterized as that person.” You and I don’t get to say we don’t want to be characterized a certain way in this format. Your writing characterizes you, like it or not.

And finally, please believe me, I have no delusions that I have ever scored points or won arguments here ever.

Examining the issue at hand, it seems to me that this breaks down to a “nature vs nurture” discussion. Do people have innate and disparate capacities for intelligence, or are people’s capability for learning equal, but limited by the circumstances of their environment? If one examines the issue from this perspective, socio-economic issues certainly have a place in the discussion, as the counterpoint to the “intellect as a simple matter of biology” argument. Personally, I do think that each individual has a unique capacity for intellect and learning. That being said, a person’s environment can influence their ability to achieve that capacity. Two people of similar motivation and intellects will achieve to different levels based on the resources and opportunities available to them.

Notice I used the word motivation in the paragraph above. This is because learning is not a passive endeavor. Rather it requires active participation on the part of the student. Therefore, the student (once they reach a certain age) is not completely free of blame if they fail to achieve. The student has to want to learn, otherwise no inate capacity for intellect, no special teaching attention, no amount of learning resources will allow the student to reach their potential.

Now for a teacher’s perspective. My wife, a teacher, believes schools are addressing the issue of varying learning levels. As part of the interview process, schools often ask how the teacher plans to provide the necessary attention to struggling students while keeping the advanced students engaged. Furthermore, the practice of dividing the classroom into groups of like learning levels for a particular subject is common. This allows each group to receive teaching commensurate with their capacity to learn.

Ultimately, the issue of inborn versus environmentally developed intellect is difficult to prove, and may never be resolved. The only way to determine intellect is to evaluate what is actually learned. Unfortunately, this often differs greatly from what could potentially be learned. So, like other nature versus nurture issues, the debate must continue.