Greater Greater Washington

Demographics


"Degree density" maps show region's east-west divide

What's the difference between Friendship Heights and Capitol Heights? The number of people with college degrees.


Degree density in and around DC. Each blue dot represents 1,000 people 25 and over with a college degree; each pink dot, 1,000 people 25+ without. Maps by Rob Pitingolo.

Rob Pitingolo has done a lot of research on which places have more or fewer people with college degrees. DC has the fourth most college degrees per square mile of any city in the nation, but that doesn't apply everywhere in the region or everywhere in DC.

Rob created these maps that show the locations of people with and without college degrees aged 25 and over.

There seems to be a fair amount of mixing in Virginia, but in DC and Maryland, the divide is starker. East of the Anacostia, blue dots are very few; west of Rock Creek and in the central city, they overwhelm the pink dots.

A lot of news stories talk about the DC region in terms of the division between black and white. The city's history of racial segregation has left a legacy of educational and socioeconomic inequality. As a result, many commentators use race as a simplistic shorthand for conflicts that are really about college educated versus not, or wealthy versus poor, or young versus old.

Race is immutable, but other characteristics are not. If our divisions are really about black versus white, they're not going to change unless some people move out of the city, and that's not what we want to happen. But education levels can change, and it's good for everyone if we can help all people in our region access better education.

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. 

Comments

Add a comment »

This data is especially interesting considering that one of the region's largest (and increasingly sought-after) universities, the University of Maryland, has very few blue dots around it. (At least, I think it does. It's kind of hard to tell where things are without any streets.) Making College Park a bigger draw for recent grads and faculty, many of whom don't live nearby, would help reduce the east-west divide.

by dan reed! on May 16, 2012 2:01 pm • linkreport

A look at the map shows a lot of the area around College Park is not residential. It's parks, golf course, Agriculural Reserve, etc.

by Crickey7 on May 16, 2012 2:08 pm • linkreport

I don't think many people would be surprised by these findings but what's the takeaway?

by HogWash on May 16, 2012 2:09 pm • linkreport

Looks to me like the highest concentrations of blue dots pretty reliably follow the metro lines, at least to the west side, and most all of the Red line.

by G on May 16, 2012 2:19 pm • linkreport

neat graphs, but I'm unclear how they relate to your observations on race and education?

by grumpy on May 16, 2012 2:26 pm • linkreport

I suspect the data points would look very similar at each educational level (graduate degree or no, high school diploma or no). Effective literacy would also probably track similarly.

by Dizzy on May 16, 2012 2:41 pm • linkreport

College Park has more than enough houses and apartments in and around it. In fact, the USDA property is pretty far to the north of campus and tens of thousands of people live between campus and that area. I would suspect that the reason there aren't more blue dots in College Park is due to a combination of 3 factors:

1. Schools: Faculty at UMD don't live in College Park because the don't want their kids to go to PG County Schools, especially when they can still live pretty close to campus and have their kids in Montgomery County schools.

2. For recent graduates, College Park offers nothing. Downtown College Park is beyond defensible at this point. The nicest restaurant is Applebees, the most vibrant business is the car wash.

3. College Park, the state, and WMATA totally botched the Metro Station. The location probably couldn't have been changed since that is where the CSX tracks were, but there has been nothing in terms of development ever planned for the station area. Way back in the early 90's when I was a student the city council used to brag about how many parking spaces the station would eventually have and how College Park would hopefully become a major park and ride point. When the station opened, the city actually banned University-owned shuttle buses from directly accessing the station. Until Paint Branch Road was finished, it was quicker to take a bus to the Greenbelt station than to the College Park station!

Now you have the research park with a few large government tenants and an airport that exists only in a few people's memory as the major features of that area. The rest is a small handful of single family homes, parking, and run down body shops. College Park could have abandoned Route 1 and built an entire new town center around the Metro station, but, remember, this is the city of College Park, we are talking about.

