but does he really think suggesting we address poverty puts him at risk of "being treated as a moral reprobate"? Is his question really viewed as controversial in any real circle?
No:
Might the poverty be the key problem to address? But, try this purely logical reasoning in polite company only at the risk of being treated as a moral reprobate.
he thinks if he suggests that poverty -- as opposed to racism -- is the key problem that he risks being treated as moral reprobate.
yeah I get it. But who is teaching this?
We are taught to assume that the punishments and suspensions are due to racism, and to somehow ignore the data showing that the conditions too many black boys grow up in unfortunately makes them indeed more likely to act up in school.
(I honestly don't know, I've never heard this.)
It seems pretty reasonable that harsh punishments for black boys is a combination of poverty and racist teachers and that society should make an effort to address both. Completely dismissing either factor seems pretty foolish.
It's also interesting that he infers that black poverty and racism are two completely separate problems. Like, why does he think black communities generally more poor?
And overall, I don't think he does a very good job defining a problem and how he proposes to address it. He just seems to want to make fun of certain whites in academia (who probably deserve to be ridiculed if his descriptions are accurate) and snipe at Coates.