SCOTUS rules racial diversity no longer a biggy in public skools

[Okla-homey]

see Parents v. Seattle, third one down.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06slipopinion.html

discuss.

:pop:

[Jerk]

You instigator.

[NormanPride]

Lord, please make all of us one color. Maybe that will make the madness end. Please make 1TC Pink, though, because that would be funny. Amen.

[Stoop Dawg]

"Once again, the Roberts court has shown its willingness to erode core constitutional guarantees," said New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070628/pl_nm/usa_race_schools_dc

Perhaps someone who is more familiar with the constitution than me can point out where it says that race should be used as a determining factor when placing students in schools. I was under the impression that it said exactly the opposite. But what do I know?

[Scott D]

I'm waiting for homey's opinion.

[Stoop Dawg]

The debate as to whether Affirmative Action is necessay is still open. The debate about whether Affirmative Action causes racial tensions is not (IMO).

Affirmative Action IS racism, by definition.


"The principle that racial balancing is not permitted is one of substance, not semantics," Roberts wrote for the majority. "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Well, duh.

[Harry Beanbag]

I'm waiting for homey's opinion.


Me too, unless there is a one page summary somewhere of the 185 page document.

[yermom]

man, next they are going to say that you have to live somewhere else to change the ratios

[Stoop Dawg]

Another interesting link containing parent and politician reactions: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070628/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_schools_quotes

[Penguin]

It's a little too late for me. I was born and raised in Baton Rouge which is the model of desegregation in the South. The mother****ing NAACP decided what school I went to. As a kid, I never had a bus ride less than 45 minutes each way. Usually, it was around an hour. In high school, I caught the bus at 7am and didn't get back until 4:30.

Bravo, Supreme Court. Bravo!!!


Not that I'm bitter or anything.

[47straight]

In a nutshell, the government can discriminate on the basis of race in only a few very select circumstances. Such action triggers the highest level of test - "strict scrutiny," which means that for the law/action to be valid, it must be "narrowly tailored" to meet a "compelling interest" and it must be the last resort. In other words - it has to be for the best of reasons, and it cannot be a ruse for something else, and it cannot be any more broad (i.e. do anymore discrimination) than is absolutely necessary.

A different set of decisions have decided that "diversity" is among these highest level of government interests. Undoing racial discrimination would also fall under this category, but noone using racial preferences uses that excuse - they all use diversity.

To answer Homey's question directly - I think the court has been moving to a true color-blind standard for some time, and this decision keeps marching it forward. My stance here is that the best interpretation is more textualist than originalist, meaning that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment means that the government should be color-blind, except when addressing past racial discrimination. As a result, I think that the decision is correct.

Reasonable minds might differ, that this goes too far in taking away flexibility in dealing with a complex issue. I'm cool with that, and could have even lived with the decision. After all, SCOTUS opinions are not going to change the hearts and minds of people. It is up to we as the people to become color-blind, it won't happen because 5 dudes say it should.

However, much of the response from the left side of the aisle is not reasonable. I realize that this statements are made from liberals looking for (re)election, but still. All three democrat frontrunners made asinine, incorrect statements of fear-mongering. However, the worst of the worst was a democrat I like sometimes (but not today). Here it is:

"The Supreme Court decision in the school desegregation cases is appalling. Ever since Brown v. Board of Education, it has been settled law that the Constitution requires racially mixed schools. Today's decision turns Brown upside down and ignores decades of constitutional history. If this isn't judicial activism, I don't know what is." — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

No, no, no, no, no. This is truthiness at its absolute worst. Everything he said is 180 degrees wrong. It is ABSOLUTELY NOT the holding or reasoning of Brown that "the Constitution requires racially mixed schools." The truly sad thing is that he and many others probably believe that. The Constitution and SCOTUS decisions forbid using racial discrimination to keep schools segregated. Even the most notorious bussing cases were tailored to remedy past discrimination. None were for diversity, which is the claimed right in the current case. Diversity is a goal that schools may shoot for, and the decision today is about what can go into that decision. It has never been that schools must be diverse. That's just silly. Else what would the state of Utah do?

[Octavian]

I have no idea why Mexican-Americans (voters and future voters) think the GOP opposition to illegal immigration is about race :rolleyes:


Hello, 1952, good to see ya again!

[Frozen Sooner]

In a nutshell, the government can discriminate on the basis of race in only a few very select circumstances. Such action triggers the highest level of test - "strict scrutiny," which means that for the law/action to be valid, it must be "narrowly tailored" to meet a "compelling interest" and it must be the last resort. In other words - it has to be for the best of reasons, and it cannot be a ruse for something else, and it cannot be any more broad (i.e. do anymore discrimination) than is absolutely necessary.

A different set of decisions have decided that "diversity" is among these highest level of government interests. Undoing racial discrimination would also fall under this category, but noone using racial preferences uses that excuse - they all use diversity.

To answer Homey's question directly - I think the court has been moving to a true color-blind standard for some time, and this decision keeps marching it forward. My stance here is that the best interpretation is more textualist than originalist, meaning that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment means that the government should be color-blind, except when addressing past racial discrimination. As a result, I think that the decision is correct.

