Buffalo Creek Casino: Next Bets – A response to the author’s “Claims of Racism”

Background

The author, Steve Siegel, of Art Voice’s July 3, 2013 article titled Buffalo Creek Casino: Next Bets (http://artvoice.com/issues/v12n27/news_analysis) claims that Native Americans who disagree with and discredit his opinions accuse him of being a racist because we lack no other logical response. Well…please allow me to response – again!

First, Mr. Siegel continues to indicate that there are “…reams of economic research [and] social data…” proving his points. I strongly encourage Mr. Siegel and those who print his words to provide citation(s) for this research. As was indicated in earlier responses to Mr. Siegel’s claims, see http://nacwr.blogspot.com/2011/08/successful-native-american-businesses.html and http://nacwr.blogspot.com/2011/02/breaking-biased-news-native-american.html, he has never conducted peer reviewed research on any subject matter which he argues.

At the end of the Art Voice article it states: Steve Siegel recently retired as a professor at Niagara University and has done a great deal of research into the potential economic impacts of the Buffalo Creek Casino upon the community. His research is the best kept secret in all of academics! I have gently asked Mr. Siegel to provide his research or please indicate where it can be found. I continue to search research databases and wait for his response.

If his work does not reach the level of scientific research, which is peer reviewed, he should stop misusing the word “research.” What is being written is “opinion.” An academic with an opinion is not uncommon. What is uncommon is an academic reporting that s/he has done research without the necessary standards of sound scientist activities.

Mr. Siegel states that I “…question the most compelling of empirical truths (such as 2+2 = 4)…” yes, this would be foolishness on my part to question this equation. I do not question simple math, although I do think that whoever incorporated the alphabet into math equations has a special place in the afterlife!  

What is specifically being questioned is how Mr. Siegel postulates that a legal, law abiding company (the number 2) and (the word “and” indicates a plus sign in mathematics) their unfair advantage (the other number 2) results in (the word “result” indicates =) a harm coming to folks in Western New York (the number 4). Please Mr. Siegel, provide us with how your 2+2=4 math works. Please provide us with scientific data that shows how this Native American business, playing by the rules set by the majority, harm other businesses and the people living around this business.

My Bias

I am not Seneca. I do not like gaming as a way to support Native American Peoples. However, I am bias toward anyone who claims that legal Native American businesses have an unfair or harmful impact on communities, compared to similar majority owned businesses. I am bias against folks who claim something which is supported by research (peer-reviewed), when in fact it turns out to be pure opinion. When forces line up against my People (Native Americans), using opinion-based scare tactics, expect a viscous reaction. Having biases is part of being human. Denying their existence in one’s own self while clearly seeing it in others, is dangerous.   

The Claim of Racism

When Mr. Siegel continues to focus solely on the players of the game and not on the rules of the game, this says something. Please note that the Native American business discussed in the Art Voice article did not make the rules they are following. The Native American business is obeying and complying with the rules all others must follow. The Native American business that is exclusively being focused on has the same rights as any other business to be successful. If Mr. Siegel does not like the rules of the game that everyone is required to play within…don’t attack the players of the game. It reminds folks of Jimmy the Greek’s opinion why African American’s were better athletes and seemingly having more advantages over the majority, White athlete. His stated opinion was,   

“The black is a better athlete to begin with because he's been bred to be that way, because of his high thighs and big thighs that goes up into his back, and they can jump higher and run faster because of their bigger thighs and he's bred to be the better athlete because this goes back all the way to the Civil War when during the slave trade … the slave owner would breed his big black to his big woman so that he could have a big black kid…”

Was Jimmy the Greek a racist? I am not sure what was in Jimmy’s heart. What he believed came out in his opinions. I am not sure if there is any research that supports Jimmy’s opinions. Regardless, the rules of the game remained consistent for any and all players during Jimmy’s time. Focusing on a specific group of players in a fair game can result in being accused of suffering from biasness. If Mr. Siegel wants to end the claims of racism, he can show his peer reviewed research and/or start focusing on the rules of the business game rather than on a small, specific population of players. Mr. Siegel has a strong opinion about this Native American business and has written a long and thought-out article. I have used some of his quotes about how he views the Native American business to make my case and he has used my words to make his own. Please allow me to show Mr. Siegel’s response to the charge of being prejudice, he states “….” Nothing! Rather than admit to any possible short sightedness, bias, or prejudices, he continues to focus on those who question his practices, and point out their personal flaws.

