A new scholarship from Trek and the National Interscholastic Cycling Association is aiming to increase diversity in mountain biking.
The Pathfinders Scholarship is a new initiative from Trek and the National Interscholastic Cycling Association (NICA) to broaden access to the sport by providing the equipment and resources needed to get out and ride. The program will offer up to 250 kids from underrepresented backgrounds with a Trek Marlin bike, helmet, shoes, accessories and kit. Included in the package is a stipend for the NICA League and entry fees for a full season of racing and events.
This new program forms a part of Trek's 'All-In' plan where the company drew up actionable steps towards racial equality. Part of this plan was to involve kids from more diverse backgrounds in cycling.
|By teaming up with NICA to launch the Pathfinders Scholarship, we have high hopes that this program will not only broaden the access to mountain biking, but also help attract kids from diverse backgrounds and underrepresented communities of the country, exposing youth to the joy of cycling and creating life-long riders.|
We've supported NICA throughout the years and have seen first-hand the physical and psychological benefits cycling can have on today's youth, so the Pathfinders Scholarship is a natural next step as we seek to make cycling more inclusive and reflective of our country's diversity.— Bob Burns, Trek's director of advocacy
|Trek has been a long-standing partner of NICA and their commitment to broadening access to mountain biking for all youth aligns with our mission, vision and values.|
NICA is committed to inclusivity, equity, and diversity across all our programs, and we are excited to have Trek join us in this commitment.— Steve Matous, NICA President
You can find out more about the Pathfinders Scholarship and how to apply here
So they did do a pretty good job of trying to set up the infrastructure for success. I'm trying to find a local coach to do this at the school where I work (but I live in a different town). I coach my son's NICA team (in the town where I live an hour away) and will help out with this team... but it will be hard to juggle both. I'm hoping that I can find a local coach down here to commit, so I can get some of the kids at my school on bikes.
However, Trek is in a unique position as they have (and continue) had a dramatic impact on the culture of cycling over the last two decades. I just don't see this program as being effective.
My first bike was a £180 "Walmart" bike. It was crap, but i rid the absolute life out of it and loved it. My friend and I started from complete scratch on bad bikes and a shoestring budget. We built our own trails and basically learned how to ride by all ourselves.
That was over a decade ago and now we own nice bikes, and run an amateur racing team and still dig our own trails.
We weren't held back by a lack of opportunity or diversity. We created our own opportunities.
No one is gate keeping the MTB community. Just buy a bike and f*cking ride it. That is literally all that you need to do.
The conclusion I've come to is that, while I wouldn't in a million years, discourage, cut off, or try to stop anyone from doing anything on the basis of race or any arbitrary characteristic, at the end of the day, there's too many complex and random variables at play which results in many different variations in the way in which distinct groups present themselves in society. So, it's probably never going to be the case that everything from mountain biking to music preference to diets to accents, etc. are going to be perfectly proportional to all group distinctions we may recognize.
And so a lot of times, what ends up happening with these types of initiatives targeted at an "under-represented" minority is that the demand for the resources is just not there, not matter how hard you try to generate it. And there's a subtext of "well, there must be something "wrong [racist]" with [mountain biking]" because of this. Therefore the resource doesn't go to where there is actual demand. It often ends up reinforcing racial tensions.
A better approach to this would be, in my view, having these huge bike companies put their brains together to develop quality, affordable mountain bikes, universally available to anyone. And be open to anyone, but also drop the expectation that everyone will be equally interested in your sport and that there's something wrong if they're not. That's likely never going to happen and it becomes counter-productive to have that as an expectation.
can't roll my eyes any harder
My personal theory re mountain biking starts with the premise that economically distressed demographics tend to prioritize socio-economics over most other factors, with good reason. And, what emerges, particularly in younger demographics, is a desire to "get out" or "make it big". There's great romantic appeal in that story...rags to riches, so to speak.
