News Feeds

I’ve been busy at the pond watching the ducks and giving a bit of a nosh to Mordecai and Esther, who are doing well. They look fat and happy, though I saw another drake at the pond today and the trio flew off together. (Yes, the males create a “rape culture” (the technical term is “forced copulation”) for the hens, who must constantly avoid ministrations of males other than their mate.) But now they are only two, and I check on them three times a day. Lots of people come by the pond and ask about the ducks, and when I tell them what I know (they like the names) they say that they can’t wait for the ducklings to appear.  But Esther hasn’t nested yet, though she’s preparing to, and once she does and sits on all the eggs she lays, it’ll be 28 days till the babies hatch.

First, the stars of the show. Look at this beautiful hen! Esther’s speculum (the blue feathers) are bright and beautiful.

And her mate (for the moment, at least), Mordecai, with his iridescent green head. A friend of mine— the advisor to Team Duck—guesses that both ducks are two years old au maximum. 

A video of Esther giving voice. She is one of the noisiest hens I’ve ever heard in the pond (remember, only females make the characteristic “quack,” while males make soft, low quacks). Here she is, loud and proud:

More quacking. I often think of having a wine-and-cheese party next to the pond, calling it “Cheese and Quackers.”

Esther is also busy “window shopping,” checking out the windowsills in adjacent buildings where she’ll build her next.  So far she seems to have settled on the second floor of Erman Hall, part of our department. She hasn’t yet chosen the right window yet, as she appears in various windows. She seems to be favoring the second floor. One of our new faculty members has most of the second floor, and when I told her about the window-shopping, she was excited that Esther might nest on her lab window. (She likes ducks and the pond.)

Here’s Esther scoping out a second-floor window in Erman (she’s at the end of the arrow). Although wild mallards are ground-nesters, for some reason even young hens at Botany Pond start scoping out windowsills to avoid predators and pesky drakes.  How they figure this out is a mystery to me, as they certainly can’t have the genes for nesting so high, and I doubt they learn it from watching other hens. One of my colleagues thinks that a window ledge is a “superliminal stimulus.” That is, mallard hens are known to nest on wooden platforms low to the ground or on bent-over tussocks of grass that are a foot or so from the ground. This protects them somewhat from predators like raccoons or possume. It could be that, like our evolved love of sweets and fats that now drives many us to a diet full of sugary foods, hens have an evolved preference for nesting a bit high, and that goes into overdrive when they see a safe windowsill with vines to anchor a nest.

More of Esther at Erman:

Here her head is tilted, a hen’s cutest pose:

After a nosh, both ducks like to preen, clean themselves by grooming and dunking underwater, and making big aplashes for futher cleaning. Here’s Esther doing all that. Note that her bill opens as if she’s quacking, but no sound comes out. I’m told that this is common in hens. When she rubs her head over her feathers, she’s oiling them.

Another loud bout of postprandial quacking and activity:

Ducks, like many birds, oil their feathers using the uropygial gland at the feathers near their tail.  Wikipedia says this about it:

It is a holocrine gland enclosed in a connective tissue capsule made up of glandular acini that deposit their oil secretion into a common collector tube ending in a variable number of pores (openings), most typically two. Each lobe has a central cavity that collects the secretion from tubules arranged radially around the cavity. The gland secretion is conveyed to the surface via ducts that, in most species, open at the top of a papilla (nipple-like structure).

More from VCA Animal Hospitals:

The uropygial gland is located on top of the tail base, on the lower back, just in front of the base of the tail feather quills. This area is generally featherless except for a tuft of feathers at the tip called the uropygial wick. The gland is bi-lobed, with two similar-sized sections.

The uropygial gland secretes a thick, transparent, complex oil (preening oil) that consists of diester waxes (uropygiols), fats, and fatty acids. Each lobe of the gland secretes oil through small papilla (nipple-like projections).

The oil secreted by the uropygial gland performs many functions, including waterproofing and maintaining the suppleness of the skin, feathers, and beak. The oil may have an antibacterial function.

During preening, a bird transfers this oil to its feathers by rubbing its head and beak against the oil gland and then spreading the oil over the rest of its feathers.

The uropygial gland is not normally visible unless the feathers are parted in this area or there is a problem with the gland.

Here you can see Esther rubbing her head and bill on the gland and then spreading it over her feathers.  They mostly use their beak, but also dive and splash because mixing the oils with water helps spread it through the feathers, giving the duck essential waterproofing. They also use their heads and flexible necks to spread the oils, so there’s no part of her body (save her “chin,” perhaps) that she can’t reach:

Here’s a thorough cleaning and oiling of her wings.  They don’t miss a feather! Ducks are immaculate, constantly grooming.