If Mr. Siegel has conducted scientific research and his peer reviewers have substantiated his research, please lead us to those scholarly works. Until that time comes, please stop misleading readers with opinions. We disserve a discussion based in science, not someone’s biased, academic opinion. It is a lesson Jimmy the Greek could have learned.

Peace, DAP

A Native American Goes to NYC in Search of Mother Nature

The words expressed here may be unsuitable for some readers, discretion is advised!

I just returned from speaking at a global health conference in New York City. It was a great conference and there were many great speakers discussing very important global health topics. The major issue for me was not the conference or the folks connected with it. The main issue is NYC. I have been to NYC two times. Graffiti is everywhere. The streets are lined with trash. A taxi ride results in repeated panic attacks, horns blow constantly, drivers yell and thrown hand signs in anger, people walk past each other without acknowledgement, the air is nasty, trees are few and have about as much life to them as the over populated, deformed pigeons. 

The things that are manmade appear in need of constant repair. The things that were created by Mother Nature are overrun by man’s makings. Mother Nature is having a hard time in NYC with so many humans to contend with.

I had some time to kill before the start of the conference so luckily there was a small park nearby. I figured this is the best place to past some time and it was a nice, sunny day. There was a fountain in the middle, concrete walking paths, benches, a small grassy area, and a small play ground with a few ice cream venders.  From the airport to the park, which took about 25 minutes, caused about the same about of heart stopping incidences, and resulted in some moist underwear, this park was the only space between those two points, with more than one or two trees.

As I settled into my park bench spot that was well shaded and cool, I began to notice a few things happening around me. It all started with reading an article a few days back about Jesus appearing in a dog’s ass.

Now…I have worked very hard to try to understand our Creator and find some of the Creator’s messages and meaning in my life. If it turns out that I have been searching in the wrong spots, then so be it. I will certainly try to refocus my attention.

Being in NYC I was in luck. As it turns out, it seems like most people who live there own dogs. There are more dogs than trees to piss on. Most dogs in the park that day were also bred to have a tail that remains pointed up, purposely exposing their own little unique brown ass-button. If the Creator was to be found in a dog ass, this park provided prime opportunities.

I am not sure if it is God’s will to search him/her out or if these dogs and their parading asses force my eyes to look, but I must gaze upon them. It is the same strategy I used when looking into those painting that seem like nothing until your eyes make the necessary adjustment and reveals the spectacular 3-D stereogram image within.

It is extremely difficult to enjoy an ice-cream sandwich while my mind and eyes are concentrated on every passing little dog ass.

 

So, back to my larger point. Mother Nature and NYC are incompatible. Having a dog in NYC makes as much sense as having a penguin in Arizona. While folks who have a dog in NYC might benefit from companionship and improved mental health, there is no benefit for the dog. The same is true for a penguin in AZ. Mother Nature did not design the dog to live in studio apartments or outside on concrete. Mother Nature did not design the dog to spend their time outdoors on a mandatory leash.

When a dog takes a piss or lays a dump, Mother Nature designed it to, when done, kick up the grass and dirt around it. That is not a training issue it is a Nature issue.

Across the path from where I was sitting was a community water fountain. It is basically a stem that comes out of the ground with a bowl on top. Mostly children and foreigners drank from it while I was there watching. A larger brown and black mixed breed and its owner came walking towards this water fountain. The dog sniffs around the stem, lifts its back leg and without any hesitation from either the dog or owner, it proceeds to take a long, dark yellow, high pressured piss on that fountain. As soon as it was done and it’s lifted back leg returned to the ground, he was just about to make the scrapping on the ground move when he realized concrete is not grass. The back paw slowly and gingerly slid across the concrete failing to accomplish Mother Nature’s goal (kicking up grass and dirt). It was such an awkward move, the dog looked at its own leg like…"what the heck was that all about?” It finally turned and went on about its business.

