Received: from jhuml2.hcf.jhu.edu (jhuml2.hcf.jhu.edu [128.220.2.87]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.6/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with ESMTP id HAA16929 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 07:57:46 -0600 (MDT) Received: from jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu by jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu (PMDF V5.0-7 #13870) id <01IKEP0Q9Y8W95MXZE@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu> for socgrad@csf.colorado.edu; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:57:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu by jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu (PMDF V5.0-7 #13870) id <01IKEP0JFUDA95MSKJ@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu> for socgrad@csf.colorado.edu; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:56:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu by jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu id <905-7>; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:55:53 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:55:38 -0400 From: Thomas F Brown Subject: Re: tracking To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu Message-id: <97Jun23.095553edt.905-7@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Michael wrote: >If I may, let me address Thomas' comments briefely here. By his >definition of tracking, apparently seperate but equal did not marginalize >non-whites throughout the first half of the 20th century in the United >States. Excuse me? How did you get from my definition to that conclusion? Of course that example of tracking resulted in marginalization of blacks. Most examples of tracking will probably include marginalization, since some group is being constrained from equal access to all of the opportunities. This is not inconsistent with my definition of tracking. In fact, it exemplifies my definition of tracking. >Tracking does not require outright denial of access, mearly strong >discouragement. This is a good point, but it is not inconsistent with my conception of tracking. It's just that we might differ over how we define strong discouragement. You would have to develop your conception here for my benefit before we could see if we really do differ.