The drakes have to preen too, of course, as all mallards need to be waterproof and clean. Note Esther go for her gland at about 18 seconds in. Both ducks also engage in diving:

One more video of Esther preening. Notice how she goes for the uropygeal glands and uses her flexible neck to spread oils from her head and beak.

After bath time it’s nap time.  They like to lie on the grass and cement on the pond edge in the afternoon, warmed by the sun to their west.

Notice how cryptic Esther is compared to Mordecai. His visibility is the price he pays for attracting a mate, but the females’ color and pattern help then hide from predators (and horny drakes). You can see her hunkered down to the right, looking like a clump of brown grass.

Here’s a cartoon map of the campus from 1932, labeled as ” Elizabeth Moore (“Betty”) Fisher’s (PhB’22) 1932 cartoon campus map. (University of Chicago Special Collections).”  You can see the whole thing enlarged here (map below, click to enlarge):

and, enlarging Botany Pond, you see a lone duck (I added the arrow in the second picture below). Botany Pond was built in 1899 as part of the biology group’s research facilities, and you can see some early photos here.  The pond and surroundings were designed by the landscape architects John Charles and Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., two brothers whose firm designed many notable spaces.

More than 100 years of ducks!

The pond has been under renovation for two years, as cracks in the walls, and an accumulation of schmutz, called for a ton of renovation. During that time the pond was empty and we were bereft from the lack of ducks (many also greatly miss the turtles and fish, which will be put back into the pond). During this slow period, I tended the squirrels, giving them high-class nuts like pecans and hazelnuts:

Fingers crossed for a good summer and a healthy crop of ducklings!

Yes. they say that age is “just a number,” but it isn’t in one sense: the bigger the number, the closer we are to taking The Big Nap. But in the birthday/anniversary sense, yes, it’s significant—though only because humans evolved with ten digits. And Eric Clapton has one of these anniversaries: he was born on March, 30, 1945, and so turns eighty today.

I’m speaking subjectively, of course, but I consider Clapton the greatest rock guitarist of all time (Rolling Stone ranks him at #2, after Jimi Hendrix, who has a credible claim to the top spot). Further, Clapton was coauthor and performer of what I see as the greatest rock song of all time: “Layla” (note that it was recorded in 1970, when Clapton was only 25).

“Layla” is a two-part song, as you’ll hear below, with the rocking seven-note intro that identifies it immediately. Later it segues into a slow part with piano, and I usually stop listening at that point. So I guess I can say that the best rock song in history is the FIRST part of “Layla.”

It was the feature song of the only album made by one of Clapton’s groups: Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs, featuring Derek and the Dominoes. Here’s that group below: (L–R: Jim Gordon, Carl Radle, Bobby Whitlock, Eric Clapton).

Atco Records, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Another reason I love “Layla” is the backstory, which every rock aficionado knows. It’s the heartfelt cry of a man in love with a woman who’s already married. She was Patti Boyd, who was married to George Harrison when Clapton fell in love with her. (Harrison and Boyd divorced two years after the song, and Clapton married her in 1979. It wasn’t the love of a lifetime, for they divorced a decade later.

This is one song where every word tells the story of that unrequited love.  Here’s a great live version (there are several), performed at Madison Square Garden in 1999, when Clapton was 54.  He hasn’t lost a lick, and the fantastic solo begins at 2:56, when he makes the guitar scream and wail, playing out his pain.

You can stop listening at 4:05, when the slow part begins, though I know some readers will find it as good as (and inseparable from) the first part.

Yes, I know that Clapton has a bit of a dark side. He’s known for bizarre behavior, including racist and anti-vaccine rants.  But long after he’s taken the Big Nap, people will still be listening to and marveling at his music. Nobody has ever played the axe better.

Clapton had tons of good songs. Some of my favorites are “Lay Down Sally” (1977), “Promises” (a ringer from 1978), and one more I’ll show below, “Badge,” (1969), co-written with George Harrison, who plays on the recorded track by Cream.  I’ll never forget the first time I heard “Badge,” which came out when I was in college; I was mesmerized by the solo.  Here it is live from 2001, with an extended solo in the middle and then another long one (not on the recording) at the end.

And so it’s a happy birthday to Slowhand!

Feel free to give your favorite Clapton song in the comments, or take issue with my ranking “Layla” as the best rock song ever (but you have to name your choice).