NYC is in the process of altering and removing the Mother Nature in that and other dogs. It is doing it to humans as well. Same park, same bench. Again, because every other person walking around that day seemed to have a dog on a leach, I spot two young ladies, each with similar size dogs heading directly towards each other. The dogs meet first because all these dog owners have those leashes that can go out about 20 feet and then wind back in when the dog gets closer. The two small dogs act accordingly, their noses greet each other, they slip past to sniff each other’s under carriage and finally their noses lock onto the other’s ass spots.

Whenever a dog’s nose gets close to another dog’s ass, it is like what happens when my vacuum cleaner hoses gets too close to that little shag rug on my bathroom’s tile floor. The strange thing that happened is not the action of the two dogs, but their owners. As the humans stop to allow their dogs to greet and sniff, they both stand there, arms crossed with their backs to each other. The humans do not take this opportunity to engage with another human. While their dogs are greeting and getting to know their own species, the humans could care less about using this time to interact. The message sent between humans seems to be “I will stop to let my dog’s nose vacuum your dog’s ass carpet, but I'll be damn if I will even acknowledge your existence.”

I can’t imagine living in a place with so many people I have to ignore. Engaging and acknowledging our environments has always been in our human Nature. How and when did this change? The good news is that a dog’s nose and another dog’s ass will always come together and be joined. NYC would have a hard time removing that nature from dogs. The bad news is that what brought humans naturally together have been removed. NYC and Mother Nature have battled it out and Mother Nature was run out of town. She left NYC having smog in her hair, graffiti sprayed on her dress, and dog shit on her shoes. Peace, DAP

American Indian/Alaskan Native Academic Social Context

This is not an April fools

There are many reasons why American Indian/Alaskan Natives drop out of college. Below are some results of a study I have been working on. Please note that this is a first rough draft but one that needs to reach as many people as possible in the hopes of better explaining this continued problem.

There is an established, historical literature indicating that individuals who obtain a college degree have significant health improvements over their life span compared to those without a college degree (1). They benefit from a College Degree Health Booster! They can also transfer that Health Booster back to their communities by completing college with a degree.

Regrettably, underrepresented minorities, especially American Indian/Alaskan Natives (AI/ANs), have very high college dropout rates (2). They do not benefit from this college degree health booster. That booster does not have the chance to be transferred back.

According to the United States Census Bureau, minorities comprised approximately 28 percent of the population (3). Minorities represent about the same rates in student populations of U.S. colleges and universities.

Currently, Whites make up about 60 percent of U.S. new college student enrollment, with African Americans representing about 14 percent, Hispanics making up about 13 percent and AI/ANs consisting of only about 0.8 percent of all college students nationwide (4).

Of the approximate 19 million college students in the United States, AI/AN students are the minority within the minority (5).

About 75 percent to 93 percent of AI/AN students drop out of college prior to degree completion (6). The fact is, if AI/AN students do get a high school diploma and begin attending college, they have the highest rate of dropping out of college compared to any other student demographic.

What happens during college is very important. Many studies try to explain college failures in the context of events in childhood and/or during high school. While those years are important, a very important factor is what is happening as someone is being a current college student.

The most powerful factor associated with college completion is being successful in college. What happening during the time when someone is a college students is much more powerful than before, or so I think.

There is a distinct and reliable relationship between academic performance (e.g., GPA) and college completion (see, 7-10). When GPA decreases, students drop out of college. On the other hand, if GPA is steady or rises, students are more likely to continue on in college.

The boundaries of academic and social activities create a context that promotes success in college. A successful academic-social context (ASC) is one that best serves the student in relation to academic performance – GPA.

For example, full-time attendance increases the likelihood that students will persist to graduation (9-15). If students can attend college full-time they can better focus fully on being a scholar. Full-time attenders have higher GPAs.

