Update II (12/6): James Taranto on How “Integration” Became Discrimination, SCOTUS blog…
——————————————–
My latest Washington Examiner column is about the two race-based school assignment cases currently before the Supreme Court.
White parents in Seattle and Jefferson County, Kentucky, sued the school districts for assigning students to schools based on race, a policy they claimed violated their rights to equal protection of the laws.
Although these school districts say they use a number of factors as “tiebreakers” to determine where to place students, their true intent is to categorize and haul students around by race to achieve a system-wide, so-called racial balance. This practice is discriminatory on its face, and one could oppose it simply on that basis. But if the law doesn’t convince you, perhaps a personal account will help. According to columnist George Will, this is what parents have to face:
This city’s school district decided in 2000 that because the son of Jill Kurfirst and the daughter of Winnie Bachwitz are white, they should be assigned to an inferior and distant high school. If they had not left the Seattle school system, this would have required them to rise at 5 a.m. in order to leave home by 5:30 a.m., alone and in the dark, to take the first of three buses, returning home between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m., with almost no time left for homework, family activities and adequate sleep.
Anyone who cares about their child would complain about this, even if race weren’t a factor. But since it is, the practice is even more egregious because we’ve been told, over and over again, how wrong racial discrimination is, yet school districts openly practice it!
After courts ordered government schools to desegregate in the mid-1950s, whites left certain areas. To curb “white flight,” the government ordered busing in the 1970s, forcing parents in the suburbs to send their kids to low-performing schools in the city to balance out the racial make-up. Consequently, parents who could afford to do so sent their kids to private schools. Parents who couldn’t afford to move or send kids to private schools didn’t have much recourse. But parents are finally fighting back, invoking the same laws that protected blacks from government-mandated racial discrimination, laws that protect all of us.
Critics who support race-based school assignments and college admissions inexplicably cite Brown v. Board of Education to support their arguments (although I think the reasoning in Brown is flawed, I agree with the court’s ruling). They mistakenly believe the landmark case somehow allowed the government to consider race only if blacks benefited from the consideration. From my column:
The issue in Brown was whether the segregation of children in government schools solely on the basis of race deprived black children of equal educational opportunities.
Implicit in the court’s reasoning was that government-mandated racial segregation was anathema to the notion of equal protection, not segregation per se. The court ordered government schools to desegregate, which was not the same as forcing individuals to integrate.
I could go on and on about Brown, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and how appalling it is that government is still getting away with judging citizens by race, but I have lots to do today.
I’ll point you to other resources, like this post at Patterico’s Pontifications. Both race-based school assignment cases went before the Supreme Court yesterday, and Patrick links to RealAudio video of arguments for the first and second cases. Transcripts (in PDF) here and here.
John Rosenberg at Discriminations links to and comments on news stories of the arguments here. Also read what he has to say about a so-called diversity proponent’s misinterpretation of Brown.
Howard Bashman at How Appealing links to news accounts of the case before and after yesterday’s arguments here.
I don’t think I’ve ever said this about a court case, but this might be the most important one for true equality and colorblind government policies since the conception of the Civil Rights movement, an event that all too quickly began a rallying cry for race-based entitlements, a cry that’s still ringing in our ears.
Update (9:21 a.m.): The veil is slowly pulled away. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights finds “little evidence that racial and ethnic diversity in elementary and secondary schools results in significant improvements in academic performance; studies on the effect of school racial composition on academic achievement often suggest modest and inconsistent benefits.” Download the media advisory and full report (both PDF).
Regardless of the findings, what could justify government-mandated racial discrimination, for crying out loud???
This blogger believes in forced integration. Even if black students benefit from it, why should the rights of non-blacks be violated for it? Either we’re for race-neutral policies across the board, or we may as well bring back Jim Crow. Hyperbole, you say?
Related posts:
- The Unconstitutionality of Brown v. The Board of Education
- The Irony of Brown v. Board of Education
- Colorblind Bind
- Value of Diversity: Serious Input Needed
- Nebraska Considers Coerced Integration
- “White Flight” Declared Illegal in Texas School District
- Jim Crow Redux
MSM:
A hearty amen!
Comment by A. B. Caneday — 12.05.06 @ 8:13 am
WHY did it take FIFTY YEARS for someone to realize that we are ALL geese ?? And what’s good for ONE goose, is good for EVERY goose.