In the US, basketball, football, and baseball are "first tier" sports. There's actually great (sometimes dominant) representation of black people among all three (particularly the first two). There are also other sports which are not "first tier" in terms of raw popularity, but nonetheless offer first tier opportunities such as scholarships (sports like track and field, etc.). Once again, there's great black representation in most of these sports as well.
Put simply, these categories of sports offer low income demographics the "golden ticket" to get out and therefore, I think have historically been prioritized in economically distressed communities like black Americans. That, in turn, created a critical mass culturally. So Dad worshipped Michael Jordon, who passed that passion off to his kid, etc. From there, the cultural focus in black America was and still is primarily focused on these "first tier" paths. And that's something that's difficult, if not impossible, to break. Generations of black kids worshipping basketball, and an entire culture developing around it, isn't suddenly going away because Trek puts black people in its adverts.
By contrast, mountain biking is basically a passion project for most people with no "pot of gold" at the end of the rainbow. If anything, it's a money suck. It's the type of sport that exists explicitly because lots of people can afford it as a luxury. It's a sport for people with lots of options...who can afford to take an entire weekend to bike around in the wilderness. And when I say "afford", it's not just money, it's also time. So like say a poor kid in a broken home may have to take care of a baby or worry about getting shot or worry about eating, whereas kids in the suburbs with stable families have a lot of time on their hands to do things like putz around in the woods.
So, when you look at the demographics which mountain bike...primarily middle to upper middle class, suburban, college educated, etc., it makes sense.
But, even this explanation is not 100% adequate. There's always exceptions. But, why distinct groups do distinct things is complex. Why do British people like "fish and chips" and football (soccer)? Well, due to a complex set of factors which made fish and chips and football a unique part of British culture. Is it "wrong" that the same does not exist everywhere else in the world?
There's an inherent incoherence is the concept of diversity and equity. People never seem to get that. The two literally cannot co-exist.
Also, the concept of equal opportunity is much better than equity, but it too has its limitations. For example, boats are prohibitively expensive to most (myself included). Am I being denied an "opportunity" in the boating world?
What exactly does it mean to be denied the opportunity to mountain bike as say an upper middle class black family? If this family were to go on Trek's website to buy a bike, would it say "no blacks allowed"? Are the trail systems guarded by the KKK?
Perhaps what you're saying is that the sport itself is "too white" and this black family feels less inclined to participate. But, I guess my response is that white people do things and have their cultural markers, just like all other groups. And because they happen to be a majority in a given thing is just like any other group happening to be a majority in any given thing. I'm not sure what you do about that. Are we saying white people can't like stuff as a group? Is that racist?
Second, I'm genuinely curious...is it your belief that all people and all groups are interested in all things equally? If so, where has that ever been true?
And to be fair to this article, it does not say that these bikes are destined for any specific underrepresented group. Everyone is assuming it's going to be poor black kids but it does not state that specifically. It's interesting why everyone has jumped to the same conclusion.
I don't surf because I don't live near the sea. I don't ski because I don't live near the mountains. I don't drive an F1 car because I can't afford to. I don't sail a yacht because my parents don't own one. We could all do with a little more equality of opportunity.
We should take all people as they come, and give everyone a fair go without prejudgment. By that token, an outsider to a group should give the members of the group a fair go, and not make assumptions about that group based on the members' appearance being "not like them". Is that logical?
" Most modern studies use a combination of intersectionality and kyriarchy" . Yes and this is part of the problem. The findings and conclusions are predefined.
While it is true that the lowered status of mountain biking is present among all lower income demographics, the highest concentration of poverty, per capita, remains black Americans. Therefore, we should expect that black Americans would be a minority in mountain biking. We should also expect them to be a minority in power boating. The demand for NICA scholarships is most certainly there. However, your typical NICA scholarship recipient is someone who wants to mountain bike competitively. So what demographic do you think typical competitive cyclists come from? Again, middle to upper middle class demographics. Yes, there are plenty of black families from those demographics. Result? More often than not, middle to upper middle income black kids get the scholarships. This, in turn, creates racial tension. What, exactly, would be the reason why a black kid in an upper middle class family should get a NICA scholarship over a white kid?