This being Sunday, we have a dollop of John Avise‘s photos of North American butterflies. John’s captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge his photos by clicking on them.

Butterflies in North America, Part 16 

This week continues my 18-part series on butterflies that I’ve photographed in North America.  I’m continuing to go down my list of species in alphabetical order by common name.  The following is an anecdote rather than a controlled observation, but I wonder whether other WEIT readers have a similar impression:  Twenty years ago, butterflies of many species seem to me to have been far more abundant than they are today.

Silvery Blue (Glaucopsyche lygdamus), male:

Silvery Blue, male underwing:

Silvery Blue, female:

Silvery Checkerspot (Chlosyne nycteis):

Silvery Checkerspot, underwing:

Sleepy Duskywing (Erynnis brizo):

Sonoran Skipper (Polites sonora), upperwing:

Sonoran Skipper, underwing:

Spicebush Swallowtail (Papilio troilus):

Spring Azure (Celastrina laden):

Sylvan Hairstreak (Satyrium sylvinus):

Tailed Copper (Lycaena arota), upperwing:

Tailed Copper, underwing:

Efforts are underway to develop advanced propulsion systems that can reduce transit times to Mars and other locations in the Solar System. These include nuclear propulsion concepts, which NASA began researching again in 2016 for its proposed "Moon to Mars" mission architecture. In a recent paper, two aerospace innovators reviewed some key nuclear-electric propulsion concepts, their respective advantages, and challenges. In the end, they conclude that nuclear propulsion has the potential to revolutionize space exploration and make humanity "multiplanetary."

Deciding how to power a CubeSat is one of the greatest challenges when designing a modular spacecraft. Tradeoffs in solar panel size, battery size, and power consumption levels are all key considerations when selecting parts and mission architecture. To help with those design choices, a paper from researchers in Ethiopia and Korea describes a new machine-learning algorithm that helps CubeSat designers optimize their power consumption, ensuring these little satellites have a better chance of fulfilling their purpose.

Bill Maher’s latest news-and-comedy shtick (8½ minutes) deals with “Trump Devotion Syndrome”:  the sycophancy that imbues the cowards of America who don’t want to offend the Orange Man.  Lots of Presidential rump osculation here! Putting his image on Mount Rushmore and on American currency? But of course!

Oh, and there’s the “transgender mice” he mentioned.  (“We were splicing their genes, not making them compete in women’s sports.”) All in all, this bit is what the kids say is a “sick burn” for MAGA.  And Maher is peeved!

John McWhorter and journalist Rikki Schlott are there, too.

This is a good one; don’t miss it.

A team led by Corrado Malanga from the University of Pisa and Filippo Biondi from the University of Strathclyde recently claimed to have found huge structures beneath the Pyramids of Giza using Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) technology.

These structures are said to be up to 10 times larger than the pyramids, potentially rewriting our understanding of ancient Egyptian history.

However, many archaeologists and Egyptologists, including prominent figures, have expressed doubt, highlighting the lack of peer-reviewed evidence and the technical challenges of such deep imaging.

Photo by Michael Starkie / Unsplash

Dr. Zahi Hawass, a renowned Egyptologist and former Egyptian Minister of Antiquities, has publicly rejected these findings, calling them “completely wrong” and “baseless,” arguing that the techniques used are not scientifically validated. Other experts, like Professor Lawrence Conyers, have questioned whether SAR can penetrate the dense limestone to the depths claimed, suggesting decades of prior studies using other methods found no such evidence.

The claims have reignited interest in fringe theories, such as the pyramids as ancient power grids or energy hubs, with comparisons to Nikola Tesla’s wireless energy transmission ideas. Mythological correlations, like the Halls of Amenti and references in the Book of the Dead, have also been drawn.

The research has not been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, which is a critical step for validation. The findings were announced via a press release on March 15, 2025, and discussed in a press conference.

What to make of it all?

For a deep dive into this fascinating claim, Skeptic magazine Editor-in-Chief Michael Shermer appeared on Piers Morgan Uncensored, alongside Jay Anderson from Project Unity, archaeologist and YouTuber Dr. Flint Dibble, Jimmy Corsetti from the Bright Insight Podcast, Dan Richards from DeDunking the Past, and archaeologist and YouTuber Milo Rossi (AKA Miniminuteman).