The good news, I suppose is that this hasn't really affected student interest in UMD. It is apparently getting more and more selective every year which means there is demand. The real downside is in faculty recruitment, a point often made by the administration.

by dcdriver on May 16, 2012 3:30 pm • linkreport

dcdriver- legend is that the powers that be at UMD didn't want the metro close to campus because it would bring "undesirables" to the university.

I'm not sure if this is factual or not, however.

by Tom A. on May 16, 2012 3:39 pm • linkreport

FYI: This data comes from the Census' American Community Survey, which the House just voted to eliminate. Needless to say, that would make it a lot harder to make maps like this in the future.

by Gavin on May 16, 2012 3:51 pm • linkreport

Crowd-source time! Tom A's idea is exactly what it happened, as claimed by in the study that this post on RTCP links to back in 2007: http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/523/ Report states it was largely Dr. Elkin's attempt at keeping civil disorder of 1960s Washington out of CP.

by funInSun25 on May 16, 2012 4:21 pm • linkreport

Excuse my grammar. Main point of the study was, "then-President Elkins knew that the current station would be the least-used possible location for a Metro station in College Park:" and "The report links Elkins’s lack of support for a convenient station with a fear of racial conflict. "

by funInSun25 on May 16, 2012 4:23 pm • linkreport

The closest collection of dots appears to be in the center of the city, not west of Rock Creek Park. That probably has as much to do with population density as anything (west of Rock Creek Park is generally detached single family homes, by and large), but it completely undermines your random insertion of the hackneyed "west of Rock Creek Park/east of the river" divide angle.

Besides all that, how exactly are you going to increase college graduation rates in a way that only targets one part of the city? Open a new community college east of the river with free (or low) tuition for any Ward 7 or 8 resident? Policy ideas are more welcome than retreads of familiar concepts of racial division (which are as meaningless as classifying people by height, weight or any other range of factors influenced by heredity).

by logic on May 16, 2012 4:30 pm • linkreport

@logic-Wait...WHAT? First, he never said anything about "closest collection of dots". The quote is East of the Anacostia, blue dots are very few; west of Rock Creek and in the central city, they overwhelm the pink dots. which, is fairly easy to spot in the map. There is quite a real divide there in terms of education. Second, David goes out of the way to say IT'S NOT ABOUT RACE. The quote is As a result, many commentators (like YOU) use race as a simplistic shorthand for conflicts that are really about college educated versus not, or wealthy versus poor, or young versus old.

Race is immutable, but other characteristics are not. If our divisions are really about black versus white, they're not going to change unless some people move out of the city, and that's not what we want to happen. But education levels can change, and it's good for everyone if we can help all people in our region access better education.

Third, this post is clearly not a policy statement, I'm not sure why you think there should have been some new policy put forth. Perhaps, since you think there should be one, you can write up that post?

by thump on May 16, 2012 5:10 pm • linkreport

Interesting. The smaller versions of the map are easier to understand because the dots are closer together. The regional map reads very well indeed.

With one dot = 1000 people, the map is hard to understand at a large scale. The map zoomed in to DC would probably be more legible as a choropleth.

by David R. on May 16, 2012 5:11 pm • linkreport

David R: I think maybe making a dot be 250 people would have made sense at the higher zoom level. A choropleth obscures the important factor of density; it would be hard to compare an area of 5 square miles with 1,000 people all of whom have no college degrees to an area of 1 square mile and 10,000 college degree holders, for instance.

by David Alpert on May 16, 2012 5:28 pm • linkreport

I'm missing what the point is supposed to be here. If you have half a brain, you know there is an educational divide here that does not fall simply along race lines, which is why many of your predictions and estimates here on this blog are so wildly misguided. There are plenty of well-educated, well-to-do black people in dc who are completely invisible to the likes of the people who frequent this blog.

so again, the point of this is what? A few posts later when an election doesn't go ggw's way, everyone east of the river will go back to poor being and uneducated as a stand in for being black. (nevermind that all black people in dc don't live over there, but let me put my ggw hat on) The denseness of this blog on racial issues is astounding for people that are so "enlightened" and "progressive". Newsflash, every black person who is in dc/born and raised in dc is not uneducated, sitting around waiting for some "urbanists" to fix their problems. Get a clue.