Also, while we both agree that mountain biking has low standing in low income communities, there's still SOME interest. And this is where it gets really tense...low income whites disfavored over upper income blacks. That is the source of a LOT of racial tension in this country. This is not unlike what frequently happens with AA in higher ed. Low income blacks, on average, are so under-performing at the academic level that AA disproportionately benefits upper middle class blacks. So, what frequently happens is that white students at lower socio-economic strata are disfavored over black students at the higher socio-economic strata. Let me also be clear that I do agree that much of the "bikes are too expensive" narrative is over-stated. I too have argued that veteran mtb'ers, used to their FS carbon bikes as "standard", forget that the vast majority of them started out on small travel aluminum hard tails. I saved up for an entire summer making minimum wage to buy an aluminum hard tail and beat the sh*t out of it for like, god knows, 15 years?!
Yes, you can get that all day today at the $500-600 price point. There's also the used bike option, which more people should consider. Still, $500-600 is unaffordable for many. $600 for basically a hobby is just not going to make much sense. If they're going to drop that kind of money, it would have to hold more promise for a payoff (like say college scholarship, NBA dreams, etc.). Also, if FS is the modern standard for entry MTB's, then as far as I can tell, you're pushing it if you're not dropping at least $1,700 (conservatively - more realistically, $2K). Perhaps big bike brands could do better in that space. Finally, I will also say that Trek probably has its heart in the right place. I guess what frustrates me is the cyclical nature of these things. What I see is a lot of presentism and naivety, not anything nefarious.
Bet that as it may, black Americans remain the single most socio-economically distressed minority demographic in the US. The vast majority of "diversity" efforts focus, primarily, on black people. However, even if Trek takes a broader approach to diversity, it doesn't fundamentally change anything except to make tensions worse. Black Americans unambiguously have the greatest historical claim to being victims of racial discrimination....by a mile. So even I have my qualms with how our efforts to address this are played out, I'm fundamentally sympathetic to the desire to address it.
What passes today, however, as "diversity" is increasingly just anyone with skin deemed darker than white or some random identity alleged to be outside of the norm. I don't know if you know this, but white males aren't even at the top of the socio-economic strata in the US and haven't been for a long time now. Asian and Indian males, and now, just this past year, Asian females, are higher than white males.
So, if your suggestion is that this diversity scholarship is going to go to say "non-binary" or "two-spirit" athletes from upper middle class backgrounds, then that just makes the whole thing a joke.
1. As I stated before, I applauded Trek and NICU for these opportunities it gives to these under privilege kids. I hope they expand the program to include all under privilege kids of all racial demographics. For example in Philadelphia, it would definitely impact black and/or minority communities. If in WV, were majority is white demographic that make up large portion of the under privileged kids. This program would excluded these kids.
2. As I said before, we need programs to help uplift all people vs you only believe minorities need help. We as society would be better if tried to uplift everyone out of poverty and did not discriminate or stereo type by ethnic background (which you are doing).
3. I laugh and shake my head, you are so blinded by your Woke righteous BS. You as a white person from London is explaining to me about racial inequality in the U.S. Especially as a minority that was born and lived in lower socio-economic communities (ie I have lived/born in Eastside San Jose, CA; Oakland, CA; Mission District of San Francisco, CA). Who have family and friends who have succumbed to the negative elements within those communities (ie gangbangers, drug dealers, drug addictions, in-n-out of prison, etc..). I have witnessed other family and friends who have over-come those challenges, to include my parents that have made it out and are at a different socio economic status. Some of the challenges I recall as a child: multi families living with us in one house, clothing being handed down to siblings or shopping at a thrift stores, or the generic label of black & yellow brand of food in the pantry.