Reasonable minds might differ, that this goes too far in taking away flexibility in dealing with a complex issue. I'm cool with that, and could have even lived with the decision. After all, SCOTUS opinions are not going to change the hearts and minds of people. It is up to we as the people to become color-blind, it won't happen because 5 dudes say it should.

However, much of the response from the left side of the aisle is not reasonable. I realize that this statements are made from liberals looking for (re)election, but still. All three democrat frontrunners made asinine, incorrect statements of fear-mongering. However, the worst of the worst was a democrat I like sometimes (but not today). Here it is:

"The Supreme Court decision in the school desegregation cases is appalling. Ever since Brown v. Board of Education, it has been settled law that the Constitution requires racially mixed schools. Today's decision turns Brown upside down and ignores decades of constitutional history. If this isn't judicial activism, I don't know what is." — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

No, no, no, no, no. This is truthiness at its absolute worst. Everything he said is 180 degrees wrong. It is ABSOLUTELY NOT the holding or reasoning of Brown that "the Constitution requires racially mixed schools." The truly sad thing is that he and many others probably believe that. The Constitution and SCOTUS decisions forbid using racial discrimination to keep schools segregated. Even the most notorious bussing cases were tailored to remedy past discrimination. None were for diversity, which is the claimed right in the current case. Diversity is a goal that schools may shoot for, and the decision today is about what can go into that decision. It has never been that schools must be diverse. That's just silly. Else what would the state of Utah do?

Well argued.

[Ash]

page 12 and there aren't any "scrotum" copycat threads?

[Soonerus]

"Times they are a changing"

[SCOUT]

I have no idea why Mexican-Americans (voters and future voters) think the GOP opposition to illegal immigration is about race :rolleyes:


Hello, 1952, good to see ya again!
Would you please explain this further? I must confess that I only read the first 5 pages, but it sounds that the decision is pretty well grounded by the constituion.

[sanantoniosooner]

The diversity classes I have to take for my teaching certification do NOT endorse a "color blind" perspective. Most of the time "colorblind" is code for treating everyone like they are white, and they aren't. To be truly colorblind, you would have to ignore things that are culturally significant and affect the personality and attitudes of each student.

[Soonerus]

As many things, it is very complex...

[Octavian]

Would you please explain this further? I must confess that I only read the first 5 pages, but it sounds that the decision is pretty well grounded by the constituion.


Which part?


The part about the prevailing view on the GOP oppostion to immigration on racial grounds or the part about winding back the social clock to the good ole 50s?

[Mongo]

if you believe that the GOP is opposed to immigration on racial grounds, well you are a ****ing idiot.

[sanantoniosooner]

As many things, it is very complex...
you always call something complex when you are too lazy to type out a legitimate reply.

[SCOUT]

Which part?


The part about the prevailing view on the GOP oppostion to immigration on racial grounds or the part about winding back the social clock to the good ole 50s?

Particularly the part about the 50's but the former is intriguing as well. Is your contention that using race as a distinguishing factor is good for the general public? The 50's were indeed some tough times for race relations but it doesn't seem to me that this decision is remotely close to the same circumstances

[Soonerus]

you always call something complex when you are too lazy to type out a legitimate reply.

My mind is so active the complexity of the issues overwhelm me...

[Harry Beanbag]

I have no idea why Mexican-Americans (voters and future voters) think the GOP opposition to illegal immigration is about race :rolleyes:


Hello, 1952, good to see ya again!



http://www.shoutluton.com/attractions/images/strawman.jpg

[Octavian]

Particularly the part about the 50's but the former is intriguing as well.


It's about "taking back the country" and fixing all the social wrongs brought about by judicial activism through.....judicial activism! :)


There's volumes of stuff on it...but the basic point is that GOP engineers and many of their cheerleaders would love to turn the clock back on the social evolution of Cold War America. They're not down with feminism, they're not down with racial equality, they're not down with social justice. They liked it then...and if they had to feign about hating judicial activism to gain power, they'll gladly use judicial activism to reverse the perceived wrongs.



Is your contention that using race as a distinguishing factor is good for the general public?

it should be placed in proper context, IMO. The ideal situation would be to uplift people based on their limited socieconomic background.


A system that didn't penalize a poor white kid from Tulsa or a enhance a black well-to-do doctor's son from Boston would be ideal. But then we'd get into the "class warfare" stuff that isn't supposed to exist in postmodern America...so says the country clubbers and Michael Savage. We all get tax cuts after all. ;)


My contention is that 50 years of racial "equality" after 4 centuries of racial-based slavery doesn't erase the socioeconomic consequences of such a legacy.

[Octavian]

if you believe that the GOP is opposed to immigration on racial grounds, well you are a ****ing idiot.


Karl Rove disagrees with you.

[Octavian]

http://www.shoutluton.com/attractions/images/strawman.jpg


and you too.