Unless you re-arrange your graph to overlay racial densities on top of the degree densities, I can not understand how/why this post talks about race in any informed way at all. It is chock full of assumptions coming straight from the narrative you want to believe about this city, which is not unlike that of colonizers.

by Native on May 16, 2012 6:56 pm • linkreport

Native's comment is why it's so hard to talk about important issues like the divides in our city.

This comment asserts that everyone on GGW thinks the same thing. What do they allegedly think? Oh, that all black people are the same. So we're getting accused of lumping a group of people together, by someone who's lumping a whole group of people together.

I know that for some people—but of course I don't want to make any generalizations that might be unreasonable—it's considered a socially acceptable or appropriate thing to get all "up in someone's face" about something, to take offense at a perceived slight and get bent out of shape about it. Okay, so I'll respect that and not delete your comment out of hand.

But you achieve nothing but sow exactly what you decry. How about trying to achieve some understanding instead. You think "the likes of people who frequent this blog" don't know nothing? Well, why don't you tell us what is the truth instead of just going around shouting.

You think "the likes of" us don't know what your problems are or how to solve them? Why don't you share what you see as the problems and what you see as the solutions. Because in order to get whatever you want, it could help to get "the likes of people" over here to support the same thing.

That's not going to happen if the only time you have anything to say is to get offended that someone tried to talk about the divide in the city.

For what it's worth, the fact that the educational divide does not fall along race lines is exactly part of what I was pointing out. So apparently it's a huge problem now that I said something that "anyone with half a brain" knows. It'd be a problem if someone says something wrong, but now also if they say something too obvious?

No wonder we can't ever talk about race.

by David Alpert on May 16, 2012 10:35 pm • linkreport

I'd just like to point out wrt to Native's comment that there have been multiple stories that have laid out the racial densities of the DC area.

Here it is,
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/7220/maps-show-racial-divides-in-greater-washington/

Feel free to overlay the two sets at your own leisure.

And the fact that David explicitly states that maps like these help bridge the racial divide by showing what the actual contributing factors are but I guess mentioning that people sometimes use race as a reasoning for things makes things racist no matter what your prescribed cause or solution is.

So, by writing about finding strategies to fix and move beyond race based arguments and problems is also racist.

by Canaan on May 16, 2012 10:53 pm • linkreport

David Alpert, you don't help yourself by saying "we" in your final sentence. :p

by selxic on May 17, 2012 8:34 am • linkreport

Well... It's not about race, but it's a little to simplistic to say it's not about race. To Native's point there are many middle class well educated black residents living all over the city. However, when the majority of DC residents who do not have a college education are black and Latino race is still the elephant in the room.

My interpretation of Native's comment (please Native correct me if I'm wrong) is what is the point of presenting this information? If it's to prove race isn't DC's issue, then this falls short (see paragraph above). As logic states "Policy ideas are more welcome than retreads of familiar concepts of racial division". This data is more powerful if tied to dissecting problems or developing solutions.

by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on May 17, 2012 10:39 am • linkreport

That is precisely the issue Ms V. This post falls majorly short in proving anything about race because the whole thing is based on assumptions. I don't have the time to overlay the maps. I was talking about *this* post, and it should not be difficult to understand why jumping from a post about the density of college degrees to race is simplistic, un-nuanced argument, especially in a place like DC.

No one is bent out of shape. Even the tone of your response about "getting all up in someone's face" is racist, sexist, and condescending. But not surprising. Many of your commenters type passionately about issues and you don't accuse them of "getting up in your face". Is it because you assume I'm a black woman, and that's what black women do? That's why the undertone of this blog is so negative and ignorant. If you want a white city, just say it and stop wasting everyone's time.

You don't know my race, sex, education level or anything so don't assume.