Watch the discussion here:

Here you go: the 18 celebrity ailurophiles featured, including photos and videos of their moggies. They include Taylor Swift (of course), Drew Barrymore, Ricky Gervais, Kate Beckinsale, Katy Perry, Martha Stewart, Nicole Kidman, Ellen DeGeneres, Ed Sheeran, Mark Ruffalo, Russell Brand, Robert Downey, Jr., Miley Cyrus, Kat Dennings, James Franco, Jesse Eisenberg (he was on Team Cat when we debated at the New Yorker Festival), Mayim Bialik, and Cameron Diaz.

*********************

From FB; a video of cats going down stairs, most of them awkwardly.. I like “Slinky Kitty”.

***********************

Did you know that there is an American Museum of the House Cat in Sylva, North Carolina? I discovered it when Facebook foisted a short video on me. Here’s where Sylva is, and it’s not far from Asheville (birthplace and burial site of Thomas Wolfe) or Pigeon Forge (home of “Dollywood”).

Some information from the site:

The American Museum of the House Cat is dedicated to the collection, preservation, exhibition, and interpretation of art, artifacts, and literature of the HouseCat for the purposes of education, historical perspective, aesthetic enjoyment, and for the significance of the unique five million year relationship between man and the domesticated feline.

The Museum was closed for several years, but opened up again in 2023, and is still active. Admission for adults is $10, and $5 for children. Here’s a ten-minute video of a visit to the Museum by “Cashew Paul”.  This looks like a MUST for all cat lovers.

I have two Chessie System playing cards: rarities (see 5:30). You need to know who Chessie is, along with her kittens Nip and Tuck and their father Peek (doesn’t he look proud?). Note also the medieval “petrified cat”, a signed Warhol cat, and a ton of cat art, clocks, ceramics, pendants, stuffed toys, and so on.  And a display of FELIX, my favorite cartoon cat.

And there’s a movie about the curator, Dr. Harold Sims, which I found on YouTube (see below). The blurb on the site:

Little Works of Art, a documentary by Kim Best, is the story of our Curator, Dr, Harold Sims.  Serving as an introduction to our American Museum of the House Cat, this short film details the love and passion Dr, Sims feels for the Cat.  The Cary Theater featured Little Works of Art for their Local Premiers Series in November of 2017.  Little Works of Art then debuted at the 1st Annual New York Cat Film Festival in December of 2017 with the awarded honor of being chosen as the title feature for the Program Two and has been touring the country throughout 2018 with stops in cities and towns from the West Coast to the East Coast delighting cat lovers everywhere.  In 2018 Little Works of Art was one of the films officially selected for the LongLeaf Film Festival held at the North Carolina Museum of History.

Voilà: “Little works of art.”  Don’t miss Dr. Sims’s passion for cats, and what he wants done with his body after he dies. And you get to see more stuff from the Cat Museum.

************************

Lagniappe: I saw this photo on the FB site Meow, and I needed to find out the details. I found them, of course, on YouTube, on a news report in the video below:

Meet Suki and her staff, Francesca Bourdier.  After Suki attended all the Zoom classes that Bourdier watched, Suki got her own cap and own, but not really a diploma. That’s okay, though.

Quickie with Bob: Extinction Survivors; News Items: Constructed Languages, Exercise and Brain Health, Curiosity Rover Finds Long Carbon Chains, Nanotech Lightsails, Vaccine and Autism Again; Who's That Noisy; Your Questions and E-mails: Technology vs Magic; Science or Fiction

We have two new videos from Tara Tanaka in Florida, featuring Wood Storks mating and Great Egrets proffering sticks.  The mating looks like an ungainly act!

Tara’s captions are indented; her Vimeo site is here and her Flickr site is here).

During spring and early summer the sound of male Wood Storks clacking their beaks against the female’s beak as they mate is can be heard frequently from our yard, but we rarely see them. I videoed a pair last week, as their nest-neighbors looked on. If the male had arms, I think he would be really good at patting his head and rubbing his stomach at the same time. The light was hitting their wings in a way that you can see the beautiful iridescent green in their wing feathers that usually just look black. Click to start the videos (there’s also an arrow at lower left): My heart is so full from all of your kind comments on the Great Egret photo and the Wood Storks mating that I wanted to share a video that I shot of the male Great Egret bringing a stick to the nest. I usually shoot video at 60 fps, but switched to 120 fps so I could slow it down and you could see how beautiful his plumes are and how graceful he is as he lands. Hard to believe that many herons and egrets were almost hunted to extinction to provide feathers for women’s hats.

Enjoy this very short, slow-motion video!:

The hazards facing lunar astronauts are many. There's the radiation, the temperature extremes, the psychological challenges associated with isolation, and the risk of important equipment breaking down. But there's also the dust, which constitutes an ever-present background hazard.