I might be nobody and that is fine.. If you think about, my parents and now my family are breaking that statistics and expanding the foot print within the middle class and above…proving there are no hurdles/obstacles in place that prevent a minority from moving up within the U.S. (You can keep telling yourself and believing the media, if it makes you feel good.)
Finally, you don't seem to understand what intersectionality and kyriarchy are. That's okay! You wouldn't if you'd never bothered to research them, but I can try to explain the two. Intersectionality is essentially the theory that a person's identity or position in society is a true compound sum of every measurable facet: not just their race, or their socio-economic standing, but also their gender, and their sexuality, job, education, creed, whether their parents are divorced, even if they have allergies, it's everything. Some facets are more dynamic or contributory, but it's all compounding. Kyriarchy meshes really well with this because it's a theory for understanding hierarchies of power that come from an individual's intersectional position. For example, upper class has higher power than lower class, men have more power than women, etc. So working together, rather than "pre-defining" (you meant predetermining) conclusions, as you suggest, in fact it does the opposite: it gives the fullest, most un-biased account based on all available information. Hope you found this helpful!
1) this is great you should have left it here: “ I applauded Trek and NICU for these opportunities it gives to these under privilege kids. I hope they expand the program to include all under privilege kids of all racial demographics”
B.1 Brilliant “ we need programs to help uplift all people”
B.2 not true is it “you only believe minorities need help”
3- nice credentials I guess
Epilogue: you sort of lost focus here and undermined all your previous points by pointing out how you’re the exception that proves the rule so I’m going to have to give this comment a 3 out of 5; There were coherent and quite positive comments but they kept getting bogged down in this need to pat yourself on the back for pulling yourself up by the bootstraps. You’ve probably successfully painted yourself as the rugged individual all American hero in your head and that’s great but don’t pull the ladder up on others and don’t pretend your ability, determination or good role models are available to everyone. All people are not equal and it’s ok to ask for help.
I do concur that black and latinix heavily represent our carceral systems. Why is that? Poverty stricken communities are high in crime, so you are going see higher police presences and arrest. Since majority of black and latinix demographic are not equally represented in middle class as of yet skews the number when you compare against total white population ( It is going to take several years/decades for minorities to get that equal representation).
Since we know the driving factor for crime and arrest is poverty communities… if you only look at the number of whites in poverty and compare to numbers in our carceral systems. You will notice the numbers are pretty on par with black and latinx.
Again, you have never provided concrete examples and causes of racial inequality?
Why do you think companies within the US are focusing on racial equality: 1. PR because it as all over the news. 2. government tax breaks and/or subsidize funding. 3. It helps with division, because it supports Identity Politics ($$$/votes/media controversy)
If I use the analogy/example...
If parents constantly tells their kid they are loser, over and over. 98% of the time that kids is probably going to thinking he is loser and looses self-esteem. Over time as they become more mature and adults, they will realize this is not true. But the mental/psychology effect, impacted the child's true potential. As an adult, it becomes to late or difficult to capitalize on what the potentials could have been. While the other 2%, are going to say "F" my parents and bottle that energy to prove them wrong and uplift themselves.
For my experience, this applies to a lot of individuals that living in lower stricken communities too. The same effects of saying minorities are failing because of racial inequalities. I have heard over and over again, systems out for us, there are no opportunities out there for minorities, etc.. Use this as an excuse vs taking accountability for poor decision made as a young adult. One of the number one factors that prevent individual from attaining middle class, is having a child at a young age and not married. This significant problem in all poverty stricken communities. Why is this... some actually plan to have a kids at that young age (I known several family/acquaintance that have done this). Because they know they will receive government subsided housing and/assistance. Some will: 1. continue on that path, complain, and their kids repeat the cycle; 2. Others may realize, I made a bad decision (accountability) and want to improve their living condition for their kids and themselves. This becomes difficult, because when you tried to better yourself, you move up a different tax bracket, and may loose your government subsided assistance. Several will revert back to "1" or other will continue to strive and push through it.