And likewise to this "Because in order to get whatever you want, it could help to get "the likes of people" over here to support the same thing." By assuming that all of the black people in the city are one way, you're missing out on many coalition building opportunities. But let me get all up your face waving my welfare card and beating my feat.

SMH.

by Native on May 17, 2012 11:22 am • linkreport

A blog is an ongoing conversation, not the end of a conversation. This post presents some interesting stats, and I gave some thoughts that occurred to me. To say that this doesn't give the final proof for anything misunderstands the objective.

What do you think I should have said? Then why don't you provide that point of view in the comments, so that I can know, and others can know?

I honestly don't know what you would have liked to see said. You are so offended that I didn't say what you wanted, or something, but haven't told me what I should be saying. Why don't you educate me. I want to be able to talk intelligently about this subject.

When I started blogging about density, sometimes I got things wrong. People like Alex Block and Dan Malouff patiently, and politely, explained the truth of the matter in comments. They didn't excoriate for not having everything perfect, they used it as a teaching opportunity.

Demographic and racial issues are things we need to talk about. To do that, those of us who have one set of prior experiences need to hear from those who have another set of prior experiences about what they don't understand. If all you do is attack people for saying something incompletely, let alone incorrectly, it doesn't educate.

You can shake your head at all the people who don't have the truth you do, or you can try to share the truth. I'm still waiting.

by David Alpert on May 17, 2012 11:39 am • linkreport

I would suggest that accusing Veronica Davis of holding negative stereotypes of black women and "want(ing) a white city" is... comically ignorant, to put it lightly.

by Dizzy on May 17, 2012 11:56 am • linkreport

Or, if that was directed at Alpert, then I'll downgrade it to just regular ignorant - an affliction that knows no color or creed, but does correlate strongly with volume and outrage.

by Dizzy on May 17, 2012 12:01 pm • linkreport

"but haven't told me what I should be saying."

Im guessing show a map of where the blacks with college degrees live, or something like that. Cause its your responsibility to dispell stereotypes about race.

The flip side of blogs getting more serious attention, is that people expect them to have the responsibility to "tell the whole story" as they used to expect newspapers to do. Even when the person complaining admits they themselves dont have the time to do so. They think of the blogger as a public institution. yet the economics of most blogs does not allow for that.

I think we need viable newspapers myself, but Im an old fogie.

by AWalkerInTheCity on May 17, 2012 12:07 pm • linkreport

I certainly don't agree with everything Native wrote nor that DAl's response was sexist. But I will cosign (actually repeat what I said up top) that it's hard to see what's the "point" of the article. FWIW, by looking at the map, it's easy to conclude that people lacking college degrees are largely found East of the city's core w/most of them found EOTR. This area also happens to be poorer AND blacker than the rest of the city.

So from my perspective, this article doesn't say very much beyond what we already know. My criticism is that it introduces and dismisses race in a manner that makes the article lack focus. I'm personally not offended by the suggestion that many lower class and undereducated blacks live EOTR..because it's true. We all know that we are also represented in areas all over the city. Yet, the highest concentration of blacks are WOTR.

I don't buy the notion that "we" can't talk about race because of attititudes like Native's. I've always found the problem is in who and how (medium/format) such discussions are moderated. I'm also aware that discussions about DC (good and bad) here are most often led by nonblacks who have no problem generalizing large swaths of blacks due to what they perceive as conflicting interests. Even the notion that W8 would get better once Marion Barry dies was widely supported by those here.

The difference between Native's entry and countless others is that examples like the "Barry should die" one are supported by the majority of posters. Had Native posted to some other board w/a black majority, I imagine most would "understand" where he/she's coming from.

by HogWash on May 17, 2012 12:11 pm • linkreport

except, "we all know where x people" live doesn't really pass muster while maps and other data that provide empirical evidence do matter.

by X on May 17, 2012 12:28 pm • linkreport

HogWash: I'm happy to agree that this was a pretty off the cuff post and not a Ph.D. thesis. I'm sorry if it didn't make a point as clearly as it could have, but I just don't think that's the standard we need to set. If everything has to be 100% wrapped up an absolutely clear bow then we'd not have a lot of content on an all-volunteer site. I try pretty hard to push for clear theses and maybe you have all gotten used to that.

