What’s An “Anomaly”? Or, How and How Much Theoretical Traditions Matter:

I appreciate that Professor Uslaner has taken my research and arguments seriously, to the point of penning a formal response. He makes several claims and criticisms. With respect to my paper specifically, I think two points are relevant; the others seem to me to be more directed at other scholarship. I shall address the criticisms. In general, I suggest that I see the critique as not so much "wrong" as misdirected or beside the point. Let me begin by saying that Uslaner's critique addresses but a part of the larger concerns my study seeks to illuminate. As I hope is clear in the original paper, the purpose of my article (Hero 2003a) is to examine and compare multiple theoretical traditions, in this case the three traditions defined and developed in some prominent works (e.g., Smith 1993). Uslaner directly considers indicators of only two of those. One indicator, his central focus, is "generalized trust," a leaner and purportedly better benchmark than "social capital" (and is obviously associated with the civic republican tradition). The second is the "social diversity" indicator (drawn from my data), suggestive of the ascriptive hierarchy tradition. Thus, Uslaner's locus is somewhat different, and is arguably more limited in some ways than my analysis, but in other ways perhaps more extensive. Beyond that, my major response is that the critique does not actually challenge my argument as much as it inadvertently undertakes an analysis that is inadequate or inappropriate to the understanding of the significance and measurement of black/minority (in)equality (associated with ascriptive hierarchy). The orientation of Uslaner's "generalized trust" or "community" thesis leads to an examination rooted in those assumptions, which is hardly a surprise. But those assumptions and measurements are not apposite for examining alternative perspectives, including, or particularly, policy disparities between racial groups. This is most conspicuous in what I take to be the central empirical criticism Uslaner levels at my article. The most pointed criticism Uslaner makes concerns an alleged "anomaly" in the findings of my article compared to his findings, which follow from his recalculation and reanalysis of certain data. Specifically, drawing on my data (Hero 2003a), Uslaner . . . recalculated the black/white suspension ratio, using the total numbers of African-Americans suspended for 1992 divided by the total number of all suspensions . . . and made a similar calculation for whites for each slate and then divided the black ratio by the white. The results-compared to Hero 2003a-changed dramatically. (Uslaner 2004). I read Uslaner's assertions to imply that my findings are inaccurate, not merely an anomaly. But do these findings really suggest the findings of my article are an "anomaly," and perhaps inaccurate? From the standpoint of Uslaner's assumptions and measurement, they may be. However, from the standpoint of the social diversity perspective they are not. The findings are different because the assumptions and measures in my article are different. In my study (Hero 2003a), the dependent variable is calculated differently; black students suspended is divided by black students in the student body (not by "all suspensions"), which is in turn divided by white students suspended divided by white students in the student body (again, not by "all suspensions"). Uslaner's calculation may be consistent with certain conceptions of (in)equality, but in not taking account of the proportion of the student population that is black or minority, and white, it systematically, often dramatically overstates the extent of parity. From the social diversity perspective, Uslaner's recalculation does not differentiate or disaggregate racial group outcomes appropriately to fully specify the racial disparity relative to the size of a given group. Thus, to say, for example, that "the original ratios (for 1998) and recalculated ratios are not strongly related" (Uslaner, pp. …