"Elizabeth Kneebone, a fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, looked at numbers from the 2010 to 2014 American Community Survey and found that 39 percent of African Americans live in the suburbs, 36 percent live in cities, 15 percent live in small metropolitan areas, and 10 percent live in rural communities. That’s a noticeable shift from 2000, when 41 percent of African Americans lived in cities, 33 percent lived in suburbs, 15 percent lived in small metro areas, and 11 percent lived in rural communities."
Trying to do something positive > "Oh that will never work! don't bother"
I am from Ukraine (Eastern Europe), and we have no racial problems between people within the country (although there are many ideological problems, yes). And practically all the inhabitants of the country were "slaves" before the collapse of the USSR. So in our country, approximately all residents are equal, and the people do not experience racism problems.
Maybe because of this, I do not quite understand this aspect. Isn't it more correct to give bicycles to the NEEDY, and not the NEEDED from specific races? For some reason, it seems to me that it is easy to find a dozen "whites" who cannot afford to ride a bicycle. Is there any contradiction or "racism" in this? Maybe because of this, others consider such initiatives just a PR method?
It’s like showing up to a road ride (If you’ve ever done that) for the first time wearing t-shirt and jeans (or going to a suit and tie event wearing the wrong clothes, if that’s more relatable) - you feel super out of place among the sea of lycra and rapha and 5k bikes. Except people who are under represented can’t just go spend money on clothes to solve the problem. They feel out of place and the only way to fix it is bring more diverse people into the sport for new riders to look up to.
Additionally, if we need people who look like us to look up to, what about all the other characteristics that make up an individual? There are lots of people who might look alike who are completely different individuals and have nothing in common. Unless, of course, skin color or ethnic background is the most important characteristic that an individual can have?
Sorry to push back so hard. You don't seem militant about this and I am not trying to attack you. Frankly it just seems like you're regurgitating the nice-sounding talking points that are quite common these days, so I am not trying to put this all on you. My point is that while intentions may seem good, there really is no end to this. Different people like different things for many many reasons (culture, physical characteristics, where you grew up, where you live now, brain chemistry, innumerable personal preferences, and so on.) Making everyone, as individuals, feel welcome in a sport is significantly different than searching for some sort of "equitable" make up of participants for every activity we may engage in.
My girlfriend felt super out of place mountain biking at first. Part of that was because she didn’t have the right gear, and part of it was that she would show up and it’d be a bunch of dudes riding. Not sure she would have stuck with it if we hadn’t been dating and going on rides together.
I think it just sucks for people to try a new sport, find that they don’t feel like they belong, and quit for that reason even though they were enjoying it. There’s no reason for white guys to enjoy mtb more than another race/gender combo. But when you’re out on the trails you mostly see white dudes.
So yeah, I don’t think we should force black people to mountain bike because we need more black people mountain biking to be “diverse”. But when a black person wants to mountain bike they should feel welcome. And one way to create that welcome feeling is to promote diversity with initiatives like this one
My question is though, when will it be sufficient? And wouldn't it be regional as well? Like, there are tons of women mountain bikers around denver, but perhaps no in your area. Should we get some of them to move, perhaps?
What I am getting at here is that there is no end to diversity initiatives. So, to illustrate that point, I will ask a simple question - when are there "enough" female mountain bikers in your area? Who will decide this?
Also, when I go to the basketball courts in my home town, I see mostly black dudes, a few white dudes and then that's it. As a 5'10 white kid, I would have felt more welcome if there were some more short, nerdy white kids there. I'm sure the girls don't really wanna play with all dudes either. How could we solve that? (There are a million more situations like this, all across society, as you know)
To be cynical for a second, I’ll assume Trek is doing this so they can, in the long run, sell more bikes by getting more people on bikes. In ten years if mtb is a super inclusive sport, they’ll stop doing this because it won’t lead to more bike sales - they’d just be giving away bikes for free for no reason. So they’ll stop.
Assuming they’re doing it for good press, the same kind of thing will happen.