[SCOUT]

It's about "taking back the country" and fixing all the social wrongs brought about by judicial activism through.....judicial activism! :)
Judicial activism is ruling based on what you think is right rather than what the law actually states. Which law says you should use skin color as a deciding factor?



There's volumes of stuff on it...but the basic point is that GOP engineers and many of their cheerleaders would love to turn the clock back on the social evolution of Cold War America. They're not down with feminism, they're not down with racial equality, they're not down with social justice. They liked it then...and if they had to feign about hating judicial activism to gain power, they'll gladly use judicial activism to reverse the perceived wrongs.
So your solution is to make decisions based on race?


My contention is that 50 years of racial "equality" after 4 centuries of racial-based slavery doesn't erase the socioeconomic consequences of such a legacy.
To answer a question with a question, what will?

I hope this doesn't come across too antagonistic. I appreciate you taking the time to write up a thoughtful response.

[Vaevictis]

if you believe that the GOP is opposed to immigration on racial grounds, well you are a ****ing idiot.

All of the GOP? No. Some of it? Absolutely.

It isn't a coincidence that the South was a bastion for the Democratic party from after the Civil War until the Civil Rights movement, nor is it a coincidence that it's a Republican party bastion after the Civil Rights movement.

[Octavian]

Judicial activism is ruling based on what you think is right rather than what the law actually states.


Judical activism is about bending law to project a certain agenda.


Some of the most predictable Justices in the history of this country sit on the High Court today. There's never any doubt which way Scalia, Thomas, or Roberts are gonna come down on.


They'll perceive the law to fit their cause every time. That's judicial activism.



So your solution is to make decisions based on race?


as I said, my decision would be to grant benefits to those kids from the worst socioeconomic backgrounds.


but that won't happen. too much opposition to even bring up socioeconomic gaps.


but I'm steadfast in the belief that a "solution" that doesn't take racial factors into account for kids trying to get an education is worse than one that does.

[Octavian]

All of the GOP? No. Some of it? Absolutely.

It isn't a coincidence that the South was a bastion for the Democratic party from after the Civil War until the Civil Rights movement, nor is it a coincidence that it's a Republican party bastion after the Civil Rights movement.


gawd, you're a ****ing idiot


;)

[SCOUT]

Judical activism is about bending law to project a certain agenda.


Some of the most predictable Justices in the history of this country sit on the High Court today. There's never any doubt which way Scalia, Thomas, or Roberts are gonna come down on.


They'll perceive the law to fit their cause every time. That's judicial activism.
But which law is being bent?



but I'm steadfast in the belief that a "solution" that doesn't take racial factors into account for kids trying to get an education is worse than one that does.

Socioeconomic factors are considered when schooling is concerned. Why would we need to add race?

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Only racists consider race at all ^_^

[Okla-homey]

I'm waiting for homey's opinion.

IMHO, no child should be denied a seat in a public school on account of his race. Similarly, no child should be required to attend a particular public school on account of his race.

I'm good with that.

[Jerk]

All of the GOP? No. Some of it? Absolutely.

It isn't a coincidence that the South was a bastion for the Democratic party from after the Civil War until the Civil Rights movement, nor is it a coincidence that it's a Republican party bastion after the Civil Rights movement.
The South wasn't a bastion for the Republicans until the 1994 elections.

The 1994 mid-term wasn't about race, it was about a POTUS who ran as a moderate and then became very liberal once he took the oath.

[Harry Beanbag]

The South wasn't a bastion for the Republicans until the 1994 elections.

The 1994 mid-term wasn't about race, it was about a POTUS who ran as a moderate and then became very liberal once he took the oath.


That's bull**** and you know it. The South is where all the racist bigots live, that's why they vote Republican. ;)

[sanantoniosooner]

Socioeconomic factors are considered when schooling is concerned. Why would we need to add race?
From a purely teaching standpoint, your ethnicity can have a great effect on your learning style. To best teach a student, it helps to make a connection with WHO they are. It's true of anyone. You can't do that if you teach every student the same and ignore what makes them different from others.

[OklahomaTuba]

Did anyone get Democratic Senator Robert Byrds opinion on this yet?

http://files.blog-city.com/files/O05/150158/p/f/robert_byrd.jpg

[TUSooner]

In a nutshell, the government can discriminate on the basis of race in only a few very select circumstances. Such action triggers the highest level of test - "strict scrutiny," which means that for the law/action to be valid, it must be "narrowly tailored" to meet a "compelling interest" and it must be the last resort. In other words - it has to be for the best of reasons, and it cannot be a ruse for something else, and it cannot be any more broad (i.e. do anymore discrimination) than is absolutely necessary.

A different set of decisions have decided that "diversity" is among these highest level of government interests. Undoing racial discrimination would also fall under this category, but noone using racial preferences uses that excuse - they all use diversity.

To answer Homey's question directly - I think the court has been moving to a true color-blind standard for some time, and this decision keeps marching it forward. My stance here is that the best interpretation is more textualist than originalist, meaning that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment means that the government should be color-blind, except when addressing past racial discrimination. As a result, I think that the decision is correct.

