Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It's "The Man" at it again...

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

"Students cannot be assigned to public schools because of their race, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled"

If they racially profiled "black" students; said "you go to that school, because you're black." you'd be crying foul too... Seems like a lose-lose.

So basically race is not a factor to getting in to school, some nuts want it to be but the supreme court are just a bunch of racists for denying it... I cant be arsed spot checking the article so I might have missed some thing but why should race play a role in deciding whether one is accepted in to public schools?

Originally posted by Magee
I cant be arsed spot checking the article so I might have missed some thing but why should race play a role in deciding whether one is accepted in to public schools?

I'm in the same boat as you on this one...You should go to a school based on geographics...not your race...but then that leaves people stuck at crappy schools in the ghetto sometimes...I don't know...It is waaay to complicated for just one solution.

Thank god. "In one case, Seattle used race as a tie-breaking factor in deciding who gets into certain public high schools when too many students sought admission."

Race shouldn't be a factor. Geographic location for public schools. Grades for private schools. Race should not enter it at ANY time.

I agree with Kinneary. Race should not be a deciding EVER, for schooling or anything. If a decision is made in favor of one race over any other (no matter which race it is in favor of) is racism.

You, FotN, are a racist.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I agree with Kinneary. Race should not be a deciding EVER, for schooling or anything. If a decision is made in favor of one race over any other (no matter which race it is in favor of) is racism.

You, FotN, are a racist.

Yes it is racists to allow blacks into primarily white schools, and it sucks for them because they will have to travel further to go to school, however the primarily white schools in richer area's are probably richer schools then those in crappy neighborhoods were a lot of black people live. So something can be said for these idea's.

It would be better to just improve schooling and let people form other geographic area's get into those schools instead of just black people, seeing as white people can live in crappy parts of a city too.

Originally posted by Fishy
Yes it is racists to allow blacks into primarily white schools, and it sucks for them because they will have to travel further to go to school, however the primarily white schools in richer area's are probably richer schools then those in crappy neighborhoods were a lot of black people live. So something can be said for these idea's. Don't put words in my mouth.

Letting someone into a school, college, or job just because of their race is racism.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Don't put words in my mouth.

Letting someone into a school, college, or job just because of their race is racism.

Where the hell did I put words in your mouth? I am just saying that I can see why they would allow these programs to exist in the first place.

Yeah sure it's racists, but at this moment not all races get equal chances, this program is made to give everybody equal chances. So it does have some good aspects.

So making laws supporting racial discrimination is the right thing to do? Ever think it was a question of classism and not racism?

Originally posted by Kinneary
So making laws supporting racial discrimination is the right thing to do? Ever think it was a question of classism and not racism?

There we go. You hit the philosophical nail right on the head with that! THAT was what I was trying get at earlier.

Originally posted by Kinneary
So making laws supporting racial discrimination is the right thing to do? Ever think it was a question of classism and not racism?

No it's not the right thing, and as I said it would be better if they focused on geographical location instead of just the race part. But I also see why laws like this are around, probably easier to look if somebody is black or white then to look at what kind of neighborhood he or she lives in. Administration costs in most schools at least in this country are high enough as it is, creating extra criteria that can be seen as wide as the criteria of where you live is certainly not going to make things easier.

So yeah it's a bad thing, but there are some reasons for it being so and not all of them suck.

Originally posted by Fishy
No it's not the right thing, and as I said it would be better if they focused on geographical location instead of just the race part.

When you get a chance you are really going to have to explain the difference to me.

Anyways, this is basically another form of segregation. Some of you are making really stupid statements. Public schools are doing terribly and the ones they do really bad get money taken away which lead to a lot of kids getting grades they never earned simply so the school would not lose funds (damn "No Child Left Behind". Does taking money away from a failing school make sense to anyone? How the hell do you ever cut anything from the education budget?

****ing politicians and their damn "intentions."

I wonder if I can still go to an "All Girls Private School"

(that would get me more dates)






No wait, I'm way pass my prime.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I wonder if I can still go to an "All Girls Private School"

(that would get me more dates)






No wait, I'm way pass my prime.

Optimus Prime or Superman Prime?

That's what she said.

Originally posted by Fishy
No it's not the right thing, and as I said it would be better if they focused on geographical location instead of just the race part. But I also see why laws like this are around, probably easier to look if somebody is black or white then to look at what kind of neighborhood he or she lives in. Administration costs in most schools at least in this country are high enough as it is, creating extra criteria that can be seen as wide as the criteria of where you live is certainly not going to make things easier.