Since the second world war, US economic prosperity and major technological developments have hinged upon the government’s commitment to funding scientific research. The Trump administration is ending that

Scientists have long sought to unravel the mysteries of strange metals -- materials that defy conventional rules of electricity and magnetism. Now, a team of physicists has made a breakthrough in this area using a tool from quantum information science. The study reveals that electrons in strange metals become more entangled at a crucial tipping point, shedding new light on the behavior of these enigmatic materials. The discovery could pave the way for advances in superconductors with the potential to transform energy use in the future.

Scientists have long sought to unravel the mysteries of strange metals -- materials that defy conventional rules of electricity and magnetism. Now, a team of physicists has made a breakthrough in this area using a tool from quantum information science. The study reveals that electrons in strange metals become more entangled at a crucial tipping point, shedding new light on the behavior of these enigmatic materials. The discovery could pave the way for advances in superconductors with the potential to transform energy use in the future.

Novel artificial neurons learn independently and are more strongly modeled on their biological counterparts. A team of researchers has programmed these infomorphic neurons and constructed artificial neural networks from them. The special feature is that the individual artificial neurons learn in a self-organized way and draw the necessary information from their immediate environment in the network.

Novel artificial neurons learn independently and are more strongly modeled on their biological counterparts. A team of researchers has programmed these infomorphic neurons and constructed artificial neural networks from them. The special feature is that the individual artificial neurons learn in a self-organized way and draw the necessary information from their immediate environment in the network.

The US has confirmed more than 480 measles cases across 19 states, the highest total since an outbreak in 2019 sickened more than 1200 people

No matter where on Earth you stand, if you have a view of the night sky, and if it is dark enough, you can see the Milky Way. The Milky Way is our home, and its faint clouds of light and shadow have inspired human cultures across the globe. And yet, our view of the Milky Way is limited by our perspective. In many ways, we have learned more from other galaxies than from our own. But when the Gaia spacecraft launched in 2013, all of that changed.

Is it more of a disadvantage to be born poor or Black? Is it worse to be brought up by rich parents in a poor neighborhood, or by poor parents in a rich neighborhood? The answers to these questions lie at the very core of what constitutes a fair society. So how do we know if it is better to have wealthy parents or to grow up in a wealthy neighborhood when “good” things often go together (i.e., kids with rich parents grow up in rich neighborhoods)? When poverty, being Black, and living in a neighborhood with poor schools all predict worse outcomes, how can we disentangle them? Statisticians call this problem multicollinearity, and a number of straightforward methods using some of the largest databases on social mobility ever assembled provide surprisingly clear answers to these questions—the biggest obstacle children face in America is having the bad luck of being born into a poor family.

The immense impact of parental income on the future earnings of children has been established by a tremendous body of research. Raj Chetty and colleagues, in one of the largest studies of social mobility ever conducted,1 linked census data to federal tax returns to show that your parent’s income when you were a child was by far the best predictor of your own income when you became an adult. The authors write, “On average, a 10 percentile increase in parent income is associated with a 3.4 percentile increase in a child’s income.” This is a huge effect; children will earn an average of 34 percent more if their parents are in the highest income decile as compared to the lowest. This effect is true across all races, and Black children born in the top income quintile are more than twice as likely to remain there than White children born in the bottom quintile are to rise to the top. In short, the chances of occupying the top rungs of the economic ladder for children of any race are lowest for those who grow up poor and highest for those who grow up rich. These earnings differences have a broad impact on wellbeing and are strongly correlated with both health and life expectancy.2 Wealthy men live 15 years longer than the poorest, and wealthy women are expected to live 10 years longer than poor women—five times the effect of cancer!

Why is having wealthy parents so important? David Grusky at Stanford, in a paper on the commodification of opportunity, writes:

Although parents cannot directly buy a middleclass outcome for their children, they can buy opportunity indirectly through advantaged access to the schools, neighborhoods, and information that create merit and raise the probability of a middle-class outcome.3

In other words, opportunity is for sale to those who can afford it. This simple point is so obvious that it is surprising that so many people seem to miss it. Indeed, it is increasingly common for respected news outlets to cite statistics about racial differences without bothering to control for class. This is like conducting a study showing that taller children score higher on math tests without controlling for age. Just as age is the best predictor of a child’s mathematical ability, a child’s parent’s income is the best predictor of their future adult income.