Students who are NOT in a relationship living together or who will NOT of do NOT become parents are more likely to graduate (7, 16). Again, the ASC is one that allows the student to be solely -- a student. Anything that takes the student away from being a fully focused student lowers the ASC and GPA. So, as this ASC continues, you will understand the relationship between a student's ASC and its impact on GPA.

Students who live on campus are more likely than those who live off campus to socialize as student learners, engage regularly with faculty, and have friends who are students. They are more likely to succeed (17-19).

Employment and hours worked per week are associated with college success (see, 20-22); the more time students have dedicated to scholarly efforts, the more beneficial it is to academic success.

Students who volunteer benefit personally and academically from those experiences. Many youth are eager to volunteer their time and make meaningful contributions to their society (23). Having the opportunity to connect with and put into practice their own values improves a student’s prospects both personally and academically (24).

A student’s health and wellness have been clearly linked to academic success (25-29).

It is important to understand the academic-social context (ASC) of the student. Having a good ASC increases the likelihood of having a higher GPA thereby increasing the possibility of remaining in, and successfully completing college. Again, the college graduate has a lifetime health benefit!

The present study used data with permission from the American College Health Association (ACHA).  These data were collected via four administrations of the National College Health Assessment (NCHA; Fall 2008, Spring 2009, Fall 2009, and Fall 2010), a bi-annual survey the ACHA has administered since 2000. 

There were a total of 116,992 students responding to the surveys. On the race question, students could check more than one response. The sample were broken up into three groups, those checking as AI/AN only, those who checked AI/AN and White only, and everyone else. Students who checked AI/AN mainly reports either solely AI/AN or  AI/AN and White only.  While there were a few AI/AN and Black or Latino, for example, just the two biggest groups are used here. Below is the table with responses and measures of ASC.

	All Else	AI/AN only	AI/AN & White
Sample	115,566	491	935
GPA	3.19	2.96	3.17
ASC	All Else %	AI/AN only %	AI/AN & White %	Effect size
Full-time enrollment**	97.3	94.7	97.2	.011
Relationship involvement ***				.025
Not in a relationship	53.7	43.8	47.8
In relationship, living together	6.8	19.4	10.1
Current Residence***				.014
On-campus	55.1	42.0	52.4
Paid Work***				.015
None	46.8	48.8	42.4
1-9 hrs.	19.3	11.8	17.4
10-19 hrs.	19.5	17.1	22.3
20+ hrs.	14.4	22.2	17.8
No Volunteer Work	63	63.2	61	.006

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

As it relates to a positive ASC, those students who report being AI/AN or AI/AN and White have a lower ASC. That is, percentage wise, they are attending college at a lesser rate than full-time, they are in a relationship, they are living away from campus, and they are working as well as going to college. They are in the context that does not best promote higher GPAs and successful completion. And the differences are statistically significant. The effect sizes are small, so there are other important factors missing.  

So, I looked at other possible factors that impact GPA and what is happening within the past 12 months in their lives, such as experiencing violence and/or emotional issues. Below is the table showing those factors. The first column identifies the issue and the impact on GPA. For instance, experiencing a physical fight lowers GPA by .23. Looking at the first roll, a little over 8% (8.24) of all other groups in college report being in a physical fight in the past 12 months. Almost 12% (11.61) of AI/ANs report being in a fight in the past 12 months. And about the same amount (11.79) of AI/AN & White students report being in a fight in the past 12 months.

What this shows is that students who report being fully or partly AI/ANs experience significantly more physical fights than any other group on campus. And recall, students who have these experiences, results in the lowering of their GPA by almost a 1/4 point. 

As you look down at the rest you will see the same pattern.