So yeah it's a bad thing, but there are some reasons for it being so and not all of them suck.
Cheaper does mean it's the correct thing to do. If we decided to segragate kids depending upon their class, I would still say it's wrong. If a parent pays extra taxes so that the school in their district has more funds available to it, is it right to say that their child cannot attend that school? By the same token, I can see your point that just because a parent cannot afford the same amount of funds that another can, that shouldn't mean their child should be forced to accept a lower level of education.

In the end, this discussion requires more than "Should a black kid get to go to a predominately white neighborhood's school because the white school is better funded?" It requires a question as to whether all state sponsored schools should get equal amount of funding. Or, also, how do we eliminate classism in our public education.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
It's "The Man" at it again...

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

I don't want black kids in my school either 13

We should just let economics do the segregation for us. 13

oh...and btw...using RACE as a tiebreaker (as in given all things equal, we'd rather have racial integration) is NOT racial profiling.

Originally posted by Fishy
Where the hell did I put words in your mouth? I am just saying that I can see why they would allow these programs to exist in the first place.

Yeah sure it's racists, but at this moment not all races get equal chances, this program is made to give everybody equal chances. So it does have some good aspects. You were mischaracterizing my position. Whichever.

I take no issue with the goals of programs like these, but the ends do not justify the means. There is a difference between advocating racial equality and being unequal to procure equality. Seems counterproductive, no?

Originally posted by Alliance
I don't want black kids in my school either 13

We should just let economics do the segregation for us. 13

oh...and btw...using RACE as a tiebreaker (as in given all things equal, we'd rather have racial integration) is NOT racial profiling.
But all things are NOT equal. Why should a lesser qualified white kid get into a school just because there are too many black kids. Why should a lesser qualified latino get into a school just because there are too many whites? It's racism, pure and simple. There is no gray area.

Originally posted by Kinneary
But all things are NOT equal. Why should a lesser qualified white kid get into a school just because there are too many black kids. Why should a lesser qualified latino get into a school just because there are too many whites? It's racism, pure and simple. There is no gray area.

Apparently you're not familiar with the law that was struck down.

As an off-topic side note, the only thing that is racist is letting economics take over the duties of the Nazis and the KKK, instead of just lynching them yourself.

Originally posted by Kinneary
Cheaper does mean it's the correct thing to do. If we decided to segragate kids depending upon their class, I would still say it's wrong. If a parent pays extra taxes so that the school in their district has more funds available to it, is it right to say that their child cannot attend that school? By the same token, I can see your point that just because a parent cannot afford the same amount of funds that another can, that shouldn't mean their child should be forced to accept a lower level of education.

In the end, this discussion requires more than "Should a black kid get to go to a predominately white neighborhood's school because the white school is better funded?" It requires a question as to whether all state sponsored schools should get equal amount of funding. Or, also, how do we eliminate classism in our public education.

Yes you are right the question should be about that, the question about this law however is do you remove a bad law and make things even worse until you find a better solution or do you keep a bad law while working towards a better solution? At least if people are willing to work towards a better solution because this one just sucks.


Originally posted by Strangelove
You were mischaracterizing my position. Whichever.

I take no issue with the goals of programs like these, but the ends do not justify the means. There is a difference between advocating racial equality and being unequal to procure equality. Seems counterproductive, no?

Wasn't doing that either, at least not on purpose, stop being so paranoid.

And yes it seems counterproductive it isn't though because races aren't equal. They should be, but as long as the majority of blacks inhabit bad schools while the majority of whites go to good schools the difference will stay.

That doesn't mean I like this law or this program, but I think it's better then doing nothing.

Originally posted by Fishy


That doesn't mean I like this law or this program, but I think it's better then doing nothing.

And what does this law do in application? It doesn't look like you have a clue.

Originally posted by chithappens
And what does this law do in application? It doesn't look like you have a clue.

read the first two paragraphs of the article.

Originally posted by Fishy
read the first two paragraphs of the article.

Ok wise ass, allow me to reword it: How will it affect society?

Originally posted by Fishy
Wasn't doing that either, at least not on purpose, stop being so paranoid.

And yes it seems counterproductive it isn't though because races aren't equal. They should be, but as long as the majority of blacks inhabit bad schools while the majority of whites go to good schools the difference will stay.

That doesn't mean I like this law or this program, but I think it's better then doing nothing. Well it seemed like that to me. Sorry for misconstruing.

Blacks go to bad schools because of de facto segregation. What they need to do is lobby government to improve conditions and schools in urban areas (it's an urban problem, not racial), instead of relying on affirmative action to steer them through. If they were all as well-qualified and schooled as everyone else, then there wouldn't need to be affirmative action. It should be a joint action between blacks and government. For too long the African-American community has blamed "the man" and whites for their problems without doing anything about it.