Reasonable minds might differ, that this goes too far in taking away flexibility in dealing with a complex issue. I'm cool with that, and could have even lived with the decision. After all, SCOTUS opinions are not going to change the hearts and minds of people. It is up to we as the people to become color-blind, it won't happen because 5 dudes say it should.

However, much of the response from the left side of the aisle is not reasonable. I realize that this statements are made from liberals looking for (re)election, but still. All three democrat frontrunners made asinine, incorrect statements of fear-mongering. However, the worst of the worst was a democrat I like sometimes (but not today). Here it is:

"The Supreme Court decision in the school desegregation cases is appalling. Ever since Brown v. Board of Education, it has been settled law that the Constitution requires racially mixed schools. Today's decision turns Brown upside down and ignores decades of constitutional history. If this isn't judicial activism, I don't know what is." — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

No, no, no, no, no. This is truthiness at its absolute worst. Everything he said is 180 degrees wrong. It is ABSOLUTELY NOT the holding or reasoning of Brown that "the Constitution requires racially mixed schools." The truly sad thing is that he and many others probably believe that. The Constitution and SCOTUS decisions forbid using racial discrimination to keep schools segregated. Even the most notorious bussing cases were tailored to remedy past discrimination. None were for diversity, which is the claimed right in the current case. Diversity is a goal that schools may shoot for, and the decision today is about what can go into that decision. It has never been that schools must be diverse. That's just silly. Else what would the state of Utah do?
Unless and until I take the time to read the opinion (not soon!) and find something to the contrary, I'm with 47straight on this one. Well said, methinks.
Neither institutionalized racism nor practical racism like the bad old days will be revived. In fact, this move takes away a major whining point for resentful, white-racist cry-babies. The leftists will howl anyway because it's what they do to show they "care." But the only way to get over "the race thing" is to get over the race thing.

[Stoop Dawg]

There's volumes of stuff on it...but the basic point is that GOP engineers and many of their cheerleaders would love to turn the clock back on the social evolution of Cold War America. They're not down with feminism, they're not down with racial equality, they're not down with social justice. They liked it then...and if they had to feign about hating judicial activism to gain power, they'll gladly use judicial activism to reverse the perceived wrongs.

You've worded this pretty vaguely and therefore deserve the criticism that comes with it. If it's your contention that there are 1 or 2 people in the GOP who are racist *******s, then I'm certain that you are correct. If you're saying that the majority of Reps (or even the majority of the GOP leadership) are racist *******s then you're a moron.


The ideal situation would be to uplift people based on their limited socieconomic background.


A system that didn't penalize a poor white kid from Tulsa or a enhance a black well-to-do doctor's son from Boston would be ideal. But then we'd get into the "class warfare" stuff that isn't supposed to exist in postmodern America...so says the country clubbers and Michael Savage. We all get tax cuts after all. ;)

IMO, class warfare is better than race warfare. Regardless, I don't think you'll see it. Do you see rich families demanding special driving lanes for themselves? Do rich families demand better public schools for their kids today? No, they just send them to a private school. There is no reason our public school system can't "even the playing field" and make all schools relatively similar when it comes to getting education. Instead of sending a few students to the "good" schools, why don't we work on improving the "bad" schools? Then ALL of the students at the "bad" school benefit.

Also, the minority races should be offended that Clinton, Obama, and the rest of the Dem leadership think that their kids are so stupid that they need to go to "white school" to get learned.


My contention is that 50 years of racial "equality" after 4 centuries of racial-based slavery doesn't erase the socioeconomic consequences of such a legacy.

My contention is that combating racism with racism will only lead to more ... racism. If the problem is socio-economic, then let's come up with a socio-economic solution, eh?

[FaninAma]

Good for the Supreme Court. The courts have absolutely no business mandating executive actions like forced busing. If changes need to be made they should be made constituionally through the legislative process and carried out by the executive branch.

[Ike]

I thought it was interesting that there were 3 opinions issued in this case. IIRC (If I read it correctly) Justice Kennedy basically made the Chief Justices decision the majority, but his opinion, in essentially, laid the smack down on the Chief Justice and those that voted with him by saying "your outcome may be correct, but everything else in your opinion is crap".

At least, thats what I took from it.

[Ike]

Also, I believe in the second one down on that list, the supremes also did away with the ban on price floors set by manufacturers...


that could have interesting effects.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Growing up in OKC, I never understood how busing white kids 1 year up to the black side of town promoted racial equality.

[soonerscuba]

Hmm. It seems everybody is right. Except Tuba, because he willingly supports a coked-up drunk like George W Bush, because we all know when you do something regrettable in your youth it should stick to you as truth until the day you die.

But, I tend to think the effects of 400+ years of slavery and stigma isn't going to change regardless of who does what, Dem or Rep.

[Vaevictis]

The South wasn't a bastion for the Republicans until the 1994 elections.

The 1994 mid-term wasn't about race, it was about a POTUS who ran as a moderate and then became very liberal once he took the oath.