Now the Libs and race baiters don’t want hate crimes legislation enacted because, god forbid, a BLACK MAN be punished for beating a white man to death.
Comment by seejanemom — 12.05.06 @ 9:28 am
UPDATE: La Shawn Barber has a Washington Examiner column on the subject, as well as a roundup of reaction at her blog.
Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications — 12.05.06 @ 9:42 am
All I have to say is thank God Alito and Roberts are on the bench.
Comment by dianne — 12.05.06 @ 9:42 am
seejanemom -
Why don’t you go and have a cup of coffee You sound slightly unhinged.
I was bused by choice to magnet programs that were out of my zoned school because I qualified for gifted and talented programs based on my test scores. I gladly got up and caught buses at 6:30 in the morning. I can’t blame parents for wanting the best choices for their kids but I sometimes think that we forget that one action can have repercussions on many.
I am quite unsettled about the state of race relations in the country. Seems like every article I read is about ‘the blacks’ and how we’re either ‘victims’. You’d swear there was some vast Negro conspiracy to take away all the slots in education and jobs from these deserving white kids.
I’m a post civil rights baby and I never thought I’d say this but integration was the best and worst thing to ever happen to black people in this country.
Comment by Tiffany in Houston — 12.05.06 @ 10:01 am
La Shawn Barber has a must-read post up this morning about the two cases currently before the USSC on race-based school assignments. She has a column up about it as well. Make sure to read them both.
Pingback by Sister Toldjah — 12.05.06 @ 10:28 am
Tiffany–
For all your giftedness, you are not thinking critically. I applaud your willingness to ride a school bus for YOUR PERSONAL BENEFIT, but what of the kids whose parents chose to live in a neighborhood for intangible reasons–like children who want to actually attend school with the same friends they can play with after school.
So, let me get this straight, YOU should have missed out on your magnate program (that you deserved)because SOME OTHER KID WOULDN’T HAVE YOU TO IDOLIZE AND USE FOR THE GOODIES YOUR HIGH TEST SCORES COULD BRING HIM?
Give it up. You need the coffee more than I do. And a dose of logic to go with it.
Comment by seejanemom — 12.05.06 @ 10:31 am
Jane -
What the hell are you talking about? I take it back about you needing some coffee, you need to stop smoking the crack you are obviously on.
My point was that actions taken have repercussions and I hope the Court can make a reasoned decision that can in the long run be applied fairly and benefit all.
The second half of your comment makes absolutely NO sense.
Comment by Tiffany in Houston — 12.05.06 @ 10:41 am
I’m having a hard time finding the “racial discrimination” that LSB writes about.
What race is being discriminated against?
These laws might be bad for other reasons (i.e., the inconvenience to some parents and students), but from what I gather, the inconvenience isn’t skewed in favor of (or against) any particular race. In other words, no racial group is more inconvenienced than any other.
I think the examples in George Will’s column show that there is a problem with the implementation of integrated schools. But the underlying proposition — integration of schools — remains a good thing. So we need to tweak the system and make it more reasonable — not trash it altogether.
Comment by Kman — 12.05.06 @ 10:56 am
I don’t think busing is fair to anyone. Are we in agreement on that basic premise?
Comment by seejanemom — 12.05.06 @ 11:00 am
Its not that there are any skewing its the use of race at all in the decisions Kman. Thats being forced by your race which is wrong. Noone should be forced anywhere on account of race…no matter if one race is not not forced more than another.
Comment by Charles — 12.05.06 @ 11:08 am
“no matter if one race is not not forced more than another.”
If one race is forced the same as any other, what is the problem–there’s equal protection under the law. The Constitution doesn’t require no consideration of race in anything ever.
Comment by tvd — 12.05.06 @ 11:23 am
Noone should be forced to do anything on basis of race. What you are saying is not equal protecton of the law. Its equal descrimination under the law. Discrimination is bad.
Two wrongs do not make it right.
Comment by Charles — 12.05.06 @ 12:02 pm
>> “Its equal descrimination under the law. Discrimination is bad.”
I don’t think you know what the word “discrimination” means, or maybe you’re not thinking hard enough. Discrimination means showing favoritism or partiality to one group over another. By definition, you can’t have “EQUAL discrimination”.