Rates and Impact of Violence past 12 months

 

Item Label (Impact on GPA)	All else		AI/AN	AI/AN & White		Total		ChiSq (pval)
In physical Fight (-.23)	9498 (8.24%)		57 (11.61%)	110 (11.79%)		9665		22.58 (.000)
Physically assaulted (-.21)	5495 (4.77%)		41 (8.35%)	75 (8.05%)		5611		35.28 (.000)
Verbally threatened (-.15)	26870 (23.32%)		138 (28.22%)	317 (34.01%)		27325		65.23 (.000)
Sexually touched w/o consent (-.11)	8309 (7.21%)		38 (7.74%)	101 (10.83%)		8448		18.18 (.000)
Sexual penetration attempted w/o consent (-.13)	3129 (2.72%)		17 (3.47%)	37 (3.97%)		3183		6.48 (.039)
Victim of stalking (-.12)	8239 (7.17%)		57 (11.63%)	105 (11.27%)		8401		37.51 (.000)
In emotionally abusive relationship (-.17)	11581 (10.06%)		71 (14.46%)	121 (12.97%)		11773		18.97 (.000)
Physically abusive relationship (.23)	2691 (2.34%)		28 (5.70%)	26 (2.79%)		2745		24.79 (.000)
Have you ever felt
Item Label	All else		AI/AN	AI/AN & White		Total		ChiSq (pval)
things were hopeless	54626 (47.62%)		254 (52.26%)	480 (51.61%)		55360		10.02 (.007)
exhausted	93874 (81.63%)		396 (81.15%)	813 (87.14%)		95083		18.86 (.000)
very lonely	68200 (59.27%)		264 (54.21%)	602 (64.59%)		69066		16.08 (.000)
very sad	72380 (63.06%)		308 (62.99%)	642 (69.11%)		73330		14.45 (.001)
so depressed difficult to function	34637 (30.14%)		173 (35.52%)	335 (35.94%)		35145		21.35 (.000)
overwhelming anxiety	56289 (48.97%)		236 (48.66%)	502 (53.98%)		57027		9.30 (.010)
overwhelming anger	44895 (39.18%)		214 (43.76%)	426 (45.91%)		45535		21.67 (.000)
Intentionally injured self	6385 (5.55%)		34 (6.94%)	82 (8.80%)		6501		20.21 (.000)
Seriously considered suicide	7171 (6.23%)		35 (7.14%)	76 (8.15%)		7282		6.51 (.039)
Attempted suicide	1264 (1.10%)		11 (2.24%)	16 (1.72%)		1291		8.98 (.011)

Within past 12 months have you been diagnosed or treated for

Item Label	All else	AI/AN	AI/AN & White	Total	ChiSq (pval)
Depression	9944 (8.67%)	38 (7.79%)	106 (11.45%)	10088	9.40 (.009)
Insomnia	2920 (2.55%)	17 (3.50%)	44 (4.74%)	2981	19.36 (.000)
Panic attacks	5163 (4.49%)	33 (6.76%)	69 (7.42%)	5265	23.94 (.000)

Within past 12 months did <item> affect your academic performance

Item Label	All else	AI/AN	AI/AN & White	Total	ChiSq (pval)
Anxiety	48835 (42.70%)	205 (42.27%)	491 (52.91%)	49531	39.24 (.000)
Assault (physical)	3898 (3.41%)	38 (7.84%)	48 (5.19%)	3984	36.96 (.000)
Assault (sexual)	3983 (3.49%)	28 (5.79%)	49 (5.29%)	4060	16.22 (.000)
Depression	26623 (23.33%)	134 (27.69%)	283 (30.56%)	27040	31.78 (.000)

 

As the tables show, again, AI/AN or AI/AN and White students experience significantly more violence and emotional events compared to all other college students. Students whose identify as being fully and partly AI/AN have a significantly poorer context in colleges/universities. That is, they do not attend full-time, they have the extra burden of being in a relationship, they live away from campus, and they are working in addition to being a scholar. This ASC lowers GPA. Furthermore, their ASC is one that experiences physical and sexual violence as well as emotional problems. These additional issues greatly lower GPA – and overall health and wellness.

 

Is there any wonder why AI/AN students do not remain in college and successfully complete? Their academic-social context is very poor. Being a successful student (e.g., getting and maintaining a high GPA) is a great challenge. Having the additional burdens of a poor ASC seems to result in dropping out of higher education. And who could blame them?

 

References:

 

1.      Lleras-Muney A. (2005). The relationship between education and adult mortality in the United States. Review of Economic Studies, 72, 189-221.

2.      Patterson, D. A. (2012). Three strategies to address Native American college dropout. Recruitment & Retention in Higher Education, 6 (10), 5-6.