That's bull**** and you know it. The South is where all the racist bigots live, that's why they vote Republican. ;)

Pfft. Let's go over the electoral maps, shall we? Starting in 1880, the first post-Reconstruction Presidential Election. (Note, red is Democrat and blue is Republican here...) Pay special attention in particular to Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina (and a bit to Louisiana, too).

1880
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1880.gif

1884
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1884.gif

1888
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1888.gif

1892
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1892.gif

1896
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1896.gif

1900
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1900.gif

1904
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1904.gif

1908
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1908.gif

1912
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1912.gif

1916
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1916.gif

1920
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1920.gif

1924
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1924.gif

1928
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1928.gif

1932
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1932.gif

1936
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1936.gif

1940
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1940.gif

1944
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1944.gif

1948 (yellow is Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrats, aka State's Rights, but their slogan was more telling: "Segregation Forever!")
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1948.gif

1952
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1952.gif

1956
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1956.gif

1960 (yellow is Democratic party here also)
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1960.gif


Let's take a break and recap. From 1880 to 1960, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina have NEVER ONCE voted Republican. (and Louisiana only once, if I counted correctly.) The only time that they failed to vote Democrat was to vote for a party whose slogan was "Segregation Forever!" (... with the exception of Louisiana who voted Republican)

Now for the 1964 presidential election, directly following the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

1964 -- Civil Rights Act passed July 2nd
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1964.gif

Huh. Suddenly, every last one of those states votes Republican, unlike every other state except Arizona. I wonder why. :rolleyes:

1968 (Yellow is George Wallace -- Segregationist)
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1968.gif

1972
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1972.gif

1976
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1976.gif

1980
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1980.gif

1984
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1984.gif

1988
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1988.gif

1992
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1992.gif

1996
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1996.gif

2000
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/2000.gif

2004 (note that they've inverted the colors here -- Red is Republican, Blue is Democrat)
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/2004.gif


So, recap, shall we?

From 1880 to 1960, of the five states I mentioned, only Louisiana voted Republican, and even then only once.

From 1964 to 2004, in 11 Presidential elections, these five states voted straight Republican 6 times, had a 4D/1R split once (Jimmy Carter), 4R/1D split twice (Carter, Bill Clinton), 2D/3R split once (Clinton), and one election split 1R/0D/4I (Nixon R, George Wallace I).

If you really think that racism has nothing to do with those patterns, well then, I think that at best, you may be deluded.

And no, I don't think that they vote Republican because they are/were racist, I think they STOPPED voting Democratic because they are/were racist. And in a two party system, in such a case, you start voting for the other guys.

[Okla-homey]

I agree with V-man.

Also, having lived in the Deep South for much of my life, I feel competent to state that the Democratic Party is widely perceived in that region to be the party of Yankees, Labor Unions, Godless Secular Humanists, Trial Lawyers, and Black Folks.

[Scott D]

IMO, class warfare is better than race warfare. Regardless, I don't think you'll see it. Do you see rich families demanding special driving lanes for themselves? Do rich families demand better public schools for their kids today? No, they just send them to a private school. There is no reason our public school system can't "even the playing field" and make all schools relatively similar when it comes to getting education. Instead of sending a few students to the "good" schools, why don't we work on improving the "bad" schools? Then ALL of the students at the "bad" school benefit.

Also, the minority races should be offended that Clinton, Obama, and the rest of the Dem leadership think that their kids are so stupid that they need to go to "white school" to get learned.

The problem with this is that the "money" goes to the "good" schools. Find a way for the DoE to force school districts to fairly distribute the funds for the school systems all the way down to the municipal level, and perhaps there won't be "good" schools and "bad" schools. But until that point, nothing is really going to be solved, and we'll just have schools that will have less diverse makeup based upon economical situations.

I can see why people can be upset about the decision by the court, and I can see why people could care less about it.

[Jerk]

Look at the congressional seats, Vaev. I knew that Truman was probably the last Presidential Democrat that the South supported. But the congressional seats did not change until 1994.

[Jerk]

Also, I think it's more about culture than racism. The democrat party was taken over by the far left in 1968, and that's when they started to politicize many things that would be popular in the urban areas..like guns..but no so popular in the rural settings. There are so many factors here, like Vietnam and the Cold War. Anti-war hippies who wanted to hold hands with the communists and lose a war were not popular with the common joe.

[Stoop Dawg]

The problem with this is that the "money" goes to the "good" schools. Find a way for the DoE to force school districts to fairly distribute the funds for the school systems all the way down to the municipal level, and perhaps there won't be "good" schools and "bad" schools. But until that point, nothing is really going to be solved, and we'll just have schools that will have less diverse makeup based upon economical situations.

So the question, then, is this: Why are Seattle and Luisianna trying to create race-based admissions laws instead of restructuring their education budgets?

I fail to see how shuffling students from one school to another is going to solve the problems that are plaguing the "bad" schools. Unless, of course, one believes that it is the students themselves who are to blame for the low quality education offered by the "bad" schools.