Also, I think some are overstating the facts here. In the Seattle bussing plan, the decision on where to assign students from overcrowded to undercrowded schools is not BASED ON race. They HAVE to bus kids — not as part of some social experiment, but because there simply isn’t enough room in some schools. And in those situations, race only comes in as a factor in a “tiebreaking” situation.
Don’t get me wrong — I have some problems with these schemes. But I think some people oversimplify and exaggerate — or outright misstate — the issues.
Comment by Kman — 12.05.06 @ 12:23 pm
According to the American Heritage Dictionary:
1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.
Look at usage 3. I use discrimination in this vein. Making the determination based on race not merit. Yes it is discrimination. And yes you can do it equally, and it is wrong.
Comment by Charles — 12.05.06 @ 12:34 pm
There can’t be a rational person reading George Will’s commentary that can possibily agree that putting a kid on a bus for the length of time that he notes is ok. It’s not ok. I don’t care what the reason is. What’s the matter with this school district that they would expect this of any kid or any family for any reason? The school board should be forced to get on the dang bus and ride with them for a week and see how they like it.
It’s a sad state of affairs when our country forsakes the education and even the health of the children and families in this country in the name of some kind of equality.
Comment by dianne — 12.05.06 @ 1:19 pm
Just a couple of points:
1, Why do we settle for language such as “overcrowded” when speaking of schools? Does anyone think that a “crowded” school is a good norm? Until today, I never encountered the concept of a school being “undercrowded.” Wow, what a benchmark!
2. It does you good now and then to read section 1 of the 14th amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If you are loaded on a bus and shipped to a distant point because of the color of your skin, it is hard to see how your privileges or immunities are not being abridged. It takes a judicial activist to miss the obvious and receive alternate signals of special meanings hiding in the aura of the words of the 14th amendment.
3. I proudly discriminate. I stay away from KOS kids, parks full of winos and radical Islamists.
Comment by Heliotrope — 12.05.06 @ 1:20 pm
Sorry, Charles, but even under the definition you chose, there is an element of “partiality” and/or “prejudice”. It is impossible to be partial or prejudicial to one race over another and still have it be “equal”.
Discriminatation is treatment in favor of some group(s) …against some other group(s). If you are treating groups equally, then you are not discriminating at all. So “equal discrimination” is simply a non-sensical contradiction in terms.
Comment by Kman — 12.05.06 @ 1:26 pm
If the problem in these districts is overcrowding at some schools and underenrollment at others, the solution should not be busing, but redrawing of attendence zones. The part of town I live in is growing quickly. My dad teaches at the newest (I think - about 5 years old) high school. They already have classes in portables, and the open land around the school will soon be turned into single family homes. When this school first opened, our street was in the attendence zone for a different high school, but the lines were re-drawn to include our address in the attendence zone for the new high school. Yeah, kids would have to take a bus to either school, but both schools are in the area - the two high schools closest to our location, not the schools downtown or across town, which would take an inordinate amount of time to get to during a morning rush hour…
Comment by Miss Ladybug — 12.05.06 @ 1:36 pm
The families with kids being bussed away from low-performing schools to higher-performing schools are less likely to be complaining about being bussed. They are gaining through the process.
Comment by Miss Ladybug — 12.05.06 @ 1:38 pm
>> There can’t be a rational person reading George Will’s commentary that can possibily agree that putting a kid on a bus for the length of time that he notes is ok. It’s not ok.
I hate to be the contrarian here, but it’s also not “ok” if some kids get to go to a public school where they have plenty of teachers and books, and other students (whose parents also pay taxes) get stuck in other schools where there are no desks and crappy supplies. Public education, I hope we agree, shouldn’t vary much from school to school within a county, and every child using public education should have the same access to education as every other child. (Man, I just sounded like a politician there!)
So I agree that school bussing (especially the examples given in George Will’s column) can be atrocious, but so is school overcrowding.
The solution, I think, to the whole overcrowding/bussing issue is political, not legal, and will vary from region to region. That’s why I’m not crazy about courts getting involved and making sweeping rulings which reverse the goals of Brown v. Board of Ed.
Comment by Kman — 12.05.06 @ 1:40 pm
>> If you are loaded on a bus and shipped to a distant point because of the color of your skin, it is hard to see how your privileges or immunities are not being abridged.