And no, I'm not a racist. I'm a realist

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, that sounded more pro-African American than racist. Well I was expecting to be called racist. Just covering my bases

Originally posted by Strangelove
Well it seemed like that to me. Sorry for misconstruing.

Blacks go to bad schools because of de facto segregation. What they need to do is lobby government to improve conditions and schools in urban areas (it's an urban problem, not racial), instead of relying on affirmative action to steer them through. If they were all as well-qualified and schooled as everyone else, then there wouldn't need to be affirmative action. It should be a joint action between blacks and government. For too long the African-American community has blamed "the man" and whites for their problems without doing anything about it.

And no, I'm not a racist. I'm a realist

I completely agree with this, however that isn't happening right now.

So you have two choices, remove this program and work towards that.

Or work towards that and keep this program in the mean time. Sure this program isn't perfect it isn't even that good but I still think it's better then nothing. And let's be honest here, it's either this or nothing at the moment. So if I had to choose I would choose this one. Your solution is preferable though but it's just not happening. And I would hate to stop this program just because it isn't the best thing out there. I'm not that much of an idealist.

Originally posted by Strangelove
If they were all as well-qualified and schooled as everyone else, then there wouldn't need to be affirmative action.

Well to be as well qualified you must be as "well schooled" so the two go hand in hand. That's mainly why I never understand people taking shots at affirmative action.

Originally posted by Strangelove


On a wide scale, this is not all that simple. Improving urban areas includes a lot of shit beyond education. Mentioning crime alone makes it a far more complicated task than just some lobbying. It's not as if no one knew about things going on in "urban areas." Certainly the government knew and the CIA has admit to drug trafficing beyond the Iran-Contra scandal LOL

Originally posted by chithappens
Well to be as well qualified you must be as "well schooled" so the two go hand in hand. That's mainly why I never understand people taking shots at affirmative action. I am well aware that being qualified is a result of good schooling, so that was exactly what I was getting at. Which is why we should work to make better schools urban areas, not give those people a free ride.

I agree, anything but simple. But that fact shouldn't keep us from doing it.

Originally posted by Fishy
Yes you are right the question should be about that, the question about this law however is do you remove a bad law and make things even worse until you find a better solution or do you keep a bad law while working towards a better solution? At least if people are willing to work towards a better solution because this one just sucks.
If a parent gives an extra two thousand dollars in taxes a year so that the school in their district is higher quality, why should their child NOT go to that school?

I disagree with the system now, but making it a law that a school has to have a certain percentage of students from disadvantaged students would make more sense than just a racial quota, since in theory we're trying to help poor people, not poor people who just so happen to be black.

Originally posted by Kinneary
If a parent gives an extra two thousand dollars in taxes a year so that the school in their district is higher quality, why should their child NOT go to that school?

I disagree with the system now, but making it a law that a school has to have a certain percentage of students from disadvantaged students would make more sense than just a racial quota, since in theory we're trying to help poor people, not poor people who just so happen to be black.

Again I agree with the second part, but that's not around right now. So until those laws are made these one's can continue to exist.

As for the first thing, don't all schools get the same funding compared to how many students they have?

But these laws don't exist. So shouldn't people advocate the new laws instead of ones that have already been struck down?


I don't think so, but honestly I wouldn't be able to tell you. I haven't done enough research on the subject to say. But from my relatively uninformed opinion, different districts pay different taxes for their schools.

Originally posted by Kinneary
But these laws don't exist. So shouldn't people advocate the new laws instead of ones that have already been struck down?

Which is why I was against striking down these programs, now that they have people need to work on different programs. Which they should have done anyway, but now while they work on new programs there aren't any old one's to help and improve the situation.



If that's the case then that is just stupid, schools should get their funding depending on how many students they have and a set amount for each student. Perhaps little differences between districts because of the ground price in said districts, but that is it. If one school gets a hell of a lot more money then another school then that school will always be better. That's what private schools are for, public schools shouldn't be getting more money then other public schools.

computer probs. ingnore this post.

Why the hell are you quoting your own post?

anyways

It really shouldn't be that hard to do. You could easily assign maximum or minimal sizes to schools depending on their size. I would assume that schools pay for this ground and would therefor have bills, these bills can be shown to the government who can compare them to records of amount of students see if they match and if they do pay up. Shouldn't be that hard.

With newly build schools the government could start interfering from the beginning. And make sure the costs are reasonable for the land. Making them know how much it cost as well. It really shouldn't be all that hard.