3.      U.S. Census Bureau Retrieved on 1/10/13 from http://www.census.gov/2010census/data/

4.      O'Brien, E. M. (1992). American Indians in higher education (Research Briefs 3). Washington, DC: American Council on Education, Division of Policy Analysis and Research.

5.      U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2004. Postsecondary Institutions in the United States: Fall 2002 and Degree and Other Awards Conferred: 2001–02. NCES 2004-154. Washington, DC.

6.      Brown, L. L., & Robinson Kurpius, S. E. (1997). Psychosocial factors influencing academic persistence of American Indian college students. Journal of College Student Development 38(1), 3-12.

7.      Adelman, C. (1998). More than 13 ways of looking at degree attainment. National Cross-Talk 6(4), 6–10. Washington DC: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

8.      Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the Tool Box: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and Bachelor’s Degree Attainment. Jessup, MD: U.S. Department of Education.

9.      DesJardins, S. L., Ahlburg, D. A., & McCall, B. P. (1999). An event history model of student departure. Economics of Education Review 18, 375–390.

10.  DesJardins, S.L., McCall, B.P., Ahlburg, D.A. & Moye, M.J. (2002). Adding a timing light to the “Tool Box.” Research in Higher Education, 43(1), 83-114.

11.  Bradburn, E. M. (2002). Short-Term Enrollment in Postsecondary Education (NCES 2003-153), U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.

12.  Horn, L. (1998). Stopouts or Stay outs? Undergraduates Who Leave College in Their First Year. U.S. Department of Education (NCES 1999-087), Washington DC.

13.  King, J. E. (2003). Nontraditional attendance and persistence: The cost of students' choices. New Directions for Higher Education, 121, 69-84.

14.  Metzner, B. S., & Bean, J. P. (1987). The estimation of a conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student attrition. Research on Higher Education 27, 15-37.

15.  Starkey, J. B. (1994). The Influence of Prices and Price Subsidies on the Within- Year Persistence by Part-time Undergraduate Students: A Sequential Analysis. PhD dissertation, University of New Orleans.

16.  Stratton, L.S., O’Toole, D.M., & Wetzel, J.N. (2007). Are the factors affecting dropout behavior related to initial enrollment intensity for college undergraduates? Research in Higher Education 48, 453-485.

17.  Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

18.  Chickering, A.W. (1974). Commuting versus resident students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

19.  Bean, J.P., & Metzner, B.S. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Nontraditional Undergraduate Student Attrition. Review of Educational Research 55(4), 485-540.

20.  Alfred, R. L. (1973). Student attrition: Strategies for action. Kansas City, MO: Metropolitan Junior College District.

21.  Lenning, O. T., Beal, P. E., & Sauer, K. (1980). Retention and attrition: Evidence for action and research. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.

22.  Peng, S. S., & Fetters, W. B. (1978). Variables involved in withdraw during the first two years of college: Preliminary findings from the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972. American Educational Research Journal 15, 361-372.

23.  Youniss, J., & Yates, M. (1999). Youth Service and Moral-Civic Identity: A Case for Everyday Morality. Educational Psychology Review 11,361-376.

24.  Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E. (1991). Social Cognition. New York: McGraw Hill.

25.  Buddington, S. A. (2002). Acculturation, psychological adjustment (stress, depression self-esteem) and the academic achievement of Jamaican immigrant college students. International Social Work 45, 447-465.

26.  Case, A., Fertig, A. & Paxson, C. (2005). The Lasting Impact of Childhood Health and Circumstance. Journal of Health Economics 24, 365-89.

27.  Conley, D., & Bennett, N.G. (2000). Is biology destiny? Birth weight and life chances. American Sociological Review 65, 458-67.

28.  Pritchard, M. E., & Wilson, G. S. (2003). Using emotional and social factors to predict student success. Journal of College Student Development 44, 18-28.

29.  Chee, K.H., Pino, N. W., & Smith, W. L. (2005). Gender differences in the academic ethic and academic achievement. College Student Journal, 39 (3), 604-618.