If I were a black kid living in a district with bad overcrowded public schools, and they shipped me off to the fancy schmancy high schools in the whiter parts of town, it IS hard to see how my privileges and immunities are being abridged.
In fact, one could argue that my privileges and immunities are being abridged by NOT bussing me, and giving me the same educational opportunities as the kids on the other side of town.
Comment by Kman — 12.05.06 @ 1:49 pm
I’m not sure that busing will fix the problems that most kids in low-performing schools are dealing with. Having just spent about 3 months in a “recognized”, but low-SES community elementary school, I see that discipline is the biggest barrier to academic success. These kids are modeling the behaviors they see outside of school. Changing the school they go to might help some kids, but it isn’t going to help most kids.
This school might be “recognized” based on test scores, but teachers are teaching to the test to get that “recognized” label. A lot of kids aren’t retaining what they are being taught. They don’t do their homework. Changing schools isn’t going to make them all of a sudden do their homework. The answer to low performing schools is parental involvement and holding students accountable for their own behavior. You are more likely to have parental involvement when the school is a neighborhood school, not when you bus kids across town.
Comment by Miss Ladybug — 12.05.06 @ 2:05 pm
Still Fighting the Battle:
the other one. Must racial diversity in public schools be achieved at all costs? (La Shawn Barber)…
Trackback by Pajamas Media — 12.05.06 @ 2:18 pm
The New York Times Calls The Conservative Supreme Court ‘Hostile’
The New York Times has a stake in framing this case in the manner in which they do because race baiting sells in the narrow minds of liberals who view every test and every rule as one designed to favor whites over blacks.
Trackback by Webloggin — 12.05.06 @ 2:42 pm
Can someone tell me what “race-baiting” actually means. Could you provide an example?
Comment by Tafaraji — 12.05.06 @ 3:44 pm
Race baiting is quite simple. It implies the act of inciting someone with a race based argument that is usually either fallacious or intentionally misleading. This is typically done by providing a race based argument when none exists in the first place.
Other times you are leading someone to come to a conclusion by using race as a catalyst.
In the case of the New York Times they are doing this by framing the issue as a simplified black versus white problem with the implication that the African Americans will be harmed if the Supreme Court comes down on the side of the petitioners.
Nothing could be further from the truth however. The petitioners in the Seattle case are arguing via that race need not be a determining factor in deciding tiebreakers. They have demonstrated (hopefully to the satisfaction of the court) that the board of education could have chosen alternatives that would still have provided the proportionate racial makeup that was mandated by the population in the area.
The school board would have none of that. This is just one aspect the case.
Finally, the New York Times ignores the fact that this case involves people of all racial backgrounds, Latino’s, Whites, Asians and African Americans. It is my belief that the Times reporter ignores this larger context for effect. It is much simpler to incite one class of people if you frame the argument solely in terms of that class. It is a much different animal when you start introducing a more robust and contextually valid set of facts that demonstrates the injured parties span more than one side of the racial barrier.
Comment by Webloggin Editor — 12.05.06 @ 4:13 pm
“White Flight”, seems so temporal. [Especially] often, when it’s familial continuance must
be supplemented. It’s quite common, to see, the gentry of those who previously evacuated, return to amass a prior scathed community. Logic which seems (in my mind) self-serving and artificial.
Comment by Tafaraji — 12.05.06 @ 4:54 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120500522.html
Food for thought. I’m sure someone may recognize themselves, either in the author’s shoes or in the shoes of the affluent community who didn’t want certain kids in their schools.
Comment by Tiffany in Houston — 12.05.06 @ 4:56 pm
Open Thread
NewsBusters.org - Exposing Liberal Media Bias
Today’s starters:The global warming crowd must be getting desperate judging from a very threatening letter that some senators sent to ExxonMobil telling it to "end any further financial assistance or…
Trackback by Blog-o-Fascists — 12.05.06 @ 5:30 pm
#22 Kman: Where is this school district where the rich kids get fancy schools and poor kids get the leftovers?
Does this community have a court system? If so, take the school system to court and introduce it to the hundreds of cases as precedent that have made such a situation in violation of the 14th Amendment.
There is no question that large systems in our major cities have decaying properties that need replacement. But if that system is funneling a certain type of student into those buildings, the system has a civil rights problem of epic proportions. Hungry lawyers prowl such situations, because the tax payer has the deepest pockets of all.