If they’re doing it to be nice, again, same thing.
I guess my point is that currently it’s a problem. And no matter the motivation, I don’t think the “we shouldn’t do this because we don’t know where to stop” slippery slope argument is valid. All we need to answer is “is it a problem now” and if the answer is “yes” then we try to be more inclusive. Once the answer is “no”, we’re done.
Much as it sounds racist on first glance, it's not really detailed enough to say for sure. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I understand the place you are coming from is one of kindness and empathy, but I promise that the results of adhering to identity politics will be anything but that. I would really recommend you check out a critique on the topic. I have found the book "Cynical Theories" by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay to be an excellent overview and critique, from a liberal perspective, of these sort of ideas. If you take the advice of some idiot stranger on the internet about one thing, take my advice on this
"poor kids want to ride bikes just as bad as white kids!"-Joe Biden
1- Trek makes some of the worst kids mountain bikes, basically catalog junk with the worst components known to man. Compared to Norco, Spawn, Commencal, Trail Craft, Prevelo, Woom, VPace, Vitus etc...Trek is trash for kids. (putting those 1000 lb coil forks on just to trick parents into thinking its "suspension" is horrible).
2- Mountain Biking is a fortune and they aren't making cheaper bikes
3- There isn't much mountain biking anywhere near these diverse communities
Here is what they should be doing if they cared about diversity on bikes:
1- Build inner city bike parks - these are proven and amazing for communities. They are easy to build an maintain on the scab land. I built one and helped with a 2nd in the last 12 months. Game changers for communities and diversity as well. It has to work for a BMX bike tho.
2- Push the BMX freestyle bikes/biking...or heck even those wheelie bikes. They are dirt cheap, lots of used ones. Even the 170$ amazon Mongoose ain't bad. They build skills better than any other bike a kid will ever have, especially over a big mountain bike. Its magic for kids. Pilot vs passenger. Kids on BMX means they will easily transition, with vastly more skill, to a mountain bike if they have the option in the future.
3- Go get a guy like grab a guy like Brad Simms to market this and fund some kid/parent coaching clinics at the bike parks/skate parks etc. all over.
Fwiw the guy that started Specialized has the Outride fund, which we are a grant recipient of for the first park, and I think he committed to 10mil over the next decade or something to do very much what I described. A bit different there.
They aren't talking about providing the kids with top of the line Yeti cross country bikes. These are bikes that most mountain bikers would consider very cheap. They are enough to get the kids riding and having fun on bikes, they won't look like they have all the gear and no idea (like I do haha).
Also, demographically speaking, most of all Americans don't live near mountains. :-)
My question is, do you see people from diverse backgrounds hiking in those areas? You really don't need to invest much for hiking, so if it is the case, you could assume there is a demand for biking as well. If not, you could assume that there just isn't much interest in these kind of outdoor activities.
Guys like Brad Simms, Courage Adams, Eliot Jackson, etc are encouraging that growth, interest and love in these sports by being just that - representatives of their people by doing what they love to do themselves.
Also, I think you mean 'geographically,' not 'demographically,' but, you're right, most black Americans don't live near the mountains. Unless you count LA and NY, both within an hour or so drive of mountains. Maybe those places don't count?
But the under-participation of African americans in "sports in the woods" can, is in my understanding, less a function of interest and curiosity, than the accumulated results of a host of factors, some historical, and some relating to the fact that, if you don't see other people like yourself doing something, you're less likely to feel welcome trying it.
Black representation in higher education has most definitely increased. (Link here - fivethirtyeight.com/features/race-gap-narrows-in-college-enrollment-but-not-in-graduation).
That said, graduation rates for black college students still lag significantly, a phenomenon for which there's no shortage of explanatory theories, but no clear, data-driven answer as to why.
Theres plenty of empirical evidence as to why, with Thomas Sowell putting out some good work. He hypothesizes that since AA downplays the importance of other qualifications like test scores and grades, you are allowing people in who are not prepared or capable of the rigorous coursework that more elite universities require. If I was accepted into UCLA back in the day I would have flunked out.