[Vaevictis]

Look at the congressional seats, Vaev. I knew that Truman was probably the last Presidential Democrat that the South supported. But the congressional seats did not change until 1994.

Understood. However, because Congressional campaigns are local, they're fundamentally different in nature. Local candidates can and often do disavow portions of the national platform that conflict with the local viewpoint.


Also, I think it's more about culture than racism. The democrat party was taken over by the far left in 1968, and that's when they started to politicize many things that would be popular in the urban areas..like guns..but no so popular in the rural settings. There are so many factors here, like Vietnam and the Cold War. Anti-war hippies who wanted to hold hands with the communists and lose a war were not popular with the common joe.

Pfft, nonsense. It's not a coincidence that every one of those five states flipped Republican in 1964 for the first time in 80 years not 6 months after the passage of the Civil Rights act (... again, with the exception of Louisiana).

EDIT: And again, I'm not saying that they're continuing to vote Republican because of racism. I'm saying that they stopped voting Democrat because of racism. The difference is significant.

[Stoop Dawg]

Also, I think it's more about culture than racism.

IMO, it's more about age. Older people tend to hold on to their race and gender based biases. As those racist bastards die off (tongue-in-cheek), race and gender will play less and less of a role in our society. I'll admit that this is a gross generalization, but I believe that it is *mostly* true.

The problem is, laws last longer than a generation. And laws legitimize behavior. Passing laws that specifically call on race to segment our population serve only to foster racial tensions and segregation - they legitimize racism. Instead, we should be looking for the *real* reasons for education gaps and start solving those. Is it money? Is it violence? Is it culture?

[Scott D]

So the question, then, is this: Why are Seattle and Luisianna trying to create race-based admissions laws instead of restructuring their education budgets?

I fail to see how shuffling students from one school to another is going to solve the problems that are plaguing the "bad" schools. Unless, of course, one believes that it is the students themselves who are to blame for the low quality education offered by the "bad" schools.

No, the question should be "What carrot is on the end of the stick that has Seattle and Luisianna (or did you mean Louisiana) trying to create race-based admissions laws instead of restructuring their education budgets?"

Generally speaking...the "bad" schools have text books that are 20-30 years out of date, and probably 1/2 to 2/3 the amount they need. The "good" schools, tend to have the newest, up to date text books and in a plentiful manner as to support the amount of students they have. The "good" schools have the current and up to date necessities to be highly competitive with the private school sector because they have the financial support due to the fact that they get the scores that the government grants seek to get certain $$ amounts.

You could come up with a whole lot of things that plague "bad" schools from poor administration, to lack of community support, to lack of necessities to educate students in a proper manner. Sadly, poorer areas tend to have more kids which means they need more schools, which means they need more of a district's budget. But districts budget based upon performance. Guess where it's easier to get that performance.

I don't support what Seattle was attempting to do, but I can see how they might come to that conclusion. I can also see why it would upset parents and get to a point where the Supreme Court had to get involved in the matter.

[Octavian]

If you're saying that the majority of Reps (or even the majority of the GOP leadership) are racist *******s then you're a moron.



The Southern Strategy and the switcharoo between Dems and Pubs on the issue of race during the Cold War is basic stuff. It's the PSC 101 type junk in any and every PSC course of modern American politics in every (secular) university across the country.


This pretty well sums it up:



And no, I don't think that they vote Republican because they are/were racist, I think they STOPPED voting Democratic because they are/were racist. And in a two party system, in such a case, you start voting for the other guys



It didn't happen by accident:


The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

-Nixon political strategist and architect of the GOP Southern Strategy, Kevin Phillips, in a interview with Time Magazine, 1970.



But it has created some problems:

By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

-Republican Chairman Ken Mehlman to an African American delegation, 2005 (after Dubya received less than 1 in 10 votes among the black electorate).




That last part is what really got Mehlman into hot water with the reactionary parrots like Limbaugh and Hannity. How dare Mehlman apologize for such things like:


-The Southern Strategy.

-Ronnie beginning his bid for the Leader of the Free World in obscure Philadelphia, Mississippi (it seemed like an odd choice...the only thing tiny Philly, Miss. ever made national news for outside of Marcus Dupree was the killing of 3 civil rights workers in 1964). Ho ho ho!

-An entire language of coded phrases and loaded terms to seize on the frustration of working class whites over Johnson's Great Society initiatives.

-Willie Horton.

-W choosing Bob Jones "University" (that bastion of fundamentalist thought that banned racially "mixed" couples among its students - in the 1990s!) as a launching pad to his White House bid in 2000. As a sidenote, when McCain decided to run for the '08 race, he made a stop at good ole BJU (heh) last year to prove he wasn't so liberal after all.



By the way, Ken Mehlman is no longer Chairman of the Republican Party. He got fired.

[FaninAma]

The problem with this is that the "money" goes to the "good" schools. Find a way for the DoE to force school districts to fairly distribute the funds for the school systems all the way down to the municipal level, and perhaps there won't be "good" schools and "bad" schools. But until that point, nothing is really going to be solved, and we'll just have schools that will have less diverse makeup based upon economical situations.