Comment by Heliotrope — 12.05.06 @ 5:35 pm
The Washington Post article argues in favor of the Supreme Court invalidating the race based factors that are being used by the board of education. You will see very clearly that skin color is being used to deny a petition for a person to go to one school over another in the Supreme Court case.
This is where KMan seems to get the argument wrong IMHO. Race doesn’t need to be used as the tiebreaker to maintain the diversity the school board desires in the Seattle scheme. The fact that is being used when it is not necessary is the discriminating factor.
In Seattle there are no such boundaries being drawn on residential lines as in the Atlanta story. The boundaries are simply used to determine the overall racial makeup of the area. Other than that a person can choose to attend any one of the 10 schools regardless of where they live. The problem arises when a school of choice reaches a certain number of students such that it is determined to be overcrowded. At that point we start moving down the list to second choices until finally a person is assigned a school.
The author of the Washington Post article seems to be arguing in favor of Title VI of the civil rights act that states that No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
The residents of the town by Atlanta can argue against it until they are blue in the face (would that be another race?). It doesn’t matter what they think as long as the school board is consistent in meeting their obligations under federal law.
Can a white student be denied an equal chance to attend a given school simply because they are white? Is the Supreme Court racist if they rule in favor of the white families by saying that race can’t be used as a determining factor (conversely isn’t that a decision in favor of people of all races?). These are questions that will need to be answered.
Comment by Webloggin Editor — 12.05.06 @ 5:43 pm
#28 Tafaraji speaks of “white flight” as did LaShawn in her post.
“White flight” is not an established fact. In the late 50’s and 60’s towns and cities all over the United States underwent a process which was characterized by the growth of suburbs. Downtowns suffered enormously because “shopping centers” with plenty of parking began to ring the traditional urban area.
Many states have a system of city schools and county schools. Most of the urban growth was on the edge of the city, so the growth turned out to be in the county. States vary in the laws for expanding the territory of a city through the annexation or incorporation of county territory.
All this is to say that “white flight” is not simple issue. Many people who left the city were looking to build homes, be near new facilities, etc. At the time, about 90% of the population of the United States was “white.”
Undoubtedly, there was movement in some places for whites to move out of an area to avoid any number of situations including associating with blacks.
I do not think it is correct to say that busing was the result of “white flight.” For the most part, whites and blacks lived in segregated areas. This was de facto segregation. I believe the busing “solution” was to break down the status quo of the neighborhoods.
Does anyone know if busing was ever ordered across school district lines? I do not know of a case.
My wife had an interesting experience. Her town had a white high school and a black high school. The court ordered them to be racially balanced and then………they swapped the student body in each school at noon everyday so that everyone went to school in each building. It was chaos, but it sure made a judge feel good.
Comment by Heliotrope — 12.05.06 @ 6:01 pm
Bad analogies
There’s lots of coverage lately of the SCOTUS (US Supreme Court) hearing arguments from Louisville and Seattle schools defending their practice of using race to assign pupils to various schools … for “proper diversity balance.” Some, like the Chic…
Trackback by The COLOSSUS OF RHODEY — 12.05.06 @ 6:18 pm
“White flight†is not an established fact.
Well rounded response,Heliotrope! You’ve covered much of what I would ask in a subsequent query. One last thought to ponder though; what does revitalizing a community do to those who may be living there. Often they are inconvenienced. Should anyone care?
Comment by Tafaraji — 12.05.06 @ 7:10 pm
During the Gulf War, I was in the US (in KY) and saw busing up close. I saw kids that were exhausted from getting up hours early to go to school and getting home after dark. My four neighbors’ kids went to nine different schools and were deprived of that comeraderie that neighborhoods are all about. Many of them had no time to even play during the week. One of my neighbors kids suffered from car-sickness and the hours on a bus were torture. Another neighbor’s children were harassed at the school they were attending because they were “outsiders.” Parents had to go to great lengths to be involved at so many different schools and often could not make it to every school for parent’s night, special events, and such. One neighbor had sacrificed and saved to move to the neighborhood (not a fancy one, but with a good schoold due to high parent participation) because they wanted to send their kids to a good school and here their kids were being bused to a school much like the one they had fled from because it was so pathetic.