But what I really object to is that Native got so angry. I didn't mind that you said what you said up top which is that you didn't feel the point was that clear. Sure, okay, it's not. But Native said that really nastily.

Whenever topics around race come up, some people — not you, which is why I like your comments — get really offended even for what seem to be small things like "your point was a little too obvious, a little too offhand and unclear."

If the problem is the format, what format do you think would work? I'm genuinely interested in learning how to talk about issues that touch on race better, and understanding the perspectives of various people who are black (who don't all have the same perspective from each other), but why not try to have the conversation here?

I don't think Barry should die. I mean, biologically, he should eventually like any living organism because it would be really bizarre otherwise, but I'm not rooting for that to happen any sooner than necessary.

But I do feel that when I talk about race I get tarred with whatever some other people said who are also white. Like this Barry should die thing. And that's exactly what the offended folks are up in arms about, generalizing based on skin color, or in this forum, assumptions about skin color.

by David Alpert on May 17, 2012 12:49 pm • linkreport

@thump

@logic-Wait...WHAT? First, he never said anything about "closest collection of dots". The quote is East of the Anacostia, blue dots are very few; west of Rock Creek and in the central city, they overwhelm the pink dots.

@thump And in the center of the city, there are many more blue dots than west of Rock Creek or east of the river, so why not compare central DC to east DC, if the point is to compare the places with the most blue dots to the place with the least? The only reason to drag out the hackneyed "west of Rock Creek Park/east of the river" contrast is...well, I don't know, you try to explain it.

"Second, David goes out of the way to say IT'S NOT ABOUT RACE."

Then, why mention race at all? It's not about the bushiness of eyebrows either and David manages to not mention eyebrows at all. When things are not about race, race shouldn't come into the discussion. At least, when you're a rational speaker.

"Third, this post is clearly not a policy statement"

Clearly it's not, I'm saying it should have included some policy proposal to be remotely utilitarian. I notice you don't have any policy proposals, either. Thanks for sharing, in any case.

by logic on May 17, 2012 1:14 pm • linkreport

David Alpert.... No one expects a PhD thesis. But it doesn't answer the question that Hogwash posed initially "what's the takeaway?" In reading it seems like the takeaway is that race doesn't matter. However, there seems to be a disconnect between the data and that takeaway.

If race doesn't matter, let's take it out of the discussion. Now looking at the map what does it tell us? For example, it tells us that people in wards 7 & 8 don't have college degrees, which explains one reason why these two wards have chronic unemployment.

by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on May 17, 2012 1:22 pm • linkreport

My takeway was

A. hey heres an interesting map on degrees

B. some of the east west split that we think of as racial, is cause theres an education difference between east and west - which might explain it as well as race.

C. To actually distinguish the education effect from race someone would have to overlay the maps. Go ahead.

by AWalkerInTheCity on May 17, 2012 1:27 pm • linkreport

"Then, why mention race at all? It's not about the bushiness of eyebrows either and David manages to not mention eyebrows at all. When things are not about race, race shouldn't come into the discussion. At least, when you're a rational speaker."

possibly because there arent many articles in WaPo saying there is a divide over bushy eyebrows. If lots of people think theres a racial divide (and lots of people clearly DO) and theres evidence that it could be a different divide, that seems self evidently news worthy.

by AWalkerInTheCity on May 17, 2012 1:29 pm • linkreport

@logic. "Third, this post is clearly not a policy statement"

Clearly it's not, I'm saying it should have included some policy proposal to be remotely utilitarian.

I completely disagree. Observational data is valuable in and of itself. You are asserting an interpretation of the data, of the observed pattern: that it's bad and that something should be done to change it, e.g. some policy proposal.