Additionally, Sowell has found that those who are otherwise underqualified but accepted into top tier universities but do graduate have higher rates of degrees in things like Humanities & Critical (insert race, womens, gender, etc) Studies, where the degrees are much easier but less worthwhile in the workforce. This can also be seen with student athletes, who are accepted based on metrics that do not correlate with a students ability to perform academically.
In Sowell's editorializing on his findings, he says you're sending kids to schools they are not prepared to excel at, giving them tons of student debt, and pushing them into majors/degrees that do not enable them to pay off their student debt. He often cites other studies that when people are more properly sorted into schools that match their capability, they do better and graduate with higher incomes (an engineering degree from a State school will generally give you higher income than a Humanities degree from a top school).
But the real problem is the inequity of preparation for higher education, not the higher education itself.
My own experience (I studied physics at Harvard) is that, while black students were underrepresented in my major, it would be insulting and reductive to say that they chose their majors based on some kind of retreat from academic rigor.
Depending on how you approach it, the work you do in college lays the foundation for your life's work. If we're going to get anywhere moving the chains on race in America, it will be because an intensely motivated few made it their life's work. We have 350+ years of data showing that these problems aren't going to fix themselves on their own. Yet, Sowell and other writers of his ideological ilk do not appear to seriously contemplate this as an explanation for why talented blacks might opt not to study, say, electrical engineering in the same numbers as peers of other races.
Further, post-graduate income is a miserable indicator of either the rigor of a course of study or its net benefit to society. I know plenty of damn smart public defenders.
Instead, consider the following hypothetical - you have two, talented, altruistically minded college freshmen standing in front of you - one is black, one is not. Both wish to address their talents to what, based on their young lives' experience has shown them, is the biggest problem in the world today, and use their college studies in preparation for tackling that problem. Viewed through that prism, it shouldn't be surprising that talented blacks train to tackle a different world problem than talented students of other races.
I never said certain majors were worth less, less fulfilling, or less important to society. I said they are less effective for paying off massive student loans (which is 100% true).
Further, regarding Thomas Sowell's writings being peer reviewed, if you look at his bibliography (available here: www.tsowell.com/writings.html) you'll note that he gave up on submitting his writings to scholarly journals and peer reviewed publications about 30 years ago.
Back to bikes. There is no barrier to entry for bikes. You don't need a $1000 to own and ride a bike. I have been riding bikes my whole life... including the time(s) I was dirt poor. Its just not part of those cultures... just like skateboarding, tennis, soccer, watersports, hang-gliding, skiing, etc.
@dc40 is more articulate than me; I'm just wondering if a poor, disadvantaged white/Asian/ other non "diverse" kid could also qualify. I'm guessing no.
If looking through the prism why couldn't black student tackle and apply the same as other students of other races.. Just like the logic applies that two talented students of the same race and status could have a completely totally different way of tackle a different world problem and/or apply experience/knowledge the same.
Critical Race Theory is BS for present times...
Why would someone downvote this? This is applicable to all people in all countries.
The bit that troubles me more is that this would have been a logical point for Trek to express what it is doing internally on diversity. It may be doing great stuff, it sounds like at least that there is an internal discussion going on around this but its not visible. If companies want to use this kind of stuff for PR then they really need to be transparent about their whole approach to the issue.
But trek bikes are trash bikes for kids...no way. My son has had two Marlins and can rip them faster than many adults on expensive full suspension bikes. There are many more trash riders than trash bikes and the bottom end of the range with fast growing children is often what most of us can afford.
I applaud NICA and Trek for their action.
Also, what's wrong with doing wheelies? Kids out on bikes is always better than kids not on bikes, no matter whether they are riding stair sets or rock gardens.
Will some of them get sold? Of course they will. Does that mean the program isn't worth running? Of course it doesn't.
give me a f*cking break.