If educators really wanted to help kids in inner cities or poor rural areas, they would give these kids vouchers to go where they wanted to attend. Truly excellent schools will rise to the top and the pathetic ones might finally have a motivation to do something about it.
Comment by jan — 12.05.06 @ 9:00 pm
#35 Tafaraji:
I am not certain what “revitalizing” means. For the city council, it means boosting the property values so that the income from property taxes goes up. The elders on a retirement plan often can not afford the taxes and are forced to sell.
For the “yuppies” it means buying cheap and pouring money into a home to catch a huge gain when the real estate catches on in the neighborhood.
For developers, it means buying a group of homes and replacing them with townhouses/condos that sell for a bundle.
What is certain is that many will have to search out new places to live because they can not afford to pay the taxes in their “revitalized” neighborhood.
However, all housing areas finally reach a level of “gentrification” and lose their real estate luster. Even shopping centers finally end up with a Goodwill Store in what was once a fancy grocery store.
As long as ethnic and racial groups cling together in neighborhoods, they will find that sooner or later they are going to be forced to move by the forces of real estate economics.
My daughter lived in a fine Washington, D.C. suburb. However, houses all around her were being occupied by multiple families of immigrants. The cars, the mass of people, the stuff in the yards all made her property less desirable. She finally sold to one of the immigrants who immediately filled the house with his family and his brother’s family for a total of 14 people.
Someday, they will all move on and the neighborhood will be “revitalized.” I say again: whatever “revitalized” means.
In keeping with the topic, a lot of people would flee that neighborhood for an area more to their liking.
Comment by Heliotrope — 12.05.06 @ 9:13 pm
I have somewhat of a feeling this is a lot of smoke screen. In the school system where I live, it looks to me like student assignment decisions are based on trying to get each school to the proper No-Child-Left-Behind passing percentages. Each percentage point over the target at a school represents some smart kids who could have been sent to another school instead to raise the average over there.
Do you think government educators really know how to or want to improve the schools when they can just play with the numbers to do it. All this ‘diversity’ stuff is to take the public’s attention away from the inferior acedemics that they are saddling everyone with.
Comment by Daniel H — 12.05.06 @ 9:16 pm
Helio;
Do you mean to tell me that your daughter engaged in “black flight”? Oh my…how is one to interpret that?
Comment by jan — 12.05.06 @ 9:35 pm
The civil rights act of 1964 specifically prohibits school systems from doing the very things that the supreme court is now having to rule on.
I’m nowhere near old enough to remember the beginning of the civil rights movement. From what I’ve read however the push back in those days was for equal rights. Blacks rightly demanded to be treated as full and equal citizens and afforded the same rights and protections under the law as whites were.
If only that were the purpose today. The modern “civil rights” movement was created by the overwhelming success of the original movement. The moral arguments of the original movement found purchase in the psyche of the nation and led to profound changes on par with the establishment of women as full and equal citizens two generations prior. Having won there was little more that could be done through legislative efforts, and so many in the movement moved on. Those who could make the most of their hard won rights did so, and many achieved success. Their success paved the way for others who came after them. Those who didn’t have what it took to succeed make up the modern “civil rights” movement. These people see their own failures as the efforts of “the man” or “whitey” to keep them down. Being a white man I must say that I have better things to do with my time than conspire with other white people to disenfranchise still other people on the basis of their skin color. Even if I didn’t like those other people, undermining them or otherwise trying to keep them down just wouldn’t be a priority for me. I’m far too busy working to improve my own life to spend time trying to make someone else’s life worse.
The modern civil rights movement is quite simply made up of racists who try to game the system in order to secure perferential treatment and to punish white people. There isn’t a whole lot of difference between George Wallace and Al Sharpton. Anytime I hear someone described as a “civil rights leader,” I know that he or she is going to start whining about some supposed injustice that has supposedly befallen the black community. There are injustices in the world to be sure, but 9 times out of 10 these leaders are either complaining about an issue that is the making of black american’s themselves, or they’re complaining because someone isn’t treating them special enough.
All by themselves these guys would be annoying, but not really dangerous. Unfortunately they have allies in the form of white liberals who feel oh so guilty about the crimes of their distant relatives in times past. Their thinking goes a little like this: Did your 5th cousin 3 times removed (maybe) own a slave in Maryland in 1809? FOR SHAME! The stain of guilt is upon youf bloodline and the only way it can ever be purged is if you prostrate yourself before black america as a whole and beg forgiveness by bestowing blacks with preferential treatment. The truth of course is that the sins and virtues of our forbearers are theirs alone. We inherit neither. We are responsible for our own actions and choices, not those of people who lived and died generations ago.