For me, observational data like this is an opportunity to ask more questions when it allows us to see a pattern. E.g. Maybe its not a negative that some areas have lesser density of blue dots. For example what would the pattern look like if "completion in a trade apprenticeship" were mapped? Maybe the real issue is economic opportunity. Not everyone needs a college degree to obtain a decent living.

by Tina on May 17, 2012 1:34 pm • linkreport

David,
I agree that the second paragraph of Native's original comment was unnecessarily harsh, but otherwise I think his/her comment and Hogwash's comments are pretty spot-on (and I typically disgree with about 95% of Hogwash's comments, of the ones I've read anyway). If you're going to take a dataset that is about something other than race and then proceed to make assumptions or observations about race, than you should not be surprised when people are offended. I would encourage you to take extra care with such posts in the future.
As it is, I still don't understand the logic you spell out when you say that black vs. white conflicts are really about young/old and educated/not divides -- you're still posing everything as one-group-versus-another fight when in reality there is alot of common ground to be found between people who may "fit" into different demographic groups. And as Ms. V noted, dismissing race comes off as simplistic and fails to acknowledge an important dimension of the history behind educational divides in our region. Personally, I thought the maps reflected that people with college degrees earn more money on average than those who do not and can afford to live in jurisdictions that provide better quality services (schools, police, less-corrupt local governments, retail) so your comments about race struck me as coming completely out of left field and based on something other than the information being presented. It would have been more helpful if your response to Native had addressed the lack of clarity in the post you wrote instead of going on and on about how "we can't talk about race" b/c of comments like theirs. If you really want to talk about race in this city, then do so intelligently and you will inspire intelligent debate from your readers. Do so clumsily, and you'll get whatever this comment thread is.

by grumpy on May 17, 2012 1:52 pm • linkreport

@DAl, If everything has to be 100% wrapped up an absolutely clear bow then we'd not have a lot of content on an all-volunteer site.

It's pretty much GGW standard that if an author or commenter posits an analysis (that most disagree with), it's widely expected that the analysis should be defended and as absolutely clear as it could be. Most discussions here follow that pattern.

But Native said that really nastily.

True. Was it nastier than those who wished Barry would die so W8 might survive? Or "people who voted for Orange [insert barrage of negativity] Not really.

If the problem is the format, what format do you think would work? I'm genuinely interested in learning how to talk about issues that touch on race better

Simply? It's just hard. It's hard for anyone outside of a group (think black or white..male or female) to discuss race. Anytime some nonblack person broaches the subject, it will sometimes be met with opposition. This usually occurs when there's an attempt to dismiss race or include race as the issue. Similarly, if a black person is discussing race in/to a majority white setting, as long as the focus is on (as the root of the problem) some level of black inaction/ineffectiveness, things are good and people receptive. When the focus shifts to things outside our "control," (systemic, cultural) the ears become less attentive.

In this article, I would have left race out altogether since it really doesn't answer anything that wasn't well understood. Keep in mind that the community is also responsible for making such discussions proper. For every Native's "you people believing you know everything" there is someone else's "those native DC residents don't want to..."

I've been harping on the latter since I've come to this board...that native/longtime DC residents are characterized in ways which did nothing to bridge the divide that the Fenty Administration along with Rhee helped create.

Sorry for being all over the place.

by HogWash on May 17, 2012 2:22 pm • linkreport

If you really want to talk about race in this city, then do so intelligently and you will inspire intelligent debate from your readers. Do so clumsily, and you'll get whatever this comment thread is.

I think that, regardless of how you talk about racial issues in this city, you'll get whatever this comment thread is--some proportion of commenters making incisive points, some decrying unnecessarily "racializing" whatever issue. The proportions may change, but you'll never get away from the mix.

by oboe on May 17, 2012 2:27 pm • linkreport

"True. Was it nastier than those who wished Barry would die so W8 might survive?"

dude, the guy who said that was also a provocative in your face person, IIRC. I found it offensive.