I can see why people can be upset about the decision by the court, and I can see why people could care less about it.

Whether a school is good or bad isn't primarily dependedent on the amount of cold,hard cash (funding)they receive. It's dependent on the amount of parenteral involvement and how active a role parents take in their kids' education and activities in school.

All of my kids attend Byng....not exactly an elite, rich school system. But the parenteral involvement is very high and as a result this little country school is sending graduates to Princeton, OU, Rice and Texas. Many, many of the students have recieved academic scholarships including at least 3 nationally recognized awards in science.. They place well on performance tests and there is not a discipline or attitude problem in the student population.

I can almost guarantee you that some of the "bad" schools in the inner cites receive 2 to 3 times the funding per student that Byng does, yet it doesn't seem enough.

The Democratic message to blacks: it isn't your fault you aren't achieving at a higher level....it's whitey's fault for not spending enough money in black communities.

[Jerk]

I'm thinking more of Oklahoma. Solid Democrat state until 1994. I can't argue that many in the deep South weren't casting votes based on race in the 1960's. But I remember Oklahoma having 5 democrat house members and 1 republican, 1 (D) senator senator and 1 (R) junior Senator. At that time (1980's), democrats out-numbered republicans in Oklahoma by 5 to 1 (IIRC) but the last (D) they voted for Prez was Truman.However, we kept electing democrats locally. This changed in 1994. Now we have Boren of Muskogee and Brad Henry as the major democrats of the state who have brought the party back from the brink of death here, and they have a few things in common. They're not raising taxes, they're not trying to take people's guns, and they don't come across as arrogant (I put that last line in there for the heck of it)

[Scott D]

Whether a school is good or bad isn't primarily dependedent on the amount of cold,hard cash (funding)they receive. It's dependent on the amount of parenteral involvement and how active a role parents take in their kids' education and activities in school.

All of my kids attend Byng....not exactly an elite, rich school system. But the parenteral involvement is very high and as a result this little country school is sending graduates to Princeton, OU, Rice and Texas. Many, many of the students have recieved academic scholarships including at least 3 nationally recognized awards in science.. They place well on performance tests and there is not a discipline or attitude problem in the student population.

I can almost guarantee you that some of the "bad" schools in the inner cites receive 2 to 3 times the funding per student that Byng does, yet it doesn't seem enough.

The Democratic message to blacks: it isn't your fault you aren't achieving at a higher level....it's whitey's fault for not spending enough money in black communities.

once again it's back to a district issue. However, it doesn't really matter much anyway.

[Ike]

Whether a school is good or bad isn't primarily dependedent on the amount of cold,hard cash (funding)they receive. It's dependent on the amount of parenteral involvement and how active a role parents take in their kids' education and activities in school.

All of my kids attend Byng....not exactly an elite, rich school system. But the parenteral involvement is very high and as a result this little country school is sending graduates to Princeton, OU, Rice and Texas. Many, many of the students have recieved academic scholarships including at least 3 nationally recognized awards in science.. They place well on performance tests and there is not a discipline or attitude problem in the student population.

I can almost guarantee you that some of the "bad" schools in the inner cites receive 2 to 3 times the funding per student that Byng does, yet it doesn't seem enough.

The Democratic message to blacks: it isn't your fault you aren't achieving at a higher level....it's whitey's fault for not spending enough money in black communities.

Part of that too is what the money has to go towards. If a school has to spend a large fraction of its budget on security then it has that much less to spend on things like books and teachers. Typically inner city schools have far greater security needs than suburban schools due to the high crime rates that go along with being in an inner city. Quality teachers often don't want to teach in these kinds of areas either.

I think making the decision on whether or not enough money is being spent on any given school district depends a whole lot on the breakdown of where that money has to go.

[Vaevictis]

I'm thinking more of Oklahoma. Solid Democrat state until 1994.

If you're going to limit what you're saying to Oklahoma, you won't find me arguing. Oklahoma's allegiance to the Democratic Party was rooted more in populism than anything else (IMO), and Oklahoma just ain't all that worried about populism anymore.

[TexasLidig8r]

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/emaps/1984.gif

Dutch kicked some SERIOUS *** in 84.... :D

[47straight]

So the question, then, is this: Why are Seattle and Luisianna trying to create race-based admissions laws instead of restructuring their education budgets?

I fail to see how shuffling students from one school to another is going to solve the problems that are plaguing the "bad" schools. Unless, of course, one believes that it is the students themselves who are to blame for the low quality education offered by the "bad" schools.

Brilliant post, intentional or otherwise.

The rational given for the constitutionality of these programs is diversity and not performance. (They claim that diversity is a fundamental aspect of an education, but they don't even attempt to relate it to benchmarkable math, science, etc. scores).

Diversity doesn't even really address the real issues of funding, teacher quality, parental involvement, and performance. Even if it gives a few more black kids the chance to go to a better school, it's a drop in the bucket. It's a dang ruse at the end of the day, IMO. An easier task that sounds good, appeases academics, gets politicians votes, but doesn't actually lift communities out of poverty and lack of education.