That isn’t to say that wanting to improve lot of others is a bad thing. To seek an end to racial discrimination is and bigotry is a laudable endeavor. But what must be understood is that discrimination and bigotry are not exclusive to any race or ethnicity. No one has a monopoly on hate. As such it cannot be eliminated by treating some people one way and other people another way. This only exacerbates the problem. The only course of action that has any chance of ending hatred and bigotry is to treat everyone the same regardless of race or ethnicity. If everyone has the same rights, the same responsibilities, and is held to the same standard, then bigotry and discrimination will not persist because both are the fruits of resentment.
The legislators who created the civil rights act of 1964 understood this. If only the law that they created were implented as intended the world would be a much happier place.
Comment by Lee — 12.06.06 @ 3:56 am
Diversity is irrelevant.
Once again we see “diversity” trotted out as a reason that something silly or even destructive must be done.
Diversity based arguments are simply an application of Gramscian Marxism. They’re an attempt to create division within society as part of a larger effort to subvert majority values. The con is really rather obvious once you understand the purpose.
Also what exactly is supposed to be meant by “diversity” anyway? Racial diversity is literally skin deep. A black kid is just as much of an american as a white one. You might as well exert effort making sure that there are enough left-handed kids in every school. At the end of the day a kid’s family and the values that he or she is taught at home matter far more than the color of his or her skin. The fact that race is used as the basis for “diversity” demonstrates the divisive purpose of those behind these policies.
Those who call for diverity are actually working to encourage americans to self segregate based on racial and ethnic lines, as opposed to traditional marxists who enourage segregation based on economic lines. Economic circumstances change, but one’s race/ethnicity never does, making it a far more effective basis for creating a subversive ideology. A house so divided cannot stand, which is the idea. Destroy the culture and values of the majority by destroying that majority and you’ve set the stage for new values and culture to be introduced. Care to guess what values and culture our socialist overlords would seek to introduce?
Comment by Lee — 12.06.06 @ 4:31 am
Weds. Morning Links
America is the most charitable nation in the world. RWNFunniest Nativity scene I’ve ever seen. Come ‘n get it, ACLU!Breast-feeding saved those kids’ lives. Heather MacDonald goes after the race hustlers. A quote:Since 1993, 11,353 people have been m…
Trackback by Maggie's Farm — 12.06.06 @ 6:33 am
Hmm… the idea of government de-segregation vs individual de-segregation is interesting.
If the government is allowed to enforce individual desegregation, than why should it stop at schools? Why not force people to move from certain neighborhoods because there are already too many people of their race in that neighborhood?
Or how about sports? Will they now force the NBA to give whites “fair play time” on the teams?
Or in churches, will white churches and black churches be forced to congregate together?
Comment by Jewels — 12.06.06 @ 8:43 am
lol #43…The neighborhood thing would not happen because white affluent suburbs with money would sue if non-affluent whites and blacks were moved in…
I laugh too at the NBA question because white players dominate the sport just like black players and Steve Nash won the MVP two years in the row and he is white….
And with churches, shouldn’t churches be integrated anyway? I never in my life understood the whole concept of having “black” churches and “white” churches, since we are all praying & worshiping the same GOD…It was very common in my small rural hometown in Texas, but I am glad that churches in Houston are a lot more integrated.
And I wonder, if the people that were suing were black, would the same people who are sympathizers, be on their side? Would George Will have wrote his article?
Comment by Roye Barber — 12.06.06 @ 1:14 pm
As for “white” churches vs. “black” churches: different demoninations tend to be predominated by certain races. I’m Catholic, and I hardly ever see black Catholics (that are Americans, especially - I’ve probably seen more black African Catholics in my life than black American Catholics). I see lots of whites and Hispanics, especially living in Texas. Not sure what it’s like in Episcopal or Lutheran churches. Just making a guess, I would assume more diversity of skin color in Baptist churches, but since I don’t go to Baptist services, I could be very wrong about that.