Personally, I hope CM Barry has a long, lovely,healthy retirement, starting tomorrow.

by AWalkerInTheCity on May 17, 2012 2:27 pm • linkreport

...decrying the unnecessary racialization of whichever issue...

sorry...

by oboe on May 17, 2012 2:29 pm • linkreport

dude, the guy who said that was also a provocative in your face person, IIRC. I found it offensive.

Excactly, this is a bit like the folks who justify torture because Al Queda cut people's heads off. Pretty low bar.

by oboe on May 17, 2012 2:31 pm • linkreport

I should also mention that race, gender, and sexuality (topics I can overdose) must be discussed with care because emotions run rampant on all sides. Lydia DePillis' as-an-aside coverage of race in her article is a great example. While I didn't have an emotional response, I did have a WTF does A have to do with B one. :)

by HogWash on May 17, 2012 2:35 pm • linkreport

dude, the guy who said that was also a provocative in your face person, IIRC. I found it offensive.

That's good to know. As w/anything, when no one (save me) speaks out against statements like such, it can give the impression to others that this sort of stuff is condoned. I was shocked that people tried to rationalize how death was an answer to progress..and then claim it wasn't negative.

by HogWash on May 17, 2012 2:44 pm • linkreport

I completely missed the part where Alpert invoked race. In fact, I read an article that very explicitly dove into other demographic characteristics. He provided observational demographic data and asserted that lack of education is a primary driver in unemployment and poverty in the district. Yes, most people should know this, but there's big difference between what people "know" and what quantifiable data says. It's a strong visualization of data that, as others have suggested, could be used as the foundation for additional analysis that might eventually lead to a policy recommendation or strategy.

I don't see the hubbub here.

by worthing on May 17, 2012 2:48 pm • linkreport

ditto @worthing.
And
@Hogwash, fwiw, I too was offended by the comment looking forward to CM Barry's demise. iirc, at the time i thought it was just an attempt at humor that was in poor taste and didn't warrant a response.

by Tina on May 17, 2012 2:58 pm • linkreport

The NYTimes had a nice Census-based map of ethnicity.
http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer

by Jasper on May 18, 2012 9:41 am • linkreport

I don't agree with everything Native said in the first comment, but his/her tone seems par for the course here. David's first response was to me an overreaction and his fall back position that Native is an angry black woman or man is much more provoking/nasty than Native's somewhat correct notion that many GGW commentors generalize about blacks being poor and uneducated in DC.

Later David takes native to task for attacking him but offering no solutions when Native's last paragraph suggest an overlay of racial breakdown would have supported the original post better.

The funny thing is the how David writes

"I know that for some people—but of course I don't want to make any generalizations that might be unreasonable—it's considered a socially acceptable or appropriate thing to get all "up in someone's face" about something, to take offense at a perceived slight and get bent out of shape about it. Okay, so I'll respect that and not delete your comment out of hand."

This is the typical issue:

1) I don't stereotype, I am above it
2) You are a stereotypical black person
3) Don't forget I have the power and allow you to speak/act at my will

Its funny to me because I know David means well and really has a quality blog here.

by LeeinDC on May 18, 2012 11:08 am • linkreport

Native's last paragraph suggest an overlay of racial breakdown would have supported the original post better.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2012/02/01/study-segregation-is-dead-except-in-d-c/

by oboe on May 18, 2012 12:16 pm • linkreport

Unless you re-arrange your graph to overlay racial densities on top of the degree densities, I can not understand how/why this post talks about race in any informed way at all. It is chock full of assumptions coming straight from the narrative you want to believe about this city, which is not unlike that of colonizers.

See my previous post.

by oboe on May 18, 2012 12:18 pm • linkreport

There are some good posts here. I especially appreciate HogWash as usual as well as LeeinDC.

by selxic on May 18, 2012 12:55 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or

Support Us

How can our region be greater?

DC Maryland Virginia Arlington Alexandria Montgomery Prince George's Fairfax Charles Prince William Loudoun Howard Anne Arundel Frederick Tysons Corner Baltimore Falls Church Fairfax City
CC BY-NC