Photo by Kostiantyn Li / Unsplash

Although there is no substitute for being born rich, outcomes for children from families with the same income differ in predictable and sometimes surprising ways. After controlling for household income, the largest racial earnings gap is between Asians and Whites, with Whites who grew up poor earning approximately 11 percent less than their Asian peers at age 40, followed by a two percent reduction if you are poor and Hispanic and an additional 11 percent on top of that if you are born poor and Black. Some of these differences, however, result from how we measure income. Using “household income,” in particular, conceals crucial differences between homes with one or two parents and this alone explains much of the residual differences between racial groups. Indeed, the marriage rates between races uncannily recapitulate these exact same earnings gaps—Asian children have a 65 percent chance of growing up in households with two parents, followed by a 54 percent chance for Whites, 41 percent for Hispanics and 17 percent for Blacks4 and the Black-White income gap shrinks from 13 percent to 5 percent5 after we control for income differences between single and two-parent households.

Just as focusing on household income obscures differences in marriage rates between races, focusing on all children conceals important sex differences, and boys who grow up poor are far more likely to remain that way than their sisters.6 This is especially true for Black boys who earn 9.7 percent less than their White peers, while Black women actually earn about one percent more than White women born into families with the same income. Chetty writes:

Conditional on parent income, the black-white income gap is driven entirely by large differences in wages and employment rates between black and white men; there are no such differences between black and white women.7

So, what drives these differences? If it is racism, as many contend, it is a peculiar type. It seems to benefit Asians, hurts Black men, and has no detectable effect on Black women. A closer examination of the data reveals their source. Almost all of the remaining differences between Black men and men of other races lie in neighborhoods. These disadvantages could be caused either by what is called an “individual-level race effect” whereby Black children do worse no matter where they grow up, or by a “place-level race effect” whereby children of all races do worse in areas with large Black populations. Results show unequivocal support for a place-level effect. Chetty writes:

The main lesson of this analysis is that both blacks and whites living in areas with large African-American populations have lower rates of upward income mobility.8

Multiple studies have confirmed this basic finding, revealing that children who grow up in families with similar incomes and comparable neighborhoods have the same chances of success. In other words, poor White kids and poor Black kids who grow up in the same neighborhood in Los Angeles are equally likely to become poor adults. Disentangling the effects of income, race, family structure, and neighborhood on social mobility is a classic case of multicollinearity (i.e., correlated predictors), with race effectively masking the real causes of reduced social mobility—parent’s income. The residual effects are explained by family structure and neighborhood. Black men have the worst outcomes because they grow up in the poorest families and worst neighborhoods with the highest prevalence of single mothers. Asians, meanwhile, have the best outcomes because they have the richest parents, with the lowest rates of divorce, and grow up in the best neighborhoods.

We are all born into an economic caste system in which privilege is imposed on us by the class into which we are helplessly born.

The impact that family structure has on the likelihood of success first came to national attention in 1965, when the Moynihan Report9 concluded that the breakdown of the nuclear family was the primary cause of racial differences in achievement. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an American sociologist serving as Assistant Secretary of Labor (who later served as Senator from New York) argued that high out-of-wedlock birth rates and the large number of Black children raised by single mothers created a matriarchal society that undermined the role of Black men. In 1965, he wrote:

In a word, a national effort towards the problems of Negro Americans must be directed towards the question of family structure. The object should be to strengthen the Negro family so as to enable it to raise and support its members as do other families.10

A closer look at these data, however, reveals that the disadvantage does not come from being raised by a single mom but rather results from growing up in neighborhoods without many active fathers. In other words, it is not really about whether your own parents are married. Children who grow up in two-parent households in these neighborhoods have similarly low rates of social mobility. Rather, it seems to depend on growing up in neighborhoods with a lot of single parents. Chetty in a nearly perfect replication of Moynihan’s findings writes:

black father presence at the neighborhood level strongly predicts black boys’ outcomes irrespective of whether their own father is present or not, suggesting that what matters is not parental marital status itself but rather community-level factors.11

Although viewing the diminished authority of men as a primary cause of social dysfunction might seem antiquated today, evidence supporting Moynihan’s thesis continues to mount. The controversial report, which was derided by many at the time as paternalistic and racist, has been vindicated12 in large part because the breakdown of the family13 is being seen among poor White families in rural communities today14 with similar results. Family structure, like race, often conceals underlying class differences too. Across all races, the chances of living with both parents fall from 85 percent if you are born in an upper-middle-class family to 30 percent if you are in the lower-middle class.15 The take-home message from these studies is that fathers are a social resource and that boys are particularly sensitive to their absence.16 Although growing up rich seems to immunize children against many of these effects, when poverty is combined with absent fathers, the negative impacts are compounded.17

Children who grow up in families with similar incomes and comparable neighborhoods have the same chances of success. In other words, poor White kids and poor Black kids who grow up in the same neighborhood in Los Angeles are equally likely to become poor adults.

