Professor Ogbu is no stranger to controversy. His theory of "acting white" has been the subject of intense study since he first wrote about it in the mid-80's with Signithia Fordham, then a graduate student and now a professor of anthropology at the University of Rochester. They studied an inner-city Washington high school where students listed doing well in school among the "white" behaviors they rejected, like visiting the Smithsonian and dancing to lyrics rather than a beat.

The two anthropologists theorized that a long history of discrimination helped foster what is known in sociological lingo as an oppositional peer culture. Not only were students resisting the notion that white behavior was superior to their own, but they also saw no connection between good grades and finding a job.

And there are those who feel the attitudes are class rather than race-based:

"It's difficult to determine what's going on," said Vincent J. Roscigno, a professor of sociology at Ohio State University who has studied racial differences in achievement. "'I'm sort of split on Ogbu. It's hard to compare a case analysis to a nationally representative statistical analysis. I do have a hunch that rural white poor kids are doing the same thing as poor black kids. I'm tentative about saying it's race-based."

Indeed, Professor Mickelson of the University of North Carolina found that working class whites as well as middle-class blacks were more apt to believe that doing well in school compromised their identity.

I am certain that this is at least partially true, having seen some of that attitude in plenty of white kids myself. But, coming full circle back to the Shaker study: why would the black kids in affluent, racially mixed Shaker Heights demonstrate different patterns than their economically similar white peers? There is something going on here, and I believe it comes back to the concept of victimization. It's always easier to fall back on generalities - especially broad historical generalities - that explain underachievement than to take responsibility for ones own destiny and shun the easy alibis. The more readily available the alibis, the more readily individuals will take the easy way out - even subconsciously - and underachieve.

Therefore, it may be time to literally blame the victims, at least for their internalization of victimhood, which justifies underachievement - even making it some kind of noble statement in the most extreme form. With an ethos of victimhood present, even in relatively affluent blacks, no amount of affirmative action is going to right the ship and even the scores as affirmative action can only deal with symptoms, not the underlying malady.