Comment by Miss Ladybug — 12.06.06 @ 1:59 pm
Thank you for your wonderful blog. When I was in the fourth grade I had to ride across town to an old school which had been boarded up. They had one building set up for us white kids. This was to make room for black kids at the school I was attending. There were no kids of different races at the school I was sent to. I don’t think the School Board cared too much about us and we were left feeling that we were less equal. I hope my son will not be exposed to this kind of idiotic policy.
Comment by T.J. LARSON — 12.06.06 @ 4:04 pm
#45, My first taste of a integrated church was a Catholic Church in Houston that had black folk, white folk and hispanic folk. My bro in law is Catholic and for Louisiana. There are a lot of black catholics in Louisiana. Basically, you had the same demomination, preaching from the same book, but neither went to each other’s “church”. Hence the reason why there were “black” churches and “white” churches in my rural southern town. It wasnt because of lack of skin color diversity, it was just people not integrating churches and still following the same out-dated customs that previous generations had followed. “White” churches and “Black” churches are very common in rural areas in this state, and the “White” side of town & the “Black” side of town is a common concept as well. We did not have much of an Hispanic population and I would say it was probably 1% or less when I was growing up there.
Of course, I never believed in that crap and was always the one to wanted to integrate and hang out with everyone, not just black people. I remember other black people telling me that I would get hanged if I was caught messing with white women. We had a lot of backward thinking blacks and whites in my hometown. When I turned 18, I was so happy to leave, I left 3 days after graduation
Comment by Roye Barber — 12.06.06 @ 4:09 pm
In my Catholic singles group in Arkansas (before I moved back to Texas two years ago), we had one black guy join. Will was a hoot. He was actually a convert to Catholicism - I think he even had a brother who is a Baptist minister. Even in military communities I have lived in, it was not common for blacks to be Catholic. I guess it would have a lot to do with where people come from (you saying there are lots of black Catholics in Louisiana is interesting - I had not idea, but since Louisiana had early French (and Catholic?) influence, maybe I shouldn’t be).
Comment by Miss Ladybug — 12.06.06 @ 5:04 pm
Ya know, LeShawn Barber is reporting that the USSC is hearing a case as regards race based schooling. In reaing that case, it appears to me that could apply to other cases, too… such as the Galudet case, one presumes.
Pingback by Bitsblog — 12.06.06 @ 9:02 pm
“Discriminations” has a wonderful take on the problems with the Seattle school plan, but the point that bothers me most is that if my kid had to be moved around, she would have to be at the bus stop by 6:00 A.M. and would return around 8-9 P.M. So when is my kid supposed to do homework, eat dinner, and get some family time and still get a decent night’s rest? This problem would apply to all kids, no matter the race, in the interests of diversity? I am also appalled that in the Seattle plan, you are either white, or nonwhite. If the Seattle school district is pushing diversity as the reason for this plan, then their plans don’t support their words.
Comment by Stephen Goertzen — 12.07.06 @ 8:40 am
Oliver Brown didn’t like that his daughter Linda had to walk 6 blocks to get on a bus for Monroe Elementary, a mile away, when Sumner Elementary was 7 blocks from their house. The basis of his lawsuit against Topeka BoE was that she was forced, on the basis of race, to ride a bus to a school farther from her home.
Now everything is turned umop apisdn.
Comment by The Monster — 12.07.06 @ 8:54 pm
The busing advocates are attacking the wrong problem its not the racial make up of the schools but the quality of education with in the schools that matter . If all are to receive equal opportunity under the law.
Its not right that many African Americans have poor schools. But by putting more whites in the schools into poor schools isn’t just for the white children.
Comment by Dave Williams — 12.07.06 @ 9:30 pm
I was listening to a local radio talk show this afternoon on my way back from campus this afternoon. They were discussing a new law proposed by a Texas state legislature to make daily recess required. One of the hosts commented about how many parents today expect the government to do everything for them, when it comes to raising their kids. The other host (they are brothers) said that the parents whose kids don’t need schools to do for them are the ones whose parents are already involved.
Parental involvement is the key to all of this. If ALL parents in ALL school would be involved in their childrens’ education, and be good examples for their children (in particular for what is acceptable behavior), we wouldn’t be having discussions about successful schools and failing schools. I don’t even begin to think I have a plan to get parents involved, but that is where is all needs to start…
Comment by Miss Ladybug — 12.08.06 @ 12:00 am