(U.S. Supreme) Court strikes racial diversity school programs!!

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.

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 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

Actually, that sounded more pro-African American than racist.

I came from the ghetto. My mother was single with three children. She WORKED HER ASS OFF!!! She went to school full time and worked full time. We barely had food to eat sometimes. (Remembering those days brought tears to my eyes just now. It was horrible and it was hell.)

She was born into a lower middle class family. After she divorced, it was an extremely hard, uphill battle.

Why can't other people do the same? Where the f*ck is their will power? Blame everyone but yourself....right, that's exactly how to get out of your bad “situation”.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, that sounded more pro-African American than racist.

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
[B
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. [/B]

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.[b]

[b]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 trafficking beyond the Iran-Contra scandal LOL

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree for the most part. The problem with the present conversation is cost of living. No, public schools should not get the same amount of money. Cost of living is so ambiguous that it is extremely difficult to set fair and reasonable funding. Currently for the “governments” eyes, there is no such thing as equality, especially when it comes to funding. Yes, it is possible to setup a task force comprised of hundreds of individuals assigned to set funding as equal as possible and adjust that funding based an many different factors for each school so that a truly fair system could be in place, but that leaves the door wide open for corruption.

The type of world your describing would work very very well...only under a communist society. Communism does have its benefits but those benefits are only theoretical and communism cannot work unless humans mature more. (I am referring to pure communism...refer to the teachings of Carl Marx for further details.)

I agree for the most part. The problem with the present conversation is cost of living. No, public schools should not get the same amount of money per student. The result would be under funding in high cost areas and over funding in low cost areas. Cost of living is so ambiguous that it is extremely difficult to set fair and reasonable funding. Currently for the “government's” eyes, there is no such thing as funding equality. Yes, it is possible to setup a task force comprised of hundreds of individuals assigned to set funding as equal as possible and adjust that funding based an many different factors for each school so that a truly fair system could be in place, but that leaves the door wide open for corruption.

The type of world your describing would work very very well...only under a communist society. Communism does have its benefits but those benefits are only theoretical and communism cannot work unless humans mature more. (I am referring to pure communism...refer to the teachings of Carl Marx for further details lol.)

I agree for the most part. The problem with the present conversation is cost of living. No, public schools should not get the same amount of money per student. The result would be under funding in high cost areas and over funding in low cost areas. Cost of living is so ambiguous that it is extremely difficult to set fair and reasonable funding. Currently for the “government's” eyes, there is no such thing as funding equality. Yes, it is possible to setup a task force comprised of hundreds of individuals assigned to set funding as equal as possible and adjust that funding based an many different factors for each school so that a truly fair system could be in place, but that leaves the door wide open for corruption.

The type of world your describing would work very very well...only under a communist society. Communism does have its benefits but those benefits are only theoretical and communism cannot work unless humans mature more. (I am referring to pure communism...refer to the teachings of Carl Marx for further details lol.)

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.

Originally posted by Fishy
Why the hell are you quoting your own post?

Like I said, computer problems. Infrared mouse is causing my cursor to jump all over the place. I thought I clicked out "edit" and after I clicked submit, I saw what it did. I tried to correct it. It was supposed to be a quote of you or something.

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.

I agree for the most part.

My problem is opening the door for more corruption by expanding the federal Government. The budget is already so far f-ed up that another expenditure wouldn’t be a good idea right now.

Also, do we really need another governing body? Isn't our government big enough already? Granted, the benefits probably outweigh the negatives in this scenario and I was just being a ranting pessimist again. I think we should drastically reduce the activities in Iraq and put that funding into American scientific research and our school systems.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Like I said, computer problems. Infrared mouse is causing my cursor to jump all over the place. I thought I clicked out "edit" and after I clicked submit, I saw what it did. I tried to correct it. It was supposed to be a quote of you or something.

I agree for the most part.

My problem is opening the door for more corruption by expanding the federal Government. The budget is already so far f-ed up that another expenditure wouldn’t be a good idea right now.

Also, do we really need another governing body? Isn't our government big enough already? Granted, the benefits probably outweigh the negatives in this scenario and I was just being a ranting pessimist again. I think we should drastically reduce the activities in Iraq and put that funding into American scientific research and our school systems.

The single most important expense for any government should always be schooling. So if the costs are justifiable for a better educational level in the country then no I don't think that it matters. In fact I think it should happen. If a new government agency needs to be created, and I really don't see why it should, then so be it. But I would imagine that existing government agency's can handle things like this perfectly.