[Stoop Dawg]

Luisianna (or did you mean Louisiana)

Hey, I'm not the idiot. They are the ones who put 3 vowels all right together in their name. They should expect people to mis-spell it.


Brilliant post, intentional or otherwise.

No offense taken. ;)

[Fugue]

St. Luis

[47straight]

No offense taken. ;)

I was just signalling I intended to possibly put words into your mouth. :)

[Vaevictis]

The rational given for the constitutionality of these programs is diversity and not performance. (They claim that diversity is a fundamental aspect of an education, but they don't even attempt to relate it to benchmarkable math, science, etc. scores).

Nevermind that neither diversity or performance is assured by the Constitution in any shape or form. (Performance especially -- inefficiency and obstructionism are almost explicitly mandated...)

Personally, I think that any government program that looks at race should by law have a strict scrutiny test applied to it. I also think that for a certain period, it was necessary to bypass that in the interest in justice (... noting that the law and justice are not always one and the same). As to whether that period is over or not... I'm not sure.

[Soonrboy]

. Everything I have ever read or studied says that the number one indicator for student success is parent involvement. Not just parents going into the schools and helping out the teacher. Parent involvement means reading to kids when they are babies, pulling them on your lap and engaging them in conversations. Taking them places, talking with them. Expose them to a world full of books words.
Now, for whatever reason, people who are economically disadvantaged are less likely to do these things. Think about who the most economically disadvantaged subgroups are and you will most likely find your lowest performing schools are filled with that subgroup, which happen to sit in poor neighborhoods. Now some do transfer to other schools, but when you transfer to a better performing school, you have to get yourself there...which is another strike if your family happens to have people who can't get you there.

Our magnet schools pull the best and brightest...the kids who have parents that are involved. Leaving behind in the neighborhood schools, the ones who do not have parental involvement, and the performance on tests show that there is no to little parental involvement.

So does race play a factor? Not as much as economic status.

[Stoop Dawg]

I also think that for a certain period, it was necessary to bypass that in the interest in justice (... noting that the law and justice are not always one and the same). As to whether that period is over or not... I'm not sure.

The problem, IMO, is that you can't ride AA all the way to "equality". For one thing, it's impossible to objectively determine "equality". For another, once you start getting close to some people's subjective opinion of "equality" AA starts looking like racial favoritism. At that point, it actually becomes counter-productive.

Obviously, everyone has their own subjective opinion of how "equal" the races are at this point in history. But more and more we see racial minorities in positions of power. Blacks dominate college and pro football and basketball. The best golfer in the world is black. We've had black men in positions of great political power. We now have a legitimate black candidate for the presidency. I'm not saying that the success of these individuals indicates equality for blacks in general. I am saying that the success of these individuals indicates that it is possible for blacks to succeed in our society (and that's a big step forward, IMO), and it also makes it more difficult for many people to view blacks as a disadvantaged race.

[Stoop Dawg]

St. Luis

Is he the patron saint of difficult-to-spell words?

[TexasLidig8r]

Brilliant post, intentional or otherwise.

The rational given for the constitutionality of these programs is diversity and not performance. (They claim that diversity is a fundamental aspect of an education, but they don't even attempt to relate it to benchmarkable math, science, etc. scores).

Diversity doesn't even really address the real issues of funding, teacher quality, parental involvement, and performance. Even if it gives a few more black kids the chance to go to a better school, it's a drop in the bucket. It's a dang ruse at the end of the day, IMO. An easier task that sounds good, appeases academics, gets politicians votes, but doesn't actually lift communities out of poverty and lack of education.

ah.. Counselor-to-Be... that is because the PC society which has permeated the US today confuses equal opportunity with equal results.

The "disinfranchised" believe that if you put equal plates of food, money, any tangible or intangible good in front of a racially diverse crowd, then, the results achieved with those goods by that crowd should be equal. In fact, the very existence of the disinfranchised crowd MUST have that as its basis, its very foundation. For, if we were to look at differing results from a perspective of something other than, "well, the playing field isn't equal at the start," then we, as a society would be forced to look at issues which make many uncomfortable... that is... what impact does single parent households, or uninvolved parents, or drug or alcohol abuse within the family structure, or no moral or ethical compass for our children have on results?

Give me a poor student from an impoverished neighborhood where both mom and dad are present, pay attention to that student's schooling, homework, friends.. over a knucklehead from Highland Park whose parents look uopn him/her more as a tax benefit than a child and who has never known any adversity and has a sense of entitlement any day of the week.

[Vaevictis]

There have actually been rumblings from the general direction of the NAACP recently about how they've gotten to the point where they need to start taking responsibility for themselves and quit falling into the victim trap.

[OklahomaTuba]

There have actually been rumblings from the general direction of the NAACP recently about how they've gotten to the point where they need to start taking responsibility for themselves and quit falling into the victim trap.

Never happen, the libz won't let it.

Victimhood is a central tenet of the Church of Liberalism/Socialism. Self Responsibility is perhaps the greatest sin.