The fact that these outcomes are driven by family structure and the characteristics of communities that impact all races similarly poses a serious challenge to the bias narrative18—the belief that anti-Black bias or structural racism underlies all racial differences19 in outcomes—and suggests that the underlying reasons behind the racial gaps lie further up the causal chain. Why then do we so frequently use race as a proxy for the underlying causes when we can simply use the causes themselves? Consider by analogy the fact that Whites commit suicide at three times the rate of Blacks and Hispanics.20 Does this mean that being White is a risk factor for suicide? Indeed, the link between the income of parents and their children may seem so obvious that it can hardly seem worth mentioning. What would it even mean to study social mobility without controlling for parental income? It is the elephant in the room that needs to be removed before we can move on to analyze more subtle advantages. It is obvious, yet elusive; hidden in plain sight.

If these results are so clear, why is there so much confusion around this issue? In a disconcertingly ignorant tweet, New York Times writer Nikole Hanna-Jones, citing the Chetty study, wrote:

Please don’t ever come in my timeline again bringing up Appalachia when I am discussing the particular perils and injustice that black children face. And please don’t ever come with that tired “It’s class, not race” mess again.21

Is this a deliberate attempt to serve a particular ideology or just statistical illiteracy?22 And why are those who define themselves as “progressive” often the quickest to disregard the effects of class? University of Pennsylvania political science professor Adolph Reed put what he called “the sensibilities of the ruling class” this way:

the model is that the society could be one in which one percent of the population controls 95 percent of the resources, and it would be just, so long as 12 percent of the one percent were black and 14 percent were Hispanic, or half women.23

Perhaps this view and the conviction shared by many elites that economic redistribution is a non-starter accounts for this laser focus on racism, while ignoring material conditions. Racial discrimination can be fixed by simply piling on more sensitivity training or enforcing racial quotas. Class inequities, meanwhile, require real sacrifices by the wealthy, such as more progressive tax codes, wider distribution of property taxes used to fund public schools, or the elimination of legacy admissions at elite private schools.24 The fact that corporations and an educated upper class of professionals,25 which Thomas Piketty has called “the Brahmin left,”26 have enthusiastically embraced this type of race-based identity politics is another tell. Now, America’s rising inequality,27 where the top 0.1 percent have the same wealth as the bottom 90 percent, can be fixed under the guidance of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) policies and enforced by Human Resources departments. These solutions pose no threat to corporations or the comfortable lives of the elites who run them. We are obsessed with race because being honest about class would be too painful.

Attending a four-year college is unrivaled in its ability to level the playing field for the most disadvantaged kids from any race and is the most effective path out of poverty.

There are, however, also a number of aspects of human psychology that make the powerful impact of the class into which we are born difficult to see. First, our preference for binary thinking,28 which is less cognitively demanding, makes it easier to conjure up easily divisible, discrete, and visible racial categories (e.g., Black, White, Asian), rather than the continuous and often less visible metric of income. We run into problems when we think about continuous variables such as income, which are hard to categorize and can change across our lifetimes. For example, what is the cutoff between rich and poor? Is $29,000 dollars a year poor but $30,000 middle class? This may also help to explain why we are so reluctant to discuss other highly heritable traits that impact our likelihood of success, like attractiveness and intelligence. Indeed, a classic longitudinal study by Blau and Duncan in 196729 which studied children across the course of their development suggests that IQ might be an even better predictor of adult income than their parent’s income. More recently Daniel Belsky found that an individual’s education-linked genetics consistently predicted a change in their social mobility, even after accounting for social origins.30 Any discussion of IQ or innate differences in cognitive abilities has now become much more controversial, however, and any research into possible cognitive differences between populations is practically taboo today. This broad denial of the role of genetic factors in social mobility is puzzling, as it perpetuates the myth that those who have succeeded have done so primarily due to their own hard work and effort, and not because they happened to be beneficiaries of both environmental and genetic luck. We have no more control over our genetic inheritance than we do over the income of our parents, their marital status, or the neighborhoods in which we spend our childhoods. Nevertheless, if cognitive differences or attractiveness were reducible to clear and discrete categories, (e.g., “dumb” vs. “smart” or “ugly” vs. “attractive”) we might be more likely to notice them and recognize their profound effects. Economic status is also harder to discern simply because it is not stamped on our skin while we tend to think of race as an immutable category that is fixed at birth. Race is therefore less likely to be seen as the fault of the hapless victim. Wealth, however, which is viewed as changeable, is more easily attributed to some fault of the individual, who therefore bears some of the responsibility for being (or even growing up) poor.

We are obsessed with race because being honest about class would be too painful.

We may also fail to recognize the effects of social class because of the availability bias31 whereby our ability to recall information depends on our familiarity with it. Although racial segregation has been falling32 since the 1970s, economic segregation has been rising.33 Although Americans are interacting more with people from different races, they are increasingly living in socioeconomic bubbles. This can make things such as poverty and evictions less visible to middle-class professionals who don’t live in these neighborhoods and make problems with which they may have more experience, such as “problematic” speech, seem more pressing.

Still, even when these studies are published, and the results find their way into the media, they are often misinterpreted. This is because race can mask the root causes of more impactful disadvantages, such as poverty, and understanding their inter-relations requires a basic understanding of statistics, including the ability to grasp concepts such as multicollinearity.

Tragically, the path most certain to help poor kids climb out of poverty is closed to those who are most likely to benefit.

Of course, none of this is to say that historical processes have not played a crucial role in producing the large racial gaps we see today. These causes, however, all too easily become a distraction that provides little useful information about how to solve these problems. Perhaps reparations for some people, or certain groups, are in order, but for most people, it simply doesn’t matter whether your grandparents were impoverished tenant farmers or aristocrats who squandered it all before you were born. Although we are each born with our own struggles and advantages, the conditions into which we are born, not those of our ancestors, are what matter, and any historical injustices that continue to harm those currently alive will almost always materialize in economic disparities. An obsession with historical oppression which fails to improve conditions on the ground is a luxury34 that we cannot afford. While talking about tax policy may be less emotionally satisfying than talking about the enduring legacy of slavery, redistributing wealth in some manner to the poor is critical to solving these problems. These are hard problems, and solutions will require acknowledging their complexity. We will need to move away from a culture that locks people into an unalterable hierarchy of suffering, pitting groups that we were born into against one another, but rather towards a healthier identity politics that emphasizes economic interests and our common humanity.

Photo by Towfiqu barbhuiya / Unsplash

Most disturbing, perhaps, is the fact that the institutions that are most likely to promote the bias narrative and preach about structural racism are those best positioned to help poor children. Attending a four-year college is unrivaled in its ability to level the playing field for the most disadvantaged kids from any race and is the most effective path out of poverty,35 nearly eliminating any other disadvantage that children experience. Indeed, the poorest students who are lucky enough to attend elite four-year colleges end up earning only 5 percent less than their richest classmates.36 Unfortunately, while schools such as Harvard University tout their anti-racist admissions policies,37 admitting Black students in exact proportion to their representation in the U.S. population (14 percent), Ivy League universities are 75 times more likely38 to admit children born in the top 0.1 percent of the income distribution as they are to admit children born in the bottom 20 percent. If Harvard was as concerned with economic diversity as racial diversity, it would accept five times as many students from poor families as it currently does. Tragically, the path most certain to help poor kids climb out of poverty is closed to those who are most likely to benefit.

The biggest obstacle children face in America is having the bad luck of being born into a poor family.

Decades of social mobility research has come to the same conclusion. The income of your parents is by far the best predictor of your own income as an adult. By using some of the largest datasets ever assembled and isolating the effects of different environments on social mobility, research reveals again and again how race effectively masks parental income, neighborhood, and family structure. These studies describe the material conditions of tens of millions of Americans. We are all accidents of birth and imprisoned by circumstances over which we had no control. We are all born into an economic caste system in which privilege is imposed on us by the class into which we are helplessly born. The message from this research is that race is not a determinant of economic mobility on an individual level.39 Even though a number of factors other than parental income also affect social mobility, they operate on the level of the community.40 And although upward mobility is lower for individuals raised in areas with large Black populations, this affects everyone who grows up in those areas, including Whites and Asians. Growing up in an area with a high proportion of single parents also significantly reduces rates of upward mobility, but once again this effect operates on the level of the community and children with single parents do just as well as long as they live in communities with a high percentage of married couples.

One thing these data do reveal—again, and again, and again—however, is that privilege is real. It’s just based on class, not race.

In this age of exoplanet discovery, the flaring of red dwarf stars (M-dwarfs) has taken on new importance. M-dwarfs are known to host many terrestrial planets in their putative habitable zones. The problem is the flaring could make their habitable